Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

uh regular April uh excuse me March meetings of the um planning and zoning. This is this is April, isn't it? All right. I'm going to start out by asking for indulgence from everyone. This is the first meeting I have chaired as vice chair. So um newly elected vice chair and now um Our chairwoman is ill so I get to chair the meeting. Um my first first order of business on the agenda is call to order and invite anyone of the commission to um make the opening invocation. Anyone willing to do that?

I'll do that. Sham, let us pray. Folks, we have this opportunity in a family way in the activities of the community involvement with the the safety activities have the fire activities, the police activities. It's part of what we do as a growing element in the world that we live. We share our ideas, we share our grades, we share our benefits. We we ask the Lord to follow, to guide us, to lead us in these types of decisions and activities. Amen. Amen.

All right. Thank you. Thanks, Sam. Um, the next order of business is the approval of the minutes. You should all have a copy of the minutes in your package. Is there anything that we need to consider or any changes?

I have a minor change that I was curious about. Had we referred to in the minutes on the second and third page, if I remember reading it correctly, code We use an abbreviation in here. It's a zone in the section G.1 advisory committee report down one of the bullet points in the current language ordinance per zone CO is that supposed to be COD or what is a CO?

That's the company that did the audit of the zoning ordinance and said that's that's a company who gave us recommendations about amendments. I don't misunderstand it, but the meeting minutes, could we actually add a longer name then to make sure it's not misunderstood? I read it initially thinking it was the zoning code, but that's a company, right? Per z, right? And the company's name is zone code. Zone code. Yeah. Capital Z O N E capital O. So, it's the it's the name of a business. Official company's name. Mhm. How about we change it to capital letters then? Zo, is it is that's it the name? That's the official name. Yeah. Can we add another clarification

per our consultant, zone code? Yeah, something like that. That's good. You'll find that on both the second and third page. Okay, I'll add those. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for catching that. All right. I'll entertain a motion to uh approve the minutes with those that amendment. Second. Second. All those in favor approved as amended. And then we move to the financial report.

Yeah. If you look in your packet, you've got three pages, 11 by 18 pages. We're just going to be talking to the very first one. Well, at least I got Yeah. 8 by 11 by 18. So we'll just be talking to the first one which is our ordinary income and expense page. There'll be there's four columns there that we may be referencing. The second one in is our is well first one in is the March uh monthly column. The second one is our year-to-ate expenditures. The uh middle column is the preliminary budget. This is what we refer to as budget all year. And then the fifth column is the budget amendment. the fourth column, budget amendment, which we approved a couple months ago. And then the percent of budget on the on the far right, that's actually percent of budget amendment. Okay? And uh so first we'll just quickly talk about income. And if you go down to uh it's about a fourth of the way down the page, total commission revenue, you can see our our total commission revenue to date is 187,932. That's in the second column. Compared to our original budget of 1942 280 compared to the revised budget amendment and these are total year numbers the the last column 231 792 and that says that we're at 97% of the budget amendment. That number is wrong. It should be 81%. So that 97% should be 81%. And if we were norm if this was a normal budget and if we were right on budget since this is the ninth month we'd be at 75%. And so we're we're stronger than our budget amendment had us being at this time of year. And again that's because we had the extra revenue from Danville and Boil County carried over from the prior year. Not much more to talk about except down on the bottom of the page when you look

at expenditures. Very very bottom you'll see that our year-to- date is 218,903 compared to a budget of 230 for a total year compared to a total year budget amendment of 301,000. So we're at 73% of expenditures. So we're below our target expenditures and we're a little above on the revenue side. And the only other thing I would comment is you if you flip the page over just the first page and u if you look at the orange highlighted table the table that's got the highlighted orange line item item under total capital items and and reserves you'll see 40,000 $80,080. That's what our budget amendment is projecting our end of the year cash balance to be. The reason that is important is several years ago, planning and zoning uh at the recommendation of the budget committee uh agreed that if that number when we do our formal budget in a couple months, if that number is ever forecasted to be below $40,000, we will then go back to the city and county and say we need a revenue increase for the year. We've never asked, at least for at least 12 years, we've never asked for a revenue increase. But when we do the budget a month or two from now, if the number that Hannah forecasts our ending balance to be is below $40,000, then that triggers us talking about having to go back to the city and county for the upcoming budget year, right? And ask for an increase from the $75,000 per group that we ask for now. So, just keep that number in mind.

We're right at the edge is what you're telling us is we're I'd like to look at the other way. We're right where we want to be. Great. So, we do need to we need do need to approve the financial director. Is there any other expense that you were expecting here between that might show up here as a bigger expense? Um, the only relatively new big expense was that I work um subscription, but it was a onetime expense of $6,000 and that will only be a onetime expense annually. um and that was to connect with the county and the city on a database online for streamlining permitting processes. So, no, I don't see another um big expense between now and then. Thank you.

Any any other questions? No. I'll entertain a motion to approve. I make a motion to approve, please. Second. All those in favor? Thank you. All right. When we move on to construction charities, Hannah, are you going to walk us through?

Yes. So, we got two things on the agenda today. Um the first thing is Boil County Industrial Foundation has requested the full release of their letter of credit of $796,130 because they do not plan to build the road now or in the foreseeable future. Um, and it's highlighted on the top. So, the total uh letters of credit after the release would be 2,722750 or $75045. Um, and yeah, like I said, JJ reached out and said they do not plan to build that road. They have extended it past the five-year um in hopes that they would eventually build that, but they don't plan to do that anymore.

And then the uh Sorry, do we want to do a motion? Do do we want to do each one separately or I think you can separately separately if they do come back they say they've said now that they don't intend to do that road they like that shy release of them if they do come back at some point there's there's a there's a change of mind in six months or in a year um and they do want to do that road what's our process for getting that shity back I believe the process would be to start over again um given that they've extended it into year five and we usually typically allow extensions over three years, but I will refer to Henry on that process. Hannah, did we talk about um an amended plat for this that might remove

Yes. So, they are still planning on um filing an amended plat to make sure that road is not um recorded at the deed room. So, and and so then if they had a change of mind, they would have to put it back on the plat. And at that point, as part of the approval process, we would require posting a shity. Okay. All right. So, we're going to do each separately. All right. I'll entertain a motion to chairman. I have to recuse myself from the first from the first. Yes. All right. With with that, is there someone willing to make a motion to release the shy for the BCIF?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to do that. To release that All right. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor? All right. And recorded with with uh the recusal. All right. Then Hannah.

All right. Next one on the agenda is Peeler Moving and Storage Southtown Street has granted the full release of their cash bond of $12,416.80 to the city of Danville to complete the paving of their site plan. Um and I've been in contact with them about this. Um um so if y'all have any questions about this, any questions, questions? Anyone, comments? All right, we'll have a motion to uh accept the release. Anyone moving that?

Second. Second. And all those in favor? All right. Approved. Um, all right. And I actually did want to touch on the one performance bond. I know I think last month we talked about having Danville Host Center Estates on this agenda. Um, we did a site visit. Um, but performance bonds can only be released in full. So, we are just waiting to hear back from the owner um to do a second site visit and then hopefully that will be back next month as well. All right. Very good. Thank you. For next month's agenda.

Yes. Yeah. All right, we're moving to uh subdivision approvals. Uh Jmax LLC has applied for a subdivision of 5507 acre parcel of land into seven tracks at uh 101 Colonial Way, Danville. The property is splitzoned, single family residential and multifamily residential. Um so the planning commission uh gets to consider this item and to see whether it is technically correct and make a decision based on that. U I think there have been some discussions prior to this meeting about u how we will proceed here and Henry do you want to comment at this point?

Yes please Mr. Chair. So the first you've said that this is a matter that we look at for whether it's technically correct. That is true. There was a statute that passed last year which said that subregs in order to be effective and valid must have objective standards for approval of these things. In other words, you can't leave it up to the planning commission and say approve if you like it, disapprove if you don't. the standards have to be technical objective and if it's correct then it's a ministerial act and we have to approve it. Uh there have been issues raised about this which have to do with deed restrictions and um that raises another question where these things are technically correct or ministerial for approval. They're not required to have public hearing. Um and that's why we list it that way on the agenda that it's it's not a public hearing matter. At the same time, there have been um occasions in the past when we did allow comment on plats. There have been court cases where even for non-public hearing items, the courts have scrutinized whether due process was given and a chance to comment on them. And I know there are people who want to speak today. I know there are attorneys who want to speak. And I would s suggest to the commission that it could be appropriate in this case to um allow public comment about it within reason. I don't think there's any um need to have redundant comments, but um I I think it could be appropriate in this case if the commission decides to do so to have public comment after the applicant has presented the plat. Thank you.

