Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I do have a question about that one. Okay.

Should be a couple of clerical corrections.

First, we have the applicant, Luke Boatwright.

Thank you. It's Kathy Young and then Benjamin Dubard.

Mr. Johnson. That meeting is for, in relation to the transportation, not the public, not the public input for the council person. Correct. Has that been scheduled?

Question for staff. Since you brought up DOT. Page 8, the traffic characteristics. Even though we hear the concerns, based on the information that's before us, this is a level of service of A. Is that correct?

And is this like a typical report card? Is it A to F or, you know?

And this was... Data gathered in 2025, is that what this is telling us?

So I have a question on the zoning history of the general area. On the... map that you have there. The applicant mentioned that the neighboring property is now zoned R3, but the R map does not show that it is zoned R3. If you go over and click on it, it's coming up as whatever it was. And it's not updated. But I'm seeing that case 26-009MA was zoned R2 and approved and non-compliant. Can, and that is in the general area, is, can you tell us where that was?

So if that is the case, then how long ago was the parcel next to this parcel rezoned to R3? And is there a reason it is not updated in our GIS map for the public?

Okay, so it would maintain its current zoning?

Commissioner Johnson? A follow-up on Commissioner Lloyd's question. I would assume then that the case she referenced, 26009MA, as noncompliant was done before the new comp plan was adopted. Yes, that would be correct.

Comments? Here, entertain a motion. Yes. Case of 2017-MA, put forth a motion to send it to... The council recommendation of approval.

I don't see the... It being adjacent to the open space as congruent with it being zoned to R3, and then therefore it being zoned to R3 opens up all of the other properties to be zoned to R3. Thank you.

Patricia Martinez, followed by Richard Delk.

Commissioner Fleming. For the staff, is there any clarification around the questioning of the R3 zoning?

I just want to clarify again where the access would be to this property. Road access.

There's no question to be asked. I'm actually in the midst of making a motion. Okay. I'm making a motion to approve the comprehensive plans approval of it to move forward.

She had one other question, right? I mean, it should still fall in line with what I was talking about. So when it says on page 35, I heard the... I think I heard the applicant say there's access to public water and sewer. But then when we look at 35 and it says it's currently well and septic, another one of those kind of vague terms. What do we mean when we say proximity? What's the acceptable proximity to public water and sewer for that kind of stuff?

Commissioner, just a friendly amendment, if I missed it, just to include case number 26031MA. Yes.

Yeah, I'm just gonna make a comment here. I don't think I can support that motion. But that is because I don't think even though we can't consider use, I don't think it is a reasonable thing for us to do to approve a landlocked parcels for zoning that allows them to be developed into things that need roads or a way to get out of their landlockedness to be able to be accessed so i'm saying that on the record before i make my my uh vote thank you commissioner lloyd any other discussion before we actually take the vote

Not hearing any. All right. Wait. Question. When staff turned the zoning layer on with the roads, it left the question, what is the, is that a drainage ditch that's the larger swath going across? Yes.

I apologize for cutting you off. This was just a possible clerical error that could be cleared up without him having to go through all of it.

Is it appropriate to just point out the discrepancy or should we let staff continue to read?

So on page 44... It's listed the 2025 Richland County Comprehensive Plan designates this area as mixed density residential. But in the conclusion, it was reading suburban residential. Conclusion and the comprehensive overview both list suburban residential versus the

Thank you. And then to continue, I just want to make sure I'm reading it all correctly. Page 49. And I think you just confirmed that this is the case. The call out for that particular parcel is, does support the mixed density residential, even though the shades are pretty close. Correct?

Go ahead. A motion to approve on 26-032MA to go along with a suggestion by the staff and the comprehensive plan to approve.

Yes. Commissioner Durant gone. I just want to confirm with staff. As I look at the map on page 48, the only other part of the area that's zoned R3 is up into the right corner of it. Can we, can I see the map of that area to see where there are any other R3 zone zoning areas?

Chair, I move that we forward case 26033-MA to county council with recommendation of approval.

Yes, sir. For those of us that are moderately colorblind challenged, would you walk around the three light green shades surrounding the parcel, please? Cross Mirapond Road, Point Bains.

Are you able to pull up the... Oh, you read my mind. The future land use. And can you tell me if that is agricultural or open space conservation? Because I can't tell the difference between the greens.

