Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the meeting of the planning and zoning commission. I see that we have a quorum. Uh if you'd all like to take a moment and silence your cell phones um and then uh join me in the pledge of allegiance. I

pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. We did. Thank you. Full roll call. I think we got

Yeah, I announced that. So, uh, we'll start with the call to the public. This is a business meeting of the planning and zoning commission. The town values and welcomes input. Please address the commission as a whole, not as individual commission members. do not address staff members or uh members of the audience. Commission action action on items brought up on call to the public is limited by the open meeting law. The commission may direct staff to study the matter and reschedule for further consideration at a later date. Items on the agenda will not be heard or discussed and called to the public. Individuals are limited to three minutes. And we have one person who's requested to speak. Rob Engles.

Or is it forg2 D3? Apologies. Okay, we don't have anyone. Does anyone want to uh speak?

Okay, we're moving on to uh the consent agenda. Um C1 and C2. Uh C1 is to consider the the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of the planning and zoning commission held on September 11th, 2025. Uh and C2 is to consider approval of the minutes of the planning and zoning commission work session held on October 23rd, 2025. Beginning with C1, uh do we have any discussion related to the minutes? Any questions or changes on C2 regarding the the planning and zoning uh commission work session discussion? Okay. I would entertain a motion to approve.

Mr. Mr. Chairman, I enterain I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the September the 11th, 2025 and October 23rd, 2025 minutes as read. Do we have a second? I second that. Okay. All in favor? I.

That carries unanimously. Moving on to new business. Uh public comment will be taken at the beginning of each agenda item. After the subject has been announced by the chairman and explained by the staff, any citizen who wishes to speak one time for five minutes on each agenda item before or after a commission discussion. Questions from the commission members, however, may be directed to a staff member or a member of the public through the chairman at any time. Uh D1 is discussion and possible action regarding uh the selection of a planning and zoning chair and vice chair for 2025 and 2026. Director Lloyd.

Sir, thank you, Commissioner Wesley. As you guys are aware, we had a couple resignations. Unfortunately, uh it was both our chairman, Jack Pence, and our vice chairman, Timothy Kenslick, have resigned. And so, um kind of in a buying here. I'm glad that everyone's here. We have a quorum. We can move forward. But uh the ask is that uh look amongst yourself and who's ready? Who's willing and able to stand up and be the next chairman and vice chairman per 17116.040. So it's in your hands.

All right. I'd like to um propose uh that Rick Miller step into the position of chairman uh given his experience and um in in this arena uh maybe not up on the dis at this point but I think he would he would really serve the town quite well. I would entertain a motion or make a motion. Would you second? No, I will go ahead. Go ahead. I was just going to say I would uh I would volunteer to be uh chairman as well. Okay. Any other discussion this point?

Okay. I uh move to appoint Rick Miller as chairman of the planning and zoning commission. Do you want to have a got two candidates? Do we need to have a vote? I'm sorry. We have two people that have Right. So there should be some discussion amongst um amongst the commission. Anybody else want to comment on his offer? Okay. I I move to appoint Rick Miller as chairman of the planning and zoning commission. Do I have a second? I second that motion. All in favor, please raise your right hand. No. That that carries. Uh,

four. No, I'm sorry. Opposed. Opposed. Oh, one opposed. Okay. Opposed. That carries. Forgive me. This is my first time running this. Uh, so um all right. Well, that carries um with 4 to one. Uh the uh moving forward we need to select a vice chairman of the same. Uh so any I would um if the commission agrees I would uh be happy to serve uh unless someone else would prefer. I too would volunteer to be vice chairman. Okay.

Mr. Chair, given your uh senior kind of seniority on the commission, I I would also recommend that you serve as a vice chairman on the planning and zoning commission. That would be my recommendation as well. I would entertain a motion or is there further discussion? I would entertain a motion. I motion we make DJ vice chair and second. Second it. Okay. All uh and u yeah all in favor all right and okay that carries

opposed and showing none I see we it's accepted unanimously um at this point I should um yield the the chair to ch to chairman Miller. Thank you.