I think there might be other legal issues that weigh into this and I will reserve any comment on those for questions or um anything that's brought up during public comment. All right. Very good. Thank you, Henry. Um so I think do we do the public comment first or do we do some technical review first? I think it's typical for um any presentation that our staff has and then for the applicant to speak to it and then

I think we will proceed in that order. So, uh, unless the commission has a has a concern at this point, I'll, um, take a motion to go into public hearing, which we would not be required to do, but we are going to do this morning um, and consider that motion. So, someone willing to make that motion motion. All right. Very good. And second.

All right. All those in favor Very good. So, we are now in public hearing and we'll open the floor first for staff comments. So, uh Hannah, if you would lead weed us through the um application and what we're seeing.

Sure. Um so, this is the plat that you have in your um files right now. So, JMX LLC has applied for the subdivision of a 5507 acre parcel of land into seven tracks known as 101 Colonial Way. The property is splitz zoned single family residential and multif family residential. Um during tech review oh sorry I'm gonna show you a separate image and then show you kind of the vicinity map as well. But this kind of gives you an idea of where it's at and how these tracks would be separated.

And then this is the purpose statement for that plat and the uh vicinity map as well. Um during tech review some of the comments, well there were really not a lot of concerns during tech review, but we did discuss the split zoning. Um and it was conveyed that the owner and the surveyor want to do R1A um structures and abide by that. Um but I believe that was the only comment during tech review um and concern from staff at this time. And for the rest of the commission, are we all okay with the location of this? Do we need to go back here for a second?

We're just orienting where where the property is and what we're considering. You guys okay? Just for clarification for the public, it's although it was split zone that sounds like the owner has agreed that it's going to be res. Correct. Yes. Yes. multi single family room. All right. So with that, thank you Hannah. Um com I'll first ask for comments from the tech review. So were there any issues from the tech review committee that might speak to what we're talking about here?

No. Hannah did a good job. I was at the tech review. Hannah did a very good job of representing what we had. Very minor. comments were made on the paperwork. All right. So, it it reflects what was presented. Okay. Any other questions from commission? Um, it is there a is there

have we found any covenants or deed restrictions on this property? They have been submitted to you, I believe, are those restrictions before you this morning in your packet. And those are, as we've discussed before, a private contract. Um, they are not something which this commission is responsible for enforcing. Um, they're they're a matter for neighborhood enforcement. Um, there is statutory authority for when there are standards more restrictive than our own. um we're required to adopt the most restrictive standard. However, the way that usually comes into play is if there is um something in the the neighborhood restrictions which requires certain setbacks where those diverge from our zoning ordinance, we have to follow the neighborhoods more restrictive setbacks. I think that's not the nature of the restrictions being put before you this morning.

All right. you you're in you're you're what I hear is that the the plat that we have on here doesn't doesn't need any additions or corrections because of this. The engineer can speak to this. I think that there have been additions to the plat that might be reflected on the copy you have now that address these restrictions. And let me offer another disclaimer, which is that since these restrictions are not something which the planning commission is responsible for enforcing, I am not here to advise you this morning on their legal validity um and whether they are still applicable. I have no reason to doubt that they are. I just have not um done a title search or anything like that. Okay. Thank you.

All right. So, with that, we'll ask for comments from those in favor. Excuse me. We have the Yeah. The the surveyor the surveyor that that's that's putting this forward should come up. Yeah. Thank you.

And if you would state your name and address.

Colt McLeone, Vantage Engineering, 2038 Damville Road. We are working for J-Max LLC. So, the only thing I would like to say about the covenants as far as setbacks, it does say in Dbook 506, page 188, that we are to follow the setbacks laid out in an earlier plat that created a lot of Williamsburg green. So that 35 foot front yard building setback is displayed on there and that is a platin setback not a your all standard setbacks 25 foot. So that is something that's increased that we're abiding by. Um the only other thing I guess that has been brought to our attention and we added a note there's additional items in Dbook 506 page 188. We don't have a title report. An attorney hasn't given us one. But we have made a note to the plat that says the lots created by this plat may be bound by restricted deed procision set forth indeed book 506 page 188. Any buyer is advised to consult with legal counsel. So we wanted to make sure that we addressed that and it wasn't you know misleading anyone at the time.

You added it since the technique. Yes sir. Okay. Yeah. And I have I emailed a copy of that plaid. I don't know if it was Okay. I was going to say I don't know if you have that note. Is there any further questions? Anyone with further questions? What was the major restriction that you saw that you are you proposing? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Is that correct?

Yes. We are turning what was known as track A on plat file 1841 and then it was subdivided in 1909B further. So we are proposing to turn track A into seven lots instead of one. Was there a restriction on how many that could be turned into previously? So in deed book 506 188 it lists a bunch of restrictions. I didn't see anything. Like I said I'm not an attorney. I didn't see anything that said you can't subdivide it. There is a note about how many residential houses can be built on it. I think it referred to it as partial two, but it's the same property.

What was that note and how many did it say could be built on their one one house? Yeah. Says one house limited square footage. Yes. H how do you propose to get How do you propose to legally get around that? I'm I'm not the developer. I'm just the surveyor. I was hired and requested to create the lots. Um like I said, I was not provided a title report, but it didn't seem like there was anything wrong with what we've done survey-wise. So, that's why I've added the note. Uh I don't want to mislead anybody, but we've just performed the survey as hired. Is the developer here with you to speak to that?

No, sir. He is not. All right. Thank you. Other questions, comments? Just a reminder to commissioners to have microphones on when you speak, please. Yes.

Are Okay. So, for our staff, do we do we understand that to be the case that there that the that the deed was um was for one dwelling on that property? It it does show that the the language is further not more than one residential unit shall be erected on parcel two. Um and that's what's stated in the deed. Um what you're approving this morning is not a building permit for a dwelling and it does not necessarily uh effectuate dwellings. think it's reasonable to contemplate that possibility. But what what's happening this morning is not the creation of dwelling. It's it's the creation of lots. Could it be used for just things that are conveyed but not built houses upon? Yes, theoretically it could. Even if that's not likely.

But that but that whole issue, if I understand correctly, is a separate issue. It is. Yes, sir. Why would why would we go down that road of allowing of allowing the lots to be broken up with the intent of putting houses on there if they can't put houses on? Um, can we do that? Unless council present this morning show otherwise. I don't see anything which prohibits subdivision. The pro prohibition is on the building of houses. Okay. And I are these quarter acre lots congruent with similar housing in the area. I mean I well across the street

does everybody else have 5 acre lots and so this would be a from Colonial Way from these lots that it is zoned RM3 um but the rest of the neighborhood is zoned R1A single family. So this culde-sac the houses across the street are zoned RM3 um currently. And I also do want to mention uh that because and correct me if I'm wrong here cor because this is still a subdivision approval. Um I just want to make sure that we like if it's technically correct should like do we have to approve it? Um yes but the the similar houses say on grey brack grey brack and colonial way and seol those are all relatively or they're probably quarter acre maybe halfacre lots

I would believe. So I can look it up right now, but I they are zoned RM3, but I think they conform to the R1A district. Um, so they would would be similar. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I just So this would be different in my mind if if everybody else had a 5acre lot and you were looking at putting a chunk of homes in there that are on quarter acre lots. That would be vastly different. If the this area is full of the smaller lot sizes, then this is really adding a small proportion

of the overall homes in the area. Um, and they would, as I'm looking at this, I would assume that it, you know, single family homes, 1500 square feet, the exposed, you know, following all of the other deed restrictions. So, the intent be these could be used to build homes that are similar to all the other homes that are in that area. I think it's very similar to the character of the neighborhood.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Questions and com any other questions or comments there? With that, I think we want to open for public input and I'll ask folks to please if you can limit yourselves to comments that are different than uh anyone else. So, we will accept comments from everyone. Um, and your lawyer will speak first. I'm sure you've seen, excuse me, enough of me to know

and and I'm not going to chide you for being brief like Miss Davenport would, but I would ask to hold your comments irrelevant. I completely understand. Um, so as you all know, I am You want to introduce yourself for a second?