Mr. Johnson? Did you repeat the delineation between what I'm going to say in plain English, higher density and lower density of the plan? Just repeat what you said. Sure.

This is observation just to state what seems to be. Typically, the opposition is where a owner or developer is seeking a higher level of density or higher to up zone as opposed to a lower level. So to the request, the R3 is a higher density zoning than the subject parcel is requesting.

Staff is saying per comprehensive plan, you would prefer for it to be a higher level of density.

To the west of the parcel, the map is saying that it's an R3, but in the staff report it says R4. So I just, which comment that the, to the east was incorrect. I just would like clarification. Sure. And then to that I'm also going to make the comment that though the comprehensive plan might like more density, the road itself is operating at a level C, and I'm not sure the road would like more density. Especially with the DOT and no penny sales tax programs on that road.

Want to speak? We have no one who signed up, but I understand the owner came in late, and we generally give the opportunity of the person who requested it to speak. Applicant. Okay.

Jeff. This is for staff. The applicant indicated that his primary reason for wanting this change is for being able to just matter what the zoning is for that purpose.

Was Commissioner Lloyd correct in page 63 where the West was designated R4? I didn't hear what staff said on that. I'm sorry. Was that not it?

I'm not sure that on which, if it was R4 or R3.

That is what you were referencing, correct?

Yeah. So the parcel which your cursor is over right now. Okay. On that map, it says it's R3. In our packet, it says it's R4.

I'm going to move to recommend approval to counsel for 26-034 MA.

I mean, I don't think I need to justify my position on it, but I believe that because it is across the street and next to the area, that I think that that is the greater area of the area.

So you're referring to the property to the left of that being in character? Sorry.

Uh, Northeast as my fellow commission street.

Those are my comments. I can add to that. I think that property owners should be able to make decisions with the property that they own. And if they come to us with requests that are... not out of line and the community around them does not disagree with their requests that we should consider them as a commission and that's what i've done i'm gonna motion and a second any further discussion i'm not hearing any go ahead staff this is a motion for approval

We have Jerry Rye, followed by Kim Murphy.

I ask a question of staff while they're trying to figure out something else.

I think Mark might be able to answer this question. Can you describe what those white areas are, Mark, for our new commissioners up here?

West question yes does that change staff's opinion. That is not compliant or. Is the map wrong? Were you all looking at the wrong piece?

That doesn't change your findings or your conclusion.

The GIS appears that there is activity on that parcel. Is there activity that is consistent with the homestead designation currently? Or is this a reclassification that is necessary because there is activity going on that needs to be rezoned because of that activity?

Thank you for clarifying that. On our map on page 85, it does not show that neighboring parcel is RC either.

That neighboring property we're talking about is currently RC, correct? Do we know if that was kind of maybe grandfathered in or was that a more recent change that was approved?

Who wants to be brave and give me a motion? I don't have... Mr. Chairman, I don't have a motion, but I'll just give you my thoughts. I mean, until... That last piece of information came up. I mean, I was prepared to present a motion to support staff's determination as sending it to council as denial based on being non-compliant. But if it's adjacent parcel is contiguous and has the same zoning, there's at least a legal rationalization to grant it. But I will defer to my colleagues.

I move to recommend approval of, or I recommend to approve See, I hate doing this. I recommend to forward case 26-035MA to counsel with a vote of approval.

Because of the adjacent zoning of RC. Okay.

Okay. Again, just in keeping with character with that RC zoning district, again, not intending to spread commercial. Again, that's one of the underpinnings of the whole new comprehensive plan is not to be suburban sprawl everywhere. So having two RC districts next to each other in this case goes directly and it flies in the face of that.

Yes, Commissioner Taylor, go ahead. Not to prolong the evening, but... That was a good explanation, in my opinion, of what RC is. But it's going to be hard to enforce that, in my opinion, because the minute you... How do you enforce one-offs? Because the minute somebody sees it there, it becomes the one right next to it is. I mean, I just think it's going to be... pretty tall task to enforce one-offs, but I get it.

And I want to add to that. I think it's very unfair to say to the first coming property owner, yep, you got it. And everybody else like, nope, you can't have that.

Mr. Johnson, at the risk of piling on, can you click out two clicks on this screen? So my initial question when we were in the work session was, how far out? I mean, to me, that's not in the rural area. Just why I raised that question is to try to get some scale of exactly where we are.