Thank you. First of all, I'd like to uh thank the uh people that are in attendance tonight. It's really important that we have engagement from our community members in the planning and zoning process. We're all volunteers up here. uh you know, we have a lot uh a lot of good um things to consider as as we act as planning and zoning commission members that are important to the future of the uh the community. Um we're going to go ahead and continue with our agenda. We do want to have decorum. It's important that we maintain decorum in this meeting. If you have uh if you'd like to get up and speak, please uh address your questions to me. If you want to address one of the commission members, uh, just ask me and we'll, uh, we'll have them respond for you. We appreciate your being here this evening. And we'll go ahead and go to item D2 on our agenda, which is a discussion and possible action regarding House Bill 2247 and amending the town code title 16 subdivisions. Community Development Director Lloyd. Thank you, Chairman Miller. This item, as uh indicated in the CDR, is in regards to legislation, House Bill 2247. And um the first time I saw the the reading of this, it said we may do these things. And then uh much to my surprise, I recently saw that they change they struck the May and they changed that to Shell. So we pretty much have to do this in order to comply with state statute. what it entails is um probably not necessarily the best avenue to handle this. I think that there's something some other things working in the background, but we're not

here to discuss that tonight. Um but what we need to do is consider amending our code to meet statutory requirements for House Bill 2244 or 2247. And there's actually an ARS statute also requires us to um still have public hearings if in the event that it is deemed a historical area or area of historical significance then the process that we already follow would still be valid. So there's that and basically looking at it uh the perspective is that no no public hearings would be held for sub anybody that came to the town with a subdivision a new subdivision or even on a smaller level if it was a change to a commercial structure for a site plan. So both this item specifically is just for the first and it entails rewriting the entire subdivision code and other sections to uh eliminate public comment on subdivisions. That's the gist of it. Uh so director if we choose not to adopt and continue with the opportunity for public comment and uh to hold u discussion um where does that place us as a town?

If we choose not to comply with state statute we could have a series of problems including in up to losing our state shared revenues. So I would advise strongly against that. I know this is an um an uncomfortable situation because on this item and on the next item uh very similarly um it's going to reduce powers of the commission as well and and the powers that I think are invested in the citizens of the community. So, um, while I disagree with the methodology that the state proposed, uh, I really have no option other than to to advise strongly advise that we move forward with it. And, um, I think that the perspective is that this will increase housing. Um, perhaps, uh, developers with lots of money were able to convince state legislator that this was the root of the problem. I think that there's something else going on there, but um uh specifically, I think that it probably has to do more with our short-term rental industry consuming a lot of the housing, but um there's a lot more money at stake for the state. So, that's not how we're going to tackle the housing problem. We're going to tackle it through uh kind of bowing to I I can't even say it politically correct, bowing to the will of the developers. That's really what this is. And so, um, while I think the intent might be genuine, uh, at least on the part of the state legislature, I don't believe that's the case from, um, the standpoint of a developer because if I was a developer, I', I'd also want this to go forward. So, I could, um, uh, make my subdivisions, make my money, and have a little as little obstacles as possible from the from the town or the city or whatever the case may be. However, um if you have a good enough staff that can uh review these and uh make adequate

recommendations and decipher if this meets the code or not, then I don't think it's as big as a problem as maybe maybe it looks to appear on the surface. That being said, I I have had a conversation with um members of the community where I think that um it's not without it's not outside of statutory requirements that we could still meet with public. We just can't have a public hearing. So, we could still meet with public and take and take their concerns into the part of the equation, but the opportunity for public involvement via public hearing would be eliminated. Director Lloyd, got a couple of questions if you don't mind. Um, first, uh, why now? Uh, this was this this was back in March. Uh, did I read that right? Uh, it was back in March that that the legislature passed. Here it is, December. Why?

Um, the last time I saw I don't know exactly when, but the last time I saw the reading said we we may do this, and I felt that it was not necessarily a great idea, so I didn't bring it forward. Um the last and then I had conversation with town attorney and uh working with other communities in the White Mountains uh saw this actually the language was struck from May to Shell. So we have to do it. Uh uh would have liked to have done it and caught it sooner for most certainly but that's not the case. And um there's a lot of municipalities that are kind of scrambling to get to the finish line now. And the fact of the matter is is we're not going to get there by December 31st. If we look at the timeline it takes for everything, right, to for it to go to council, it's not going to go until January. It's not going to be effective probably till February. Um, and that's best case scenario. So, um, but outside of that, there's nothing in the queue. There's nobody waiting in the wings to develop a subdivision. There's nobody that's um presented a site plan. So if those things come forward, it would be handled according to state statute and not according to town code in the interimm because this is actually a requirement on December 31st.