Yes, that's what I I am Melanie Thornberry. I am an attorney here in Danville and I also, in full disclosure, do live in this subdivision, just in a different section of this subdivision. I was contacted by neighbors who do own a lot in section six, which is the subject of what you have in front of you, and they certainly have the standing to take all legal steps necessary to enforce the proper use and development of property in the neighborhood. I did send to you all yesterday and it should be in your packet a letter setting out the problem with the proposed excuse me these I'm still trying to get used to reading glasses um with the proposal that is pending in front of you based on the comments that I have heard this morning and very good questions of some commissioners. I want to address a couple of these things out of order um that I did not address in the letter because the letter is focused solely on the fact that this area, this particular parcel is subject to a very specific restriction that everything that encompasses and makes up tract A, which is a 5.29 294 acre tract is limited to only one residential unit. Tract A in its entirety is the subject

of the proposed subdivision of Jmax. There is between the history of the plat of record for this area, specifically section six, as well as some legal basis as well as our ordinances and flume here. There is, in my opinion, legal opinion, a correct conclusion to be reached that tract A cannot be subdivided as proposed by the applicant. But as Mr. Smith noted, he's not here to give you all that legal advice, and I don't think any of you are attorneys. Um but it's a legal determination that ought not be made by planning and zoning commission. Further as to a technical review of this, the plaque that was presented at technical review I am assuming is the plat that was attached to the application filed. That platt made no mention of the private restrictions that are on this property. the subdivision regulations that this body adopted in I believe it was October of 2025 specifically requires and I quote and this is at the bottom of the first page of my letter

pursuant to section 1.9 of this commission's subdivision regulations in case of conflict between this ordinance being your subdivision regul regulations or any part thereof. and the whole or part of any existing or future ordinance of the applicable jurisdictions or the whole or part of any existing or future private covenants or deeds. The most restrictive shall apply in all cases that has been adopted by you all in your subdivision regulations. And therefore, the plat that was before you at technical review failed to disclose, as is also required, I think in section four of your subdivision regulations and again in another section, that any proposed subdivision must disclose private restrictions that could affect the proposal. Mhm.

My point in that is that the plat that was before the technical review was incorrect and the application itself was misleading because it failed to disclose that which it is required to disclose under your own regulations. And therefore, the platt that has been put before you today with the amendment of the plat note ought to go back to technical review and go through that process again. Excuse me. Um, Mr. Ruby had some very good questions that I think I have touched on, which is that to subdivide to allow the subdivision of tract A is a violation of the private restriction should not be done. Further, there has been mention of this split zone out there and I have looked at the zoning map online. I have not looked at the official map that is here in in the planning and zoning office, but when there is a split zone, it is not proper to allow the more lenient or the larger encompassing zone to be applied when there is a narrower, more limiting One again that legal concept that you all are familiar with of the more restrictive shall apply not the less restrictive. So there is a question and I would say there is a necessity for this proposal to be before you all that the applicant

should first have filed and pursued a zone change to demonstrate which zone it is that he proposes to proceed under for his proposed subdivision. I appreciate that apparently at a technical review meeting the applicant andor his surveyor indicated what his intention was. But as you all have heard me say before intention does not matter. Intention holds no weight and intention is not enforcable. The only way for this to be done fairly for all parties is there is a split zone. I have appeared before on zone changes for split zones to determine which zone any use or development of the property is going to proceed under. And it would be at that time that you all could have a public hearing and hear from all parties who are interested in this matter. And it would also give the opportunity for things to be addressed and history given as to how this split zoning arose because it's an oddity that has happened across the county. And I've now been practicing long enough to remember when a prior zoning director and one member of the zoning commission went through and designated zones that had been one thing under a prior ordinance into what they believed it would translate to under the new, which again is zone change. that was not

properly

heard through the process. I'm looking at my notes to make sure I've touched on the things I wanted to touch on. So in conclusion, I guess I would say first and foremost, I think there is a zoning issue and therefore this plat approval cannot be addressed because you do not know under what zone this is being sought. and two technical review was not correct or excuse me technical review was not done with the correct plat because the one that was presented to you I think yesterday and I got a copy of this morning contains required information that was not previously there and the application also was not correct and those are matters under your own subdivision regulations. Have you seen the amended plat this morning?

I did see it this morning. And does that amendment address the comment that you or the concern that you had? Well, that amendment states exactly what Mr. Mcloone read into the record. You're asking me to read small print here. Sorry. That's okay. um in that he references that this tract may be bound by restrictive deed provisions. It cites the deed book and page number

and then also states that buyers are advised to consult with council about the provisions of that deed.

That is the deed that I attached to my letter to you all. first deed that does specifically state that all of tract A being the 5.294 acres is restricted very specifically to not more than one residential unit. What you have in front of you uses a very small part of the entirety of tract A to produce six separate lots.

And I think if my reading of that is correct, it already shows a footprint area for units inside of those lot lines. And then remaining is little over three acres of that tract A which is where the surveyor gets these seven parcels into which this purports to divide it. We probably can ask the engineer about that footprint if you want to. Do you all have any other

we have any other questions? So according to u the deed 506 page 188 page one and kind of looking at the duration of the restrictions on page five. the only person that can change the duration of this restriction for one building on parcel two is the the Meadows partnership or Yes. So it says there number 15 is what you're looking at.

But let me show point out to for the benefit of everyone first that the duration of those restrict of these restrictions shall run with the land for a period of 20 years from the date of the deed which is 2014

2014. And then at the end of that 20-year period, the restrictions shall automatically renew for successive 10-year periods. under case law and sometimes under individual private restrictions. It will allow an attorney and/or a judge to determine at what point typically a majority of property owners within a section can amend, change, or terminate restrictions. And the sentence that you're looking at is that final one that says that these may be amended in whole or in part by unanimous vote of the partnership without the concurrence of the owner, which would be the owner of parcel one and parcel two described in that deed being lot 17 and tract A. Greybrook Meadows is no longer a partnership. Greybrook Meadows converted under statute to be a limited liability company. I know the members of that and one can find that information on the Secretary of State website and where they are and you know if something is needed by this commission from it. But at this point, the restriction that is there is in place and effective.

Sure. But if that were to be changed, if the owner wanted to uh square this away, that partnership or whoever that owner would need to jax would need to approach and get the unanimous vote of the now LLC that placed the restrictions on this property. Okay. after the 20-year period. After the 20-year period, yes, it they're going to renew for success automatically renew for successive 10.

Do they have the opportunity to do that with inside that 20-year period? Can they go to the the neighborhood LLC and ask for and ask for a um relief of that deed? Now, that is an excellent question and I'm going to give you such a lawyer answer that you're going to dislike me for it. Don't say well, it does depend. And the reason I say that is because I have not undertaken to do the legal research on the case law in Kentucky that would be applicable to that. Excellent legal question. I just like that. It says shall and that means something,

right? It does. It absolutely. Shall under your all's own ordinances as you define it means something very important. And in the legal world, the definition of shall is also extremely important. It does not it is not ambiguous. It does not leave wiggle room. But but to the point that points that you made earlier um all of that is not relevant to the issue in front of the planning commission. We we need to consider whether this flag is appropriate or not. Well, so let me You're getting exactly where I was.

There's a couple of excellent points to consider. I think I'd like to make sure that we get comments from the public if we

Yes. If I can though, let me end on this to to your point and I think this also ties in with Mr. Ruby's questions. It would be that what is in front of you today for a final step in approval process is seeking approval on a plat that was not technically correct and should not therefore be on the table for that final approval today and when it is sent back to technical review under the plat that they submitted yesterday with that additional note. I think that the application also needs to be revised because under your subdivision regulations, that application is supposed to state the private restrictions that are here. And then when it gets to technical review, I would say that or perhaps this is better at the application process that because you're dealing with a split zone, you have a zoning question. And that zoning question is only properly addressed by a correct and proper zone change application where the property owner makes clear under which zone it is that he intends to proceed. so that the property is correctly bound by a zone. And then it is in front of the planning and zoning commission at the public hearing on that zone change application that there can be a hearing where attorneys and public can address whether they support or disagree with the zone change because your flume that you recently adopted factors into a zone change and there's a lot I could say about the flume on this particular piece of property, but I'll spare you because we're not at a zone change hearing.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Can I ask you your personal legal on this question? The the surveyor said into the record this morning that his client intends to abide by the R1A single family zone. Mhm. Is that sufficient enough to hold their feet to the fire? No. Henry, what do you what's your opinion?

I wonder if a platode might address and bind any future purchasers to it. I I I believe that it would, but we would have to have the agreement of the surveyor in order to put that on there. I think that unless the surveyor has the limited power of attorney that is required by this body, I don't think that the surveyor can bind the property owner to anything. And I think that there has to be an affidavit at bare minimum. There would have to be an affidavit of Jax LLC stating that he agrees to be bound to that before such a restriction could be placed on the um plaque because the owner has to sign the plaque.