Question? Yes, Commissioner Taylor. This was the reason I brought this up. Two corrections on the agenda. 5B9. Comprehensive plan has complaint instead of compliant. Sorry. But it's not a complaint. And... And... map on page 85 is incorrect. Page 85 map does not. It's 26 dash 036 ma.

Matt, would you state your last name again, please?

This is just a question for staff. If. No matter what the use is in the future. If it goes forward, it would have to go through development standards and meet those development standards for whatever that is. So if it was to be developed into housing, it would have to have a road. Correct.

But it would have access to the units for that multifamily when you're saying a drive versus a road.

The whole, if it was in a multi-unit development, it would not have to have access to a paved road.

would be determined in the development process of that yes okay thank you thank you officially commissioner johnson this is our the map 185 appears to be incorrect then what is the balance of the site being zoned

What I'm saying is that that's the entirety of the parcel that's currently highlighted, but that's not the entirety of what's being rezoned, correct?

84 is correct. Boundary, yes. So I was asking about, so this would remain M1? That's correct.

Typically, as far as I remember, historically, those of you who have been here a while, if we have rezoned a portion of a parcel, it was already subdivided, I thought.

I would make a motion to move 26 dash 0, 3, 6, ma on to. And the council.

Any further discussion? Is that with the noted corrections to...

Commissioner Johnson. Chairman, just to reconcile my memory from last month and the thought process at that time, what was the request in terms of the zoning when we discussed?

On that agenda, it was number six, which was case 26024MA. We had voted for approval and they voted for disapproval. Can we, did they share? Okay. Did they share a reason just so that we're aware of?

I also think that I think that was 1 of the ones that we had seen before and then with compliance.

And so I just, I think that that's just, it helps us. But I think it also could help whoever that applicant was in moving forward with their desired use of their property. Because I do think that general commercial is a very broad spectrum of things that can be done with that use. But I'm not sure that... any of the other uses allowed for what they were trying to do.

I just want to ask you, this is a situation I believe, if I remember right, that there wasn't really another very good uh use for another's for what they were trying to do and that i mean that's that's on

a question on that. So like if they're if they don't meet that two acres, is there a way for them to apply for a variance?

as an entity, we would have to make that request? Is that what you're saying?

I think the situation might warrant itself when it then does go to council and it gets denied at council. I think that like, You know, this land owner has us more than once on the council trying to find a solution to help them is reasonable in this situation.

Mr. Chair, unfortunately though, in its purest form, the responsibility of the council or the planning commission, we don't get that detail. I mean, we're supposed to not know what these uses are. I mean, we get a glimpse of it sometimes when someone comes to the podium and they tell us what it's for, but in its purest form, we're not really even supposed to know what they're planning to do with it, correct?

My struggle is Mr. Price is on more than two occasions. There are times when for whatever the compelling reason, objective that the applicant had, but there was a lesser zoning that could have gotten them there, but it's not our place to tell them, you shot for the moon, but there was a lower zoning that you could have done that would have allowed you. It's been at least three or four times when there's been another path forward that could have gotten them there.

So I'm understanding it to be almost like a consultation when they come in for the pre-application. So there's a consultation effort that takes place, which is good. Obviously, you don't want to give them the coding to use because still, if it comes here, we haven't always agreed with staff. So there becomes this blame game.

though we understand it is that that's not what they see it as. Cause they didn't talk to a comprehensive plan. They talked to human beings and in their mind, you know, it's like, Oh, you gave us this, they went against that. And so there becomes this kind of like a blame game that can exist there as well. My, my question is, is even with the zoning to, um, the commission on the very end to this point is even in some instances, not knowing is better than knowing sometimes the intended use, because I can say something that's going to get me GC. Once it becomes GC, there's no more, you don't hav

Not really relevant, but Same parcel when the folks came in and said they were trying to pull a building permit to make some improvements. The same parcel?

Yeah. Hold on. I request you call for a motion to adjourn.

Do you want to add there, though, when we have agriculture uses like that and individuals who want to maintain agriculture? Areas that are even rural transition areas. Just saying, nope, you can't do that. You need to go denser than that. Like you can't have your goats. You got to get rid of your goats because you can't have those that you're at your subdivision houses. Like, I mean, that's kind of crazy to say.