Got it. Okay. Second question is um part of the language in um the new statute it's talking about objectivity right about making those um you know being human beings I think we're also subject to subjectivity right. Um so how how do we uh look moving forward on this? How how would we ensure that that objectivity is maintained as a

so before I bring it even in the current form before I bring it to commission before I take it to council I already do that I already do an objective uh analysis of what is presented make sure that it meets town code uh I think some of the development community thought that this was being sub subjectively dictated and maybe in some cases it was if say for instance I didn't like the development personally I might take issue or or make extra require requirements or present obstacles in the public hearing to it being approved. And so maybe that happened in some cases and and maybe the developers made a strong enough argument to lobby legislation to get the laws changed. That's just pure stipulation. Okay. And then from uh once it passes your desk, say you deny um a an application, um what's the mechanism for the applicant after that? Is it is it the uh county or does it go in front of the council or how does that work?

No, it would come back to me for approval again. At no point does it go to uh the council or commission. So the objective standards are already outlined in the code. So if it's something that you missed, say you don't have adequate adequate ingress egress, then I mean that's clear no, it's not going to happen. or if you meet if you don't meet any of the things clearly spelled out in our code then the answer is no. So it removes the subjectivity of saying a citizen coming forward and saying I don't like this because I don't want to have to look with it. I understand that there's a need for it but I don't want it in my backyard. So it eliminates that component.

And then my final question I'd like to let other people speak tonight. Um uh so on on historical sites um how does that how does that come about? Who deems it historical? Um is it how is that decided?

Well um Shipo the state historical preservation office on a grand scale um declares these areas to be historic of historic significance. You can be you can make a request to get your building on there if it meets the requirements. Um but also there is a uh caveat in that state statute that says the town council can make that determination as well. So if town council determines somewhere is historic then it would go before commission and town council as well.

Piggy back on that question does uh Pintop have a are we a certified local government with a historic preservation commission right now? Right. We actually I don't believe that we really have anything on um Shipo's radar. Could be wrong, but I don't think that we do. We probably should, but we don't have a uh commission on that.

I think uh prior experience, I think you have to have the council um adopt a historic preservation ordinance and then you have to have a certified local government uh designation from the the shipo. you have to have a historic preservation commission that can review uh any modifications or alterations to historic buildings. So those things have to be in place. So I don't think this is really going to apply here unless the the council and the community wants to try to follow that course um and designate perhaps some buildings in the community historic. But I think that would have to be done first. Are there other questions? No, that answer

questions down here. You've answered all my questions.

I just have a few comments. Uh Jeremiah, I think uh I think you've done an excellent job outlining this. This is a kind of a um we'll get to the public comment here in a minute, Mr. Engles. This is um something that has been coming about by the state legislature, not just in this case where they're taking away public participation in the planning process by not requiring developers to go through public hearings for these these kinds of uh requests, but you know, there's been more and more of it. You know, uh some of the larger communities right now can't uh act on where apartments go. Uh there's a lot of changes being made at the state legislature. So if you want to enact change, you almost have to go there and lobby through the state. But they are being more and more um I guess uh accommodating to the development community. Now on the other hand, I can tell you that there by experience there are some communities that can stall development plans so indefinitely it's almost unfair. And so I think what they've done here is trying to expedite or make some more efficiencies in this development review process. You have excellent people on planning and zoning staff. Uh we want to think the community is going to be best served by hiring uh certainly qualified people to review the code to make sure the code provisions are all uh implemented in their review. And if they are, there should really be no reason for denial as long as the codes are being satisfied. Uh if the codes are not good, this doesn't restrict the um community from amending codes either.

Code amendments still go to planning commission and council. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes, sir. Uh so we're just talking subdivisions and site plans. Um maybe you can answer quickly planned unit developments, PUDs. If a developer wants to come in and subdivide within a planned unit development that has zoning already in place, that is an administrative approval as well. Correct. Just by you, Director Lloyd.