Understand? All right. Thank you for your comments. See, Mr. Ruby, you got an answer out of me. It depends. used to be my go-to and I don't don't like that I used to do that. I know, but as I'm sure you also used to encounter, if you're being held to your professional standard, you want to be sure you're given the right answer. Well, and he was very good at making sure he had two lawyers opinions. All right. Thank you all for your time. And again, if after hearing from anyone else, you all have any further questions, I'm happy to address them to the best of my ability.

So, we're still in public hearing and before get to commission comments. I think we need we to hear from anyone here from the public that wants to speak. I'd ask you to please again limit comments so that we're not hearing repetitions of the same thing and noting that Miss Thornberry has um done a good job of representing the issue. If you wish against you get somebody against. Uh I I'm already Yeah, I'm assuming we're into against already. So yes, if you need to speak, you have to come to the podium. Give us your name and address, please.

My name is Claudia Fiser and my address is 155 Weatherburn Court and my property is directly behind where they're putting the houses. Um, I've lived there 33 years. We built the house and the first year we were there, we had a rain that was 7 in in a half an hour and our property slopes down and the backyard filled up 4 foot because my husband had planted a 4ft pine tree and you could just see the top little bit of it. So, there is a water issue and I just wondered if there's any plans for the um waterhed because my husband always worried with just one house there that um we might have a problem.

And I did bring some pictures. Would you want to see some pictures of how I don't think that's necessary at the time? I I think that I think that if we ever got to the point, if this ever got to the point where there were houses there, that would be that would be required under the site plan,

right? The site the site plan definitely looks at water flow shed and of course everybody here knows Bo Countyy's a nasty water flow. Well, and already the the developer has there's a wooded area between my house and where those houses will be. And um he's already taken down probably half of the trees. So with just that, I'm probably going to get more watershed, I would think. But including your comments, and that's why we want to have them recorded. the it's one of those items as Tom's alluding to the site plan when we get to that when when it shows up has to address those issues.

Okay. So I I knowing that that it's concerned is a big factor. Thank you. How will I find out when to come for one of those meetings? Miss Thornberry is going to let you know. Yes. For real. Okay. I'm sorry. you know, and I I had hoped had pictures from this year, but it's been very dry. So, thank you. So, I don't know yet. I'm kind of sweating it out. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I saw a hand. You wish to speak? You You need to come to the microphone, please.

Yes, please. Good morning. Morning. I uh uh don't do good at public forums. We need your name and address, sir. I want to express that I thank your name and address. Your name and address. Jim Lavell. I live at 146 Colonial Way

and So, thank you very much for taking public comment. Um, when I moved to Danville, I moved here because my mother lived here part-time and I wanted a good retirement community. The subdivision that I built in was uh to be a good retirement type of subdivision and the integrity of the neighborhood is somewhat of of a concern. Um there's also uh in in a separate item but uh kind of associated the egress from 34 on to Lexington Avenue is very confusing. There's an S turn by the church and nobody uses their u uh blankers at that site. And between 4 and 6:00 p.m. you can't get across there without a long delay because the stop light down at the bypass lets the cars through and there's about 200 f feet between each one of them. So, uh I think any additions to the community should consider the uh the traffic flow there. And uh multi- type uh residence is not not really what I I think we should do. Um, and I I moved there, paid a lot of money for a house built, and uh I'd like to have the

neighborhood uh stay that way. Um, Miss Thornberry did an excellent job. I'd like to thank you all for your comment and I'll leave it like that. Thank you, sir. All right. Anyone? Yes. Take your time.

My name is Josh Will. I live at 131 Colonial Way. I'm in section 6. And um I think there were some really really good points that I'm not going to try to labor here made before. The one comment that I did hear earlier on um was that they think that it is congruent in size to other houses and I think that that's a speculation and I think that uh Thor Mr. Thornberry made a lot of things that give you guys thought that probably shouldn't make a decision today but that's my opinion but certainly speculation on terms of congruency to the rest of the neighborhood should be researched prior to just I think so. Um, so that's really my point is that it it's not across the board and the neighborhood differs and section six differs and so I would encourage you guys to take a look at that before making any kind of decisions on this today.

Thank you. Anyone else here wish to speak? Yes, ma'am.

I'm Gail Lewis. I live at 125 Colonial Way, which is almost directly across from the proposed changes. And I would like to say that we keep talking about a 5 acre plot, but if you drive up there and look, you'll see that over half of that is not buildable because it's a sinkhole. It goes directly down to the property that Miss Claudia Fischer referred to. So, you're not talking about even quarter acre lots. Furthermore, I don't know of anybody up there who has a quarter acre lot. Most of them are a half. Mine is just slightly over a half and it's one of the smaller ones. So, there is no way that seven family units could be built on that property and not destroy the property values of all of us up there. We have a very nice, very desirable community and I want it to stay that way because as Jim said, I paid a lot for my house and I want it to stay and keep that value and the traffic again would be a nightmare. That is a culde-sac and no outlet and we don't want an outlet. But consider that is not a usable 5acre track. Thank you. again. Any other comments?

Good morning. My name is Janet Humphrey Cole. I am an attorney. I do not do real estate and planning and zoning. So, please do not ask me any of those questions. I come to you today because I'm also a resident on Colonial Way, almost directly across the street from where this is intended. So, I do want to speak to a couple of things that I heard. I know that today you were here to decide whether or not to put this into five or six tracks, whatever it is that they're being requested, and to decide whether or not that that is technically correct. My concern is that um you've heard some of the comments that not all the space is going to be usable, but I want to remind the committee that um in fact this was originally set out as a green space. So this was not really ever intended to become what they're asking you to do. And so if there is any possibility that what J-Max can do with this property at some point in the future is to make this multifamily units that is directly in defiance with what was always intended for this space. So I would ask the committee or ask your the body here today to take some time to decide what is going to happen with that space and to give us any amount of reassurance as to what might be coming into that space. But if it's anything more than a one or two family um unit, I don't think that that's going to be something that's congruent with the neighborhood. This is the culde-sac. Everybody talks about it. I live on it. People come and walk their dogs. People tell teach their kids how to ride bikes there. So if you're talking about bringing in substantially more structures, you are going to have significant traffic issues. You are going to have potentially water issues. They exist there already. But if there is any ability for us to know more about what is going to be going in there and whether or not that that's appropriate, Miss Thornberry brought up whether or not the covenants even allow such a thing to be made. I would implore you to take your time with this decision given

the fact that there is a lot that could flow from it. I understand that one comment was this is only to approve the tracks. Well, let's be frank. There's no need to approve five tracks if they're not intending to put new structures on those plats. It could stay as it is. So to say this is only to decide those tracks. No, that's I don't believe that's correct. You're being asked to make the first initial decision about whether this five acres is going to become homes to six or seven families or whether it's going to remain the green space that it was originally set out and designed to do. So, I would implore you to one, take your time with this decision, and two, to have far more information than what it appears you have from either the um Jmax or their um uh subcontractors, engineers, those are things. So, I would just implore you to take your time with this. And if you want to know whether or not making five or six houses there, potentially multifamily residences there is congruent with the neighborhood, come on out. We are happy to have you drive through. I understand that the houses in that culdeac may have smaller lots, but the lots that you're going to drive past to get there are not consistent with halfacre or even quarter acre lots. So, I would implore you to just make the drive. It's not that far. It's I think seven minutes from here.

I would implore you to get a sense of the community before you agree to allow it to be subdivided into different tracks. And again, with the bare minimum amount of information that I've listened today that you have, I would just implore you to take your time and make sure that we have any sort of additional information that may be required or necessitated. And we there's no need to put in five tracks if there is in fact a covenant that says this is only this plot or this tract will only be home to one residence. So again, thank you for your time today. I understand the importance of your decision and I hope you have all of the information you need to move forward on that. Thank you so much.

Anyone else wishing to comment, please?

