Remarks by Craig Berenstein
326 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 14
And the amendment cost, is that covered by a grant or what are the source of those funds?
On both A and B, is there a reason why we're not trading those in but sending those to auction? I'm assuming it's because we believe the auction will generate a better price. Is that correct?
But you think at auction it's going to be a better price than trading them? Or they didn't want them?
I did want to note on the minutes that we got from, I believe it was the... sorry, on the library board. They did as we requested, which is they provided them even before they were approved as drafts, so I appreciate that.
I think the struggle is that one of the questions we asked both of the candidates was the background that they have. This is a very complicated board or commission, and there's a background that I think is necessary, and I'm just not certain that either of the candidates reflected the necessary background.
Anyone to be heard? So Andrew, there were some neighborhood comments as it related to the third lot. Do you know, have we been able to resolve? I think part of it was impact to the properties to the north. And then I think part of the concern was the flow of water from the project. Do we know, did we resolve those issues?
And I think they confirmed that on the new lot, so there's Apple Tree, then there's the new lot for the new apartments, and then to the back of that, I think they're proposing some townhouses or some multifamily. They've confirmed that there would be adequate ingress and egress in and out of the apartments?
Not related to the project itself, but oftentimes we'll see that the health department to review and approve the septic? Why does the health department look at the septic and the well?
She's a peach to work with. That's an easy answer.
We still have to make that effort. We would have to make an affirmative effort to do so.
The issue is getting clarity on the definition of the term, which because it's a new term in the legislation, we don't know how that's going to be interpreted.
Yeah, and that's the difficulty is that there's a history with regard to variances on lot size, on building size, on setbacks, right? You have a fairly decent history and understanding of how you might manage that. With regard to a variance for a billboard, it's unknown. So getting clarity in terms of what you present to us for approval becomes very subjective.
I'm going to renew my comments from last week. I shared that I didn't think the cap and replace was necessary. I'm curious about where dialogue stands on a proposed fee structure and annual inspections. But I support free enterprise. I think there's a better process to manage the proliferation. I think we're reacting to... issues in particular locations that I think can be managed by our setback rules, our distance rules, and our zoning laws in terms of where signs, where billboards can be posted.
Dave, what do you mean you're 0 for 2? Two efforts you had for location?
So, Dave, what's the basis of the $15 and $20, depending on? Based on size, yep. But what's the purpose of that inspection?
Dave, do you know, in the communities that actually litigated the constitutionality of an annual fee, do you know what those proposed annual fees were?
Do you know, is there a blanket response? Was the constitutionality based upon the fee itself or was it the amount of the fee not being tied to? an actual inspection fee and cost.
Right, and Nicole has advised us of that, and I think that's why Nicole met with inspection services to get, because originally the discussion was whether $650 annually, and now they're proposing, they believe that 300 represents actual cost of the inspection. Is that a fair assessment, Nicole?
To revisit maybe some of the things that have been shared?
Okay, well, there's a- Well, I think Dave noted that they could see as many as 365. We were told last week that there are 1,100 locations, and out of that 1,100, 10% of those locations would be viable, strong locations that are Lamar, Huntington, or otherwise. I think you're right, Dave. I don't think we're going to want to address 365. That means we're looking at possibly 50 a week.
Yeah, but I mean. You have to so undo hardship. I mean, that's going to be impossible, right? Yeah, I mean.
I want to thank everybody for your hard work, P&Z's hard work, staff's hard work, the direction that we got from those in the industry, and we'll continue to work.
Like I've said, I think a large part of this was not necessarily the proliferation, because I don't think on a per capita or per square foot basis we're that excessive. I think there are a couple of locations that caused us to react, which was appropriate. But now we're put in a position where we're trying to create a broad policy for some isolated incidents.
I was the negative vote the second time.
Heidi, there's a flash. Is there a motion that we missed? It was already flashing.