Yes. But if they come in and want to um take a piece of property and and propose different uses as part of that subdivision plant, they're going to have to go through a public hearing process through planning and zoning commission and council to get a planned unit development, which is a zone change. Is that correct? Right. So, in no case would a zone change be precluded from a public hearing?

That's important for the community to know. resonings, the ones that are often times the most controversial, will still have uh public hearing processes. That's very important. Um the other question I had, you know, I've got several things in here I want to hand to you that are just um some typos and a few things in here that I think probably you're going to work on with the attorney before it goes to council. I know that you were on kind of a time crunch, but I think there are a few things in here that need to be tweaked just for clarity. Um, one one of the provisions in the uh, ordinance uh, talks about how the developer um, is strongly encouraged to meet with uh, community members that are adjoining or adjacent to the subdivision or site plan that's being requested. Is there a way that we could change that in the code to require the developer to meet with uh the community members that are adjacent or adjoining the property since that wouldn't be a public hearing, that would be a neighborhood meeting,

can we require that rather than um uh suggested or strongly encourage it? I think that that is a definite possibility. That's one way we could in uh continue to uh gain some community input if we made that change. It's not a public hearing like you said, right?

But what it does is it at least informs those individuals that might be most impacted by uh a director or staff decision on a a subdivision or a site plan. At least they would know what's coming in. They could at least see what's being proposed. They might even share some ideas and thoughts. Obviously, I've always found value in public uh comment because there's many times we're all public up here as well. We have some planning experience, but there's a lot of people in the community that know even more than we do, especially in our neighborhoods. So, I would I would think we'd want to change that provision in this ordinance to make that a requirement. Um, if that's if that's okay, Jeremiah, that's that's one of my thoughts. Anyway, uh that would be one of the probably the biggest changes that I would see with with that. We may have some more conversation and discussion, but we'll turn it over unless there's other comments. Commission members.

Uh Mr. Engles, would you like to address the commission on item D2? Uh say your comments for D3 when we get to the item. Okay.

Thank you, commission staff. Um, Robert Engles, longtime residents, 1978 in Pinetop Lakeside. Um, first of all, I am uncomfortable thinking that we lost the local control. We are um as a community we have general plan. We have town codes. We have active uh citizens in the community and we have looked to our planning commission to guide by recommendation to the council and look at our town codes from the general plan down. there are a huge loss of the ability of the planning commission to influence uh the quality of development we get um in the future. And I think those of us that have had decades of time in the White Mountains have seen some of the qualities of life that we like tending to deteriorate. And we're going to change. We're we're going to continue to grow. But I am concerned that uh code enforcement and code compliance are things that we've lacked with. And when I look as a recent example, the Circle K store that got built uh down with the remodeling of the Pinetop Circle K, there was there is a requirement in our zoning code that the front 20ft front yard paralleling highway 260 and C1 zoning should be a natural forested uh landscaping. We have a landscape code too. And when I asked

why all the trees were gone and we didn't have what was approved by the planning commission, I was told by the director that the roots got damaged. Uh they had to take the trees out. They wouldn't have survived anyway. And if I didn't like what was there, I should go talk to the landscape company that created the new plan. Never came back to the commission. And I look at seven people up here when it fully seated and the diversity of the minds, the ability of you to know the codes, bring to meetings that individual knowledge and make your decision and then that helps what we get in the way of future growth for our community as being very important. I am here tonight on both these issues. Kind of relieved that Chairman Miller has suggested that maybe this could be delayed a little bit and the commission recommendation that would go to council will be able to have some changes in what's proposed uh in the draft that's this thick tonight. And I have hours of looking at this and multiple notes, but specifically on this agenda item, I would like to see the planning commission um not go ahead and approve it yet and even have some more input after today's meeting and perhaps a early January meeting of the commission could work on a best recommendation to go to council. the language that's in there uh regarding strongly urge a developer hold a