I'm Harry Nickkins. I live at 107 Patrick Henry Court, which is within the subdivision that we're speaking of. There actually three main streets. Colonial Way, Patrick Henry Court, and Raleigh Court. You've heard comments and the attorneys are both presenting excellent comments, but and one last speaker lives in the subdivision. It's a quality subdivision where your kids can get out and ride their bikes or now we're being taken over by something called golf course with 10 and 12 year olds on golf court in a safe subdivision for them. But let me give you just a perspective of what I do not see happening on these at least five track six tracks. The largest one is really a downhill waterfalls in the making into a sinkhole. Not a a legitimate natural sinkhole is in that property. It fills up and gets into Miss Claudia's backyard. But beyond that, how how can a developer in any way complying with the quality of the structures and the neighborhood itself? How can on those six parcels, any one of the six? I'm going to give you some address addresses and values of selling for those properties. Colonial Way 37 4,962 ft home on the market 725,000 147 Colonial Way 76,000

go to Raleigh Court 5,718 square foot home on one street below this listed at 779 85 Raleigh Court. That house is on the market. This one is a Zillow listing at 85 Raleigh Court. 651,000. Go to the street I live on, Patrick Henry. House sold, they occupied December 17th, $630,000. Five beds, four baths. uh house on the market right now $659,000 108 Patrick in report there's no way in these small tracks you can construct new housing that's consistent with the neighborhood and and all that well we're taking care of our investment Jim pointed out but it's the quality of the community when Easter. We go to one property on Colonial Way and decorate for Easter the cross with flowers from the backyards. When you go three different places, you go to one home for ordurves, the second home for a meal, the third home for dessert, and the neighborhood's invited. So, I would and I've been on not in your position. I spent 21 years in an elected position in another state having to decide difficult decisions with people for and against whatever

we're considering. I would just ask you one to visit the streets, look at the property if you haven't done so because you need to get a real sense and feel for who that community is. Thank you. I got a question. White, before you walk away, are are you suggesting that don't build anything? No, sir. I think that Well, as the last speaker before me, that was forever going to be a green space, a park for the three streets in that subdivision. And all of a sudden, we hear it's going to be on the market now for development. Okay. Thank you. That's

going from a park. It It's an important comment. Thank you. All right. Anyone else, please before we close out? Yes, sir.

My name is Les Leton. I live at 126 Colonial Way, which is directly beside this track. Um, I' I'd like to ask you all as the members, how many of you have driven out and looked at this property? Well, that's good. Y'all done pretty good. I better than I thought. Uh, obviously then you know what what a terrible piece of land that it is. And you know that the original developer which ended up uh in the hands of Steel Gregory, they knew how bad it was and they didn't want to have anything to do with it. If it had been a nice piece of land and develop it would have been developed to start with. So, um, I I I've been there for around there for 40 years and lived in that subdivision in three or four different houses, and I've always known that there was a restriction on that piece of land, that there would only be one house built there. I would not have built beside that piece of property had it been open for development. So, I think it's pretty obvious if y'all are here to protect the community and do your job, then uh I appreciate your your interest in letting everybody speak today. And I'd like to ask everybody that lives in that neighborhood if you would just raise your hand if you live in the neighborhood.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. All right. Anyone else we close out? Any speaking for? Yeah, it's I I we we should ask. Yes. Is there anyone who wants to speak for and we've heard against? Very good. All right. Can I have a uh any a motion to move out of public hearing? So, no. Motion we move out of public hearing. Very good. in a second. All those in favor? Thank you. Um,

sorry. Can I um can I make one comment if I may? Um, so about the size of the lots. So, I just want to kind of go down each one across the street and just kind of tell you the size of the lots to to kind of just address the um character of the size of the lots or whatever. Um, so immediately next to it, it's 0.20 20 acres 23 acres.1 acre.18 acres.121 acres um all the way down to colonial the first house that is bigger than 28 acres is 3.38 acres um and I believe it was somebody who spoke house spoke today um but generally speaking this neighborhood sits on like even Raleigh Court uh.53 acres. Um Manor Patrick Henry Court 38 acres. Um so directly across the street is smaller because it is zoned RM3. So most of those lots directly across the street is.18 acres, but most of the other houses down Colonial Way zoned R1A are sitting on a halfacre lot or less generally speaking.

Thank you. All right. So, I um I think we're at the point where we need to discuss questions from the commission or any issues that we want to bring up before we talk about what potential actions we might take. So, are there other questions that the commission needs to hear or questions that we need to direct to our council? Yeah, I think we would just direct the questions to the council based on what he's heard, you know, what our options are to proceed.

You know, I had one question. Technically for procedural requirements, we we elected to as listen as a public hearing on here. It was not advertised. Is that something we have to do? Um I I don't think that it is the a public hearing is not required for subdivision plats. Um the applicant was here by virtue of engineer and had the chance to hear everything that was said and I I still don't think there's any requirement for subdivision plants to have a public hearing.

And I generally agree with you. I just I state this because these folks come because they they're certainly a big interest. By not publicizing it or telling other characters, we've had a conversation without other other residents making comments. Well, whether that's a concern or not, I think we need we need to acknowledge that we chose today to open for public hearing. Okay. and to take comments which were not required in the context of what we're being asked to decide but everyone's here and we wanted to do that and make sure everybody got heard

and I agree because the reflection that we had is having been at the tech meeting that we had earlier today or earlier this month which is I regularly attend that arrangement we have more information that I didn't have during that time period we we've already heard the information on there and I it would be nice to follow those topics to ensure that that is exactly and have feedback on what that means in the big picture.

All right. So, can I ask is there other questions on the commission? I it seems to me we have options. It certainly before us we can choose to approve the plat. We could choose to table this issue and send it back to um tech committee uh or to the applicant or to the applicant or to the applicant

um to modify the the proposal at Hannah. Let me ask a question around the split zoning um because that was one of Miss Thornber's issues. Um, other zones in the in the county are split zone. Is that correct? That's correct. Um, and we're not requiring all of those to be amended today. Is that right? I don't believe so. No. Nothing in our ordinance or subreg requires a particular action with regards to split zones. It's a complication for the owner, but it's not one that we are required to resolve.

Thank you. All right. So, so can if I could recap here a little bit. So, it sounds like to me that when this was presented to tech review, they're looking at the plat the setbacks and and so on and with that information provided, this is technically correct and we and therefore be approved. However, you did not have the information relative to the deed restriction that says this plat can only have one film on it and that was added on the comments that are on here were added after the meeting and added okay so added after they were added to

after tech review. So,

but it's I I agree with um comments um sorry, forgot the name lady made about it. It it it is unre reasonable to think we would do dividing into tracks if the intent wasn't to build something on each one of those tracks. Therefore, believe it would recommend sending this back to the applicant to say you can't do this unless you get the unanimous unanimous vote of the partnership and he can deal with the legal mess that that made right now with it being elite the LLC or or whatever. But that seems to be the body that has the ability to say yes, we can you can do something other than the deed restrictions that are in like if he came back, if we sent this back to the applicant, the applicant came back and said, "Sure, I still want to divide this into seven tracks. I'm only going to build on one of them." I'd ask for them to tell us which one they want to build on. Okay? and make that within the I mean I I don't know if we can legally allow them to not sell small parcels that can never be built on because that's you know

I don't know if we can't allow that. The the one other topic that was was said was that understanding this was all green space but it could be green space on individual tracks.

Yeah. I mean I listen I what I want to get to is okay I have two questions. One is okay could could he decide could the owner decide that he wants to put a multif family in there because it is because the the zone you know goes across the property. Okay. There's two zones on the on on each of these each of these seven have at least some part of it that touches the RM3. I believe the deed restriction would restrict that. Okay. So the deed restriction would so so I so according to the deed restriction as it sits

there can only be one and it's got to be residential. It can't be multi family. It has to be a single family. And I I agree. We need somebody who's got a different more legal perspective on that to make sure we confirm that. But that's only on one track though. That that that would only be on one track. So that restriction, right? And so the way that this is presented to us with the setbacks, it is not presented to us as, well, we're just going to let them sell it and let the people figure out that no, this is intended for for houses. Okay. I I would really like to have this come back to say or no, I would like to send it back to them to to to say, "Hey, can you please address these issues of the deed restriction?"

Um, sorry, if I may make a comment about that. I I we did discuss the deed restriction at tech review. So, I do want to just make that clear that it wasn't um you know, not there. It wasn't like we knew about that at tech review, but we asked them to add that comment to ensure that um it was legal and all our Historical historically we have lots of plats that have deed restrictions of multiszoning on them. Not restrictions but multiszoning on them. We just allow them to exist. Are we and I'm not sure that we're intending to change that that thing either.

Exactly. Exactly. So Henry, can I ask um are we allowed at this point to send this back to the applicant? Is that one of the options that we have before us? It is an option. We by my count have to decide up or down on this by about July 1st. We have 90 days to address plat submitted to us or else they automatically are deemed approved.

Can Let me ask you this, Henry. Could we uh could we make a vote that says this would be disapproved unless the applicant comes back within the 90 days to address the issues that we've discussed today. I'm not sure what that vote stands for. I think we can send it back with that admonition, but a a contingent vote of disapproval is something we've not done before. And I I I'm unsure how it would work.

We have to disapprove and then recommend we send it back and you submit it again later. Well, even a disapproved vote, we would And here's why. Yeah. Right. And he can and then they can do it again once they fix that. We could disapprove it. It's not totally clear what authority we have to disapprove it. I think possibly the cleanest the cleanest thing would be to postpone it and say please applicant fix these issues.

Exactly. I want to be clear if as long as the technical requirements are met we are required to approve we cannot disapprove at this stage. So I the the option to disapprove is not one of the options we have here. I I do not think it is. I while I understand Tom's point of hey we can't a guy's got his land. He wants to put it in different parcels. He can't pick who builds on or doesn't build on it. I think we're setting up a future

homeowner as as having problems. Right. They'll put these on the market. I would assume if I'm buying one of these lots that I can build my house on it and let's say I'm the second guy in line to do so. Then I go to get my building permit and it comes back and says, "Well, no, this is part of parcel two and you can't build a house on this lot. I've just paid $20,000 for a 2 acre piece of ground in the county or in the in the city. I I don't think that's I Anyway, that's my concern. the site the site plan activity. You've got a point here, but the site plan activity where you place it is

but but if I'm buying if I'm buying the h if I'm buying the property, I'm not doing a site plan before I actually own the property. And so you're setting people up to potentially buy something that they're assuming they can build on and then they would get there and they'd say, "Nope, sorry, you can't build on that." And I don't I don't think that's a we don't want to be a good place to put it. Commissioner, the only question I have, Henry, is in so we mentioned I heard me mentioned several times about being a green space.

I don't we haven't seen the the final plat amendment of the William Williamsburg Village and Rolling Hills Meadow section 6 blah blah blah in in here. If that calls this out as green space, does that hold any water? If if that plant says this shall be green space forever, then that's a restriction we would we would want to consider and probably abide by. Have we seen that plan? The so this is this is a plat as amended, right? But in the original plat for that does it does it say that this area is green space or potential future?

Has everybody understood it to be green space or that was the That's the That's the point. Like I we even if everybody understands it to be green space, if that's not in the deed, then we can't Well, it was the zone the zone previously to RM3 was NCC. So, it was neighborhood conservation commercial. So, it was designated green space by our designations. Um, good in theory, not in practice, but I don't know about the deed restriction. But I do, the old plat is in this packet that Miss Thornberry gave. Uh so

I just want to acknowledge as chair we're not taking comments. Thank you. And to to this point now what Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's different to answer this question. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

I I just wanted to provide some clarification. The original subdivision plat that created section 6 plat file 852b did have a portion of this property zoned at it was sorry not zoned that's what she used it was designated as green space a later plat 1804 I believe I noted it abolished the green space so that is not there's no confusion it was at one time designated as green space and later abolished by the developers and the laws were changed So, I just wanted to provide that info. There wasn't there was a zone change in the 80s to make this con a condominium lot. As far as I know, I have a written agreement with planning and zoning. As far as I know, that just kind of went by the wayside, but that was also something that happened.

That's not what we're seeking, but just to provide as much info as I can on it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So, given that our options are to approve or to table and send back, do I have a motion in front of the commission or do we have other discussion we need to do?

I apologize if this is out of order. I would like to ask Mr. and the commission if I could address specifically the history that has been mentioned here because I have copies of all plats and how it relates to the deed that you all have in your packet and I did not include it originally. Can I can I ask you to hold please till we talk about what what we might be able to do here. My sense is what

it needs it needs to go back to the committee and it needs to go back to the technical committee. I'm I'm as chair I'm looking for a motion from the group where we can talk about then what do we do? I guess I would propose that we decline the plat as presented based on the deed restrictions. I'd like to send it back to the committee the detect committee and have that information collected reviewed by whoever present it back. So to to your point, I think we cannot disapprove it does not meet the requirements in the restriction.

It's this is I just want to I'm so sorry but um I just want to reiterate the comment that we are here for a subdivision approval. If it is technically correct, we are required to approve it. I'm questioning whether or not it's technically correct.

That's my question. I'm questioning whether or not it's technically correct. It's it's presented it is presented to it's it is presented to us as seven buildable lots. Okay, that that's what's been presented to us is seven buildable lots. I don't want to pretend that it's not presented as seven buildable lots, but one lot and then six that can be just sold for people to do their own gardening. I I just don't I don't want to pretend that that's what this is. It's presented to us as seven buildable lots. So, Mr. Mcloone added the plat note in in the language that I suggested to him, which says, "Look at these restrictions. You might want to talk to an attorney." If you have further language that you would suggest adding to that, we can contemplate that for a month or you can suggest it now. Um, and maybe that language would look like these deed restrictions say that there shall only be one structure built on this. We could have, in other words, the explicit restriction printed on there as well and then say talk to an attorney.

Yeah. Like if if it if this came to us, if this came to us with the deed restriction on there that said one buildable lot, but we're going to put seven up for sale, then I would say, man, that's that's a public that's a public record right here. If you went and bought one of these lots after the after the, you know, the first home was put on there, then you ought to be able, then you ought to know that. But that's not what's being presented to us. I think we're within our rights to ask that it be presented to us that way. I would just say that rather than us taking the position of printing that restriction on there and saying you must abide by it, I think we should I suggest to you that we should print it on there and say consult an attorney to discuss this restriction. You're you're leading to sending it back to the committee or tech the tech review group.

That's the pleasure of the planning commission and I agree with that that yeah it's not that's not our council's decision. That's our decision of what we do. So I'm still looking for a motion to either send this back or to approve. I'd like to make sure those are the actions. Are we in legal jeopardy if we just disapprove this? I believe that we could be. I'd like I'd like to make a motion to to have this topic sent back to the tech tech committee to to address and resolve several of these issues. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Chairman, we cannot hear you speak. You're not speaking. Oh, sorry. Sorry.

I don't know how much closer I can get. The microphone's on, please. I I would suggest that maybe the the public consider moving up to some of these vacant seats in the front row. This system is is the best we can do. I apologize, but there's nothing I can do about it. I do want to make a motion to send it back to tech the tech review committee. He needs to ensure that these topics here. So to re to to reiterate, Mr. Collier's motion is to send it back to tech review and allow that committee to assess all of the things that we've heard today. Pull it back together and then present it back to this committee. Mr.

Yes. Second. Do I have a second to that? All right. Why would we not send it back? Well, the tech review provide the provision that it goes back to the applicant. We'll have to address some topics by rejecting right. I wonder what is the difference between sending it to tech review and sending it to the applicant other than sending it to tech review builds in the idea of review by that committee. If we send it back to the applicant, I guess tech review could still hear it. It's just that by sending it to tech review, we are sending it to both the applicant and tech review.

Yes. We're sending it to both. All right. So, we've had we've had a a motion and a second and any other discussion or comments? I'd like one more clarification on what the legal jeopardy is that we put ourselves into if we just deny this where 100.275 requires that we have objective standards that apply to these things. And I hear you, Mr. Far say that you don't believe that it's technically correct. The standard for technical correctness is not by deed restrictions, but by our subdivision regulations. And I don't identify anything in our subdivision regulations that this plant falls short of. Okay, that's the answer that I was looking for. Right.

That's the legal answer that I was looking for. All right. Any other exc?

All right. I have we have a motion on the floor with seconds. Any other questions? All right. Approve the motion. We stated which sends it back.

We're sending it back. All right. Thank you. Can we re read re the motion was to postpone this matter for a month with the idea that the applicant revisits what was discussed today and this body's technical review committee will take a look at it and hear whatever revisions the applicant can make. It will be it will be heard then at the next meeting and and the fourth Wednesday in May. So the tech review meeting is the second Wednesday 27th looks like May.

And the review meeting limited space. We're in a small conference room, right? There would there would be no comment to tech review. Yeah, we're not. All right. Thank you. All right. We're moving on in the agenda and appreciate the public's participation. don't have

public record. I think we don't maintain that public record. We don't maintain that public record. I think you need to ask your attorney to red do that research. Sir, what is that? Isn't this online? Yes. Yes, this is also online. This is online. Yes. No, not those revision revisions yet, but those will be online in the meeting materials on our website. All right. Thank you. All right. We're moving on to now public hearings. May I suggest a little break? Uh water break? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Five minutes. Can we have a motion for five minute break?

So moved. So moved. Thank you. Thank you. All in favor?