neighborhood meeting. And it's even mentions in there mailing out the surrounding property owners uh before the development comes. and the early action we can have as a community when a property is slated for development. Right at the top of the flowchart, there's no move there's no mention of a planning commission, uh, a anybody that would be related to forestry and all. I believe the only person up there would be the administrative staff, which I think right now would be pretty much just Jeremiah. I think the many different opinions and the sharing of information as Chairman Miller stated with the people that have been in the community, the surrounding neighbors could make a big difference on the quality of development and the fit that it would have for our community where roads or driveways might be located, the type of buffering. if we can impress upon potential developers a positive image and go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Engles. Um, you know, I wasn't suggesting that we table it tonight necessarily. I think that we're under kind of a mandate by the state to get something done here uh to council for their adoption before we have somebody come in and make a request. If that happens, um, then we have no rules, the state rules and state governance. That's the only problem that I see. Um, you know, we can't, uh, we got to have a process in place. I was talking to another community, uh, mayor, uh, of a community that I previously worked in. They just had their council approve it uh, last Monday night. So, this is a lot of communities are pushing real hard to

get this done before the December 31st deadline. We're not going to cuz we don't have a council meeting. Um what would be the impact of us delaying it for P&Z? Jeremiah if we

I would uh like to have it move forward. I think it's already like you said we're already behind the Aball here and uh I think that the suggestion of requiring a neighborhood meeting uh it it addresses concerns of the public. I think that that could that's an easy fix that we can that we can put in there to bring forward to the recommend in the recommendation to council. I think that that is actually u probably one of the best ideas. Um the other idea would is you know having I think I still left it in here was the requirement for the um um design review committee. Right.

And um the design review committee could be anybody from the public. It could be people from the commission. It could be people from the council. It's just not a public hearing. So, it it would operate similarly and maybe those two in tandem is enough to um well some of the um feelings of uneasiness understandably in the community.

Yeah, I understand the concerns and I think a lot of communities are concerned about the exact thing that uh Mr. Engles is expressing. You know, I think um I do think that the the key here is going to be that or the design review committee or I think it's a development review committee, DR. Um and I do believe we should probably look closely at who needs to be on that. Um we also need to ensure that we have some some pretty um not subjective but pretty detailed uh design standards and I know you have them. I know that when you review these subdivisions and when you review these site plans, there's a a whole recipe. You're looking at a whole list of guidelines that they have the developers have to comply with under the current code. Um there's nothing that he's doing that's subjective that's made up. Otherwise, we'd be challenged uh as a town if we're making up rules and uh that haven't been codified. So, generally what happens if you've got a very um experienced director uh overseeing this process um ensuring that they're on top of the codes, they know what the codes are. Um you know, you're going to get good projects because it's not a debate over whether a project um should be in a particular location or not. Zoning dictates that. We've we've had that conversation here before. the zoning dicties where the density goes, where the the different land uses are. But when you get into this process of subdivisions and site plans, you're really looking at a checklist of our our city code, making sure that the developer is complying with that. Um, the chart in here isn't supposed to have planning commissioner council on it. That's what the state's mandating that we get away from. Uh it's an administrative approval with the

community development director and others who are going to be uh involved in the review process of the other entities. Uh, we have a water company, a private water company, the Arizona Water Company, we have Pintop Water Company, we have the uh sanitary district, we have the fire districts, we have the forestry division, we have a number of other agencies that are going to be part of this review process to make sure that any developer coming in uh complies with all the their requirements before a final approval is given by the town. Even though that final approval wouldn't be from the commission or from the council, it would be from the town officials. Um, let's open it up. Any other comments from the public? Yes, sir. Can you come forward?

Thank you.

Thank you. Something just popped into my mind as we were discussing this and it seems as if the state has made rules and regulations brought on by probably big money from the developers and they are forcing all the other towns to adopt what they see fit or what they have been I won't that they see fit. Is it possible for us as a town to change a number of our codes to give a little bit more control back to the town's people to the board? And it would that be a possibility to to do? And I don't have an answer to that, but it's a a thought or an idea if we can tighten up add more to our codes to be able to get that voice back in. And if that would be possible, I sure would like to see something like that happen.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there people in the audience that would like to get up and address the commission at this time? I have a question. Um, so essentially the town sets the codes and then you will hold the developer to those standards of the codes. It's not your subjective opinion of what's going on. It's we the town has set the codes and that's what's going to happen. Right. Precisely. So it's black and white. If if you meet these requirements, then the answer is approval. And if you don't, then the answer is so proactively the commission can recommend codes and and and stuff like that so that we can develop this stuff in the way we that we'd like the town to go.