We have a tabled um public hearing around the uh Dale and Lisa coffee applying for a zoning map amendment. Yes. So um this application actually got rescended. The applicant um wanted to resend the application. Um, I kept it on the agenda just in case we needed to make a motion, but I just um wanted to check with Henry. Yeah. As long as it's been rescended, do we need a motion? It's no longer ours to make a motion. So, thank you. Never mind. Okay. Easy.

Very good. All right. Now, we're moving to item two. Um, we have uh before the planning and zoning commission considering text amendments to article one, two, and three. I think we're considering one, two, and three only today. Is that right?

Yes. Yes. So sent you this in um the email and so the meeting materials article one two and three of the zoning ordinance um is in that uh link that I sent you. But the advisory committee met um made a few changes and Henry also made a few changes including moving um some of those sections from article three I believe into either or sorry article one into article three and then article one into subdivision regulations. Yeah. So, I've made all of those amendments from advisor committee. Um, those amendments are online for you all to view and it's what I sent you. Um, but just to kind of go over Can can we generally walk through?

Yes, absolutely. Yeah. So, we're assuming that we've all done our homework. Yes. Yes. Um, I I want to say how how carefully I'm impressed with how carefully our advisory committee went through these line by line. Yeah, it was it was really well getting into the weeds very much. Yeah. And as well, I think the uh the work that was done by this consulting company is actually very helpful because it's trying to make the regulation more readable for the public. Yes. And that's that's a very important objective in front of us.

So, please if you walk us through. So, um, article one, two, and three of the zoning ordinance are the ones that we'll be I'll be requesting action on. Article one strengthened commissioner attendance requirements and added clear enforceable guidelines um when governing bodies must fill vacancies. So, when there is a vacant spot, that uh governing body must shall fill that seat within 60 days or we can suggest somebody um which I think will be a great way to have a quorum. Um and additionally in that attendance requirement it's we agreed that four calendar or in a calendar year if a member in the PNZ commission and BOA commission misses four meetings in a calendar year so four out of 12 um they would get recommended to that governing body for removal. Um and additionally in those requirements I uh we added language that says that governing body can also recommend removal at any time if they feel that their um representative is not efficient enough and no requirements of removal but all recommendations. So I feel like that is good language. Um but the requirements to fill the vacancies um that is the requirement but the recommendations for removal um yeah I think that is just good language.

So this I Fundamentally I was not aware that this group identified the replacement for the commissioners. Is that what you're saying? Um only after 60 days that would be the case. But even after 60 days statuto or the city or junction any of the refuses to fill the spot then after 60 days. Okay. But that's so they've agreed to allow us to

That's actually a statutory requirement that we were allowed to do. So I've really just um relayed the statutory requirement from the KRS into ours just to uh yeah just to let us know that we are allowed to do that by Kentucky state regulations. We reminded the governing bodies that we will or can well and remember these text amendments now go for approval to all four of these governing bodies. So what we if we approve what's in front of us today they now will go to those bodies to get but I believe they are all in agreement that this is a good step in the right direction.

So the and let me make sure I understand the other part that confused me a little bit here. the conditions why we would let somebody go. Um that would be uh if they missed four calendar or sorry four meetings in a 12 month. It's it's not it's not automatic. No consideration it's the way I've read some of the earlier wording it was it just automatically happened. Right. I think that was the March amendments and I believe after we met again for the advisory committee it was um more of a recommendation and sending that recommendation letter and um so not not required to be removed. All right. Thank you. That's that's what it and I think that you know you all know the concern has been to achieve

quorum at times with this group and as well either either that or to properly represent the city or the county and make sure that the representatives are here. All right, Hannah. All right. And um do you all have any questions about article one before I go on? Uh Hannah, just a small technical note. 1.12.3 talks about rules of procedure that these bodies are to adopt. And I would suggest that instead of calling it rules of procedure, we refer to bylaws. We have bylaws and they kind of serve some of that same function. Okay. So, it's just a cosmetic amendment.

Okay. I will make that change. All right. Um, any other questions? Article two.

Okay. So, article two um updates multiple definitions including new language for qualified manufactured homes and references to the 2025 comprehensive plan. Um it also incorporates that zone co recommendations to remove outdated, ambiguous and enforcable definitions. And in the updated April um ordinance amendments, I highlighted all the qualified manufactured homes um just to show you all what has already been approved by you all. Um so if anything's highlighted, it was approved last month. So, please just know that that is um not what we are approving today. But yes, a lot of the article 2 definitions really just incorporate those 2025 comp plan language that um that we added, including 30-minute village tiny homes that we've talked about last year or last month. Um but I can answer any questions of those definitions that you all have.

I had a question. You brought up tiny home there. Does it still talk about the if it's not a principal home, what is it? If you read the line lines and words in there, you'd have to get very specific. I apologize. I don't have that in front of me. Sorry, let me pull it up. For a definition. Yeah. Yeah. We It's brought up tiny home which was on particular page of that and it says this is um is a principal home. Okay. Um

if it's not a principal home, what is it? What is that's does a tiny home is that a word that's used for ADU? No. Um I believe it's just based on the size uh per building code, state regulations, anything. My my question is, do we have it do we have it defined in our standard or in the Kentucky standards? Uh the Kentucky building code defines tiny home. Yeah, it's I just want to make sure it wasn't. I didn't go digging around. Sorry. No. Yeah. And I actually I'm glad that you said that because I do want to add something to that definition um to say unit equal to or less than of 400 square feet. So I will add that. to add that

clarify that if we could there's also a topic in there about the um the 30 minute Yes. village. But you allow for a car and a drive for driving and walking. When I drive a car 30 minutes, that's a lot further distance than when I walk 30 minutes. Yeah. Is that what we want to do? Well, it's more just a planning theory that we in incorporated in the comprehensive plan about the villages. So, I just wanted to in um introduce the idea of what a village is and kind of get the idea. But I think I think our discussion in the comp plan was walk or bike. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. I think not drive. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do you want me to make that change? Okay.

Yes, please. Okay. Yes. Okay. It just had a car is And yes, I did read your comments. Thank you. I'm sorry. What uh work or it was 30 minute village. Did I spell out 30? I can't remember. Just removed the drive. Okay. Thank you. Are there other comments on section two or article two comments or questions? Now, my my only other question I had on there's

done his homework. He's got pages of Thank you. I appreciate it. Really, thank you. R I P A R I A N Reparian buffers on. Yeah, it's um it's essentially like a swale or like a Well, I'm fine with that. It's just we don't re they didn't do any changes to the text that uses repairarian zone. We didn't No, I believe it's in the comprehensive plan, though. I saw it. Yeah. So, I just wanted to make that definition. because it's in our comp plan. Okay, that's what I was going to ask because you're defining a word that's not being used in any of our

Right. Although it's not being used in the zoning ordinance, it is being used in the comp plan. And I just wanted to make sure that there's clear definitions for all of our um uh ordinances and plans, regulations and plans. Does it have to be there? Not necessarily. Um but I'm open to that discussion. It's just adding definition. I like I like I think it just unifies all of our documents. Um yeah, just the I'm searching. You left me on the computer too long. M Mr. Carier, I thought of the same thing. Um but what I think now is that we could have some regulation that relates to it later and then this is already in there.

Yeah, that's fine. Okay, I'm done. I see a reference definition of a pedestrian shed. I've never Oh, yes. And that was a common like a water shed. Um I No, it's like a walking. It's like a quarter mile or eighth a mile. Um it's a basically a planning theory that just talks to walkability of a space. And that was a suggestion by the zone co report because we have pedestrian shed either in the zoning ordinance or the I think the zoning ordinance um elsewhere in the articles and it doesn't define it. But yeah, it's just again it's just a a way to um have data around is a space walkable or not. So,

and and for those of us who read, there's there's a lot of definition of sign. Oh, so many signs. Yeah. Yeah. But we we worked with um me and Joanie, our historic preservation coordinator, worked with TSW consultants out of Lexington, and they were very helpful in updating our Oh, and Dan went to that meeting, our public sign meeting. It was great. Um, so we really are working on unifying our historic design standards with Joanie um and the DHB with our zoning ordinance definitions to unify that um and just have have it be more aligned definition wise. All right, any other questions on article two?

Then let's move to article three.

Okay, awesome. Um, article three added a requirement that zoning permits must be obtained before any building permits. uh are issued. Building permits must now include the zoning permit approval number. And additionally, we reor I reorganized the article to address all the zone code concerns about clarity, readability, and enforcability. This article really does kind of um it is a large update, but again, I wanted to kind of condense all of the items and make it more readable for the public, make it easier to understand. Um I believe Henry had one note and so I've removed since our last tech review meeting I removed the nature of action. So although the ones that you all saw in the link have that nature of action column in the first four pages that is going to be taken out. Um so just keep that in mind. Um and that's just because it was redundant and um yeah. So, um, but all the other changes really were concerns brought to us by the county and the city about, um, making sure that zoning ordinances or zoning permits come before building permits because a lot of we've had several is in instances where a building permit gets approved without understanding kind of there's another layer of oh, there's extra buffers that need to be be there due to the zone. Um, so

so I just want to be clear with everyone. So that that's the critical piece here is to add that we will require zoning permits and that zoning permits will come first. Correct. And then we go putting that in in the proper order so that people never come out and say, "Well, why was I allowed to build this house and didn't know that I couldn't put a septic system in?" Right. Oh, and actually to your point, Dan, uh it does um add residential permits for um unincorporated areas. So, we are adding that. Yes. And and the building permits include, excuse me, the zoning permit includes the step by step. Yes. Correct. Yes.

Which is here's what I'm going to need. Here's the other approvals that are going to be required in order to move forward. and it's just more laid out to allow people to understand where they have to go next and try to make that process for them easier. Um, yeah,

was just asking so that we had this big discussion on this morning. Where would the catch? I would say that would be in that would be because Rusty would give him a building. Oh, yeah. He would he give him a building permit, but permit is going to stop this and say, "Nope, there's already been one house built on there." Well, I uh I don't know if necessarily deed restrictions would be implemented in zoning permits, but that is a good No, I think that

Well, that's why we're putting the note on the plat so that it's not just a matter of deed restrictions, but it says it on the plat for zoning staff to catch. When there's the plat note that says only one house on this property per deed restrictions, it then becomes incumbent on us to see whether there's another house out there. All right. Or at least to raise the issue to the we probably want to check. Any other are there other questions or comments on section three? I had one question. Um the table at the very beginning. Yeah. Data centers is that an appropriate

Sorry, what was the question? The the question had to do with data centers. Oh, and the issues related to that is a very complicated subject. Um timing is very complicated. Should it be added? Uh as far as somewhere in I just looked at the tables at the very your notes and things at the very beginning. Well, I don't know if a data center would be added in at this time because in these we're just talking about applications. Um, how about anywhere in section three?

Mr. Caller, I think the place where we might ordinarily put something about a specific use like that is in article five, which has standards for specific uses such as when we were looking at um merchant generating facilities. That's where we had that. So I think if we want to deal with data centers that'd be the place for it. Yeah. I think we gota we gota point out that we something it needs to go somewhere. That's the only reason I brought it up. I think in the discussion at the advisory committee we're were suggesting we're not ready yet to deal with data center. So it's uh but but it is on our in our horizon. Shortterm arising. I like that. Yes.

We we see it in front of us. um to address the um zoning permit concern about the uh deed restrictions. Now that we are adding residential zoning permits, do you all want us to add a line that says something along the lines of that like similar to the application? It would say if there are any deed restrictions andor just check this box and add it to the application for the zoning permit. Okay, I will add that as well. Very good. By the by the way there was the whole section there about they move manufactured homes and elements that's a very good it's a good explanation I think so the manu remember we approved the manufactured home section last meeting

right what about school buses some of school buses manufactured home did you are there other comments on section three no all All right. Very polite. So, other comments, you guys? Any any other comments on section three? All right. Can we have a motion to approve the changes for section one, two, and three? I move that we approve the changes section one, two, and three pursuant to the updates that Hannah's making that we discussed today. That's it.

I' uh I'd like like to consider will we look at it again rather than approve it. Are you saying to to include the comments or No, we just approve it. We've been we've been waiting to approve this for a while now. If we if we were to if we're wanting public opinion on the final version before we go and prove it, more opinions, you have to bring it back here again before you prove it. public comment on this. This isn't a public comment. Well, it is a public hearing. It's on our agenda as a public hearing. This doesn't matter doesn't matter whether they hear or not. This often unfortunately happens with these text amendments.

So, yeah. So, we have a motion and we have we have a second. All right. And and and we know we can't resist.

And we're making you read as we go along. Thank you. Okay. Melanie Melanie Thornberry. And I just I stuck around actually because you all were covering this and I was interested in it. see me so frequently. Um, there was some mention just now about adding private restrictions. It was something you were going to add into the article three that you're looking at. Um, whomever mentioned that mentioned that again.

Sorry. Yeah. Um, so we were discussing uh Mr. Mr. Ruby had mentioned that like for the plat today, what would we do because we are adding residential zoning permits like how would we catch that in the future? And um I don't know if there is currently a catch for that right now because we don't have um deed restrictions in the application for the zoning permit. So, I was just going to say as we are updating the zoning permit procedures, let's add a line in there um kind of similar to the application today that says, you know, any proposed plat restrictions, property or condominium owners associ association covenants, master deed or restrictions if applicable and just have them add that if there is something of the sort so that we know that when they apply for the zoning permit so that we don't have to do that that research when they get a building permit. And so hope that's yeah that's our hope is to

so that would be under that section 3.2 two, which is zoning permits. Correct. Specifically, which is different than the building. Yes. Yes. And those got you. Yeah. And those got switched in the amendments from from jumping to giving somebody a building permit where they shouldn't be able to, right? You all have had some great conversation about that very thing. Um, and then I was just wanting to make sure. So, it's going into the zoning correct permit. But in the current zoning, this sort of echoes the subdivision regulation requirements that I had noted.

Yeah, in the current zoning ordinance, uh, building permits, but come before zoning permits, but we did switch that just to make it readable. We're just trying to make it as easy to understand as possible. So, it's zoning permits, then building permits. Um, but I added that language that we discussed in advisory committee about you may need to go to the health department first to ensure that this is correct. So, yes. And I really like that requirement that you all just touched on about in order to get a building permit, one has to have the zoning permit. Yeah. Officially obtained and approval number on that building permit. Yes. That's excellent. Within the zoning permit, it's going to tell you about restrictions. Yes.

I commend you all on thinking through those things. Thank you. All right. Good. Thank you. All right. We have a We have a U motion and a second on the floor and I have a vote. All right. Thank you all. We have approved the changes as ch as amended in this meeting. Hannah, we have ta um tabled item three.

Yes. What is that's the that's what we're tableabling for our future meeting with the section 4 change. Um so table item two was the tabled items from last month just the zoning ordinance. Um tabled item three is just the subdivision regulations. So next month it will be zoning ordinance article four and subdivision regulations article two and four. Yeah. Um but today, yeah, those are the only three articles left for today to discuss. Correct. So, all right. So, do we need a motion to keep those things on the table for next week? I don't believe so because they're just discussions only. Oh, wait. Yes. Sorry.

Thank you. Just just being clear that we're Okay. All right. Okay. Moving ahead. Okay. New business. Oh. Oh, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Always safe to make a motion. If we could have a motion to postpone those matters until next month, save on the advertising requirement. Sorry. All right. Continue to table. Can I have a motion to do that? Make a motion to continue to table. Oh, I guess it would be what? Article four. Article four and subre. Joint joint joining ordinance and text amendments to article two and article four of the subdivision regulations. Right. Did you want to discuss those items at all? So I or Okay. No. No. Okay. Sounds good.

You do not. Understood. I'll I'll All right. And second. Thank you, Terry. All right. Uh, all those in favor? Okay. Unanimous. New business. I've got nothing. You have none. Advisory committee, none. Budget committee, none. Personnel committee, none. Other new business, none. Nothing. Announcements? None. Um, I just want to you all that next week we're having the um big planning and zoning training day. So, please feel free to come if you all need hours. Um it'll be at the um centerwork

center works from 2 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. It'll be a great time. So, reach out to me, text me if you need any other information. Um April 29th, next Wednesday. Wednesday afternoon. Wednesday afternoon. 2 pm to 5:00 pm. It's going to be a party and it sounds like it's very informative. It will be. Yes. Brian Howard is the uh president for Kentucky APA chapter, Kentucky American Planning Association. He is also the executive director for Owensboro. Um he is was just at the Kentucky APA conference last week. Um he's very informative. So it'll be good. That's the second floor. Yes. Yes. Correct. the hub. Yeah.

Yeah. Above the hub, third floor. Take the elevator in the back. All right. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Rita, you didn't jump on that one. Rita, what did you say? Do you have a motion to adjurnn? I sure do. Thank you, dear. All right. Do I have a second? All those in favor? Thank you.