Yes, if I can answer that briefly, I think the commission can uh have uh future sessions to talk about code amend amendments and revisions. Those obviously have to be uh submitted to council for for their approval uh final approval. But yes, I think that there's an opportunity for us to engage the public on on uh maybe code revisions that are necessary. A lot of this stuff that we talk about up here uh emanates from the city's uh general plan. You know, the general plan here is not very extensive. It's what how many pages, Jeremiah? Um, it used to be a lot more extensive, but um, one of the prior commissions that I believe Mr. Engel sat on reduced it to something that and and I think that they did a great job. Honestly, they they made it concise for the layman to understand and it was approved by the voters and when they went out before that and did this extravagant general plan, it was too much information for people and it actually did not get approved by the voters. They're they're expensive to put a general plan together, but they are a guiding principle. They're a guiding document on how you what what vision you have for your community. Uh the short summaries, it's important that they're understandable, that they're in layman's layman's terms. You know, you get into the planning jargon and you read these zoning ordinances, uh people get confused. It's very, you know, it's very confusing, very difficult process for us, even as planning commission members and certainly the audience in these meetings to understand the jargon sometimes. I'm sure as planning uh as a community development director, some of this uh is not real black and white. Some of it's gray. Uh some of the statutes are are subject to some interpretation. So, we have legal counsel that guides us and directs us on some of this. But I do think that we probably in the future uh should look at what exactly what you're saying. Let's look at some of these, you know, as you

as you as we maybe move forward as a community and and look at maybe updating a general plan or zoning codes, let's look at what's not working and let's let's you know figure out how we can make those codes work for us. uh in spite of the developer not having to go through the commission or the council for the approval, uh they do have to go through and meet those codes. Uh again, like I said at the very beginning, the person seated in that chair over there as well as the development review committee are going to be critical to ensuring that we have the right type of development in this community. That's uh the type of development the committee would would would appreciate and would would would appreciate having in the in the area. Okay. Any other thoughts from the audience? Commission members, as you're considering a um motion, and we'll be calling for that shortly for this item. I would like, you know, as I mentioned earlier, to put a caveat or put in there that we that we uh require the developer of the subdivision to meet with the adjoining property owners. Adjoining meaning adjoining or adjacent exclusive of rightway. Meaning that if you have a street separating the project from a development, they have to go across the street and um and notify those property owners or or invite them to a neighborhood meeting as well. We have a a distance requirement right now, don't we? Within a certain distance

as far as notifications 300 ft. How much? 300 feet.

Maybe we could stick to that still, you know, rather than adjacent. Maybe we should go 300 feet. Keep it the same. Just just we won't call it a public hearing. It's a required neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood can't make the decision, unfortunately. and and it'll be an opportunity for the staff and others to uh maybe attend that meeting and explain to the citizens uh how they're meeting the the requirements of the code or how they're not and and as and help them through that conversation or that presentation. So maybe we'd stick with 300 ft rather than adjacent or a joining.

Yeah. I'd like for that requirement to be placed the burden upon the developer though. Yes, that that that would be the the developers requirement. It's not uncommon. I've done the private sector practice as well. I had to attend neighborhood meetings long before uh even planning commission meetings. Uh and I had to men minutes had to be taken at that meeting. the attendees uh that were present had to be documented and uh all of that had to be presented back uh to the uh community development director as part of the application process.

May we could get in the weeds regarding notice too. Are we have having every every individual within 300 ft served with a process server? Are they you know how what's notice look like? Right. So I mean we could probably get in the weeds on that but um what is it typically? Typically, uh it consists of me pulling that data from GIS and buffering at 300 ft and then giving those those addresses that are from Navajo County uh the same uh um entity that dis that uh disseminates our tax bills. That's where the information comes from. And then I'd give that to uh uh the clerk's office and and they do the mailings. What I would like to see is that the developer does takes that onus on them. Yeah. They have to attest that they did that. I don't know that we need to get down in the weeds about how it's done. It just needs to be done.

So, but by mail, could we stipulate that it could be That's how mail by mail. Yeah, we mail it to the same address where whoever is on listed on the county's records as the person paying their taxes. Is there is there a way to engineer some accountability regarding that? Uh, good question. And I think that we could have them attest to it and if someone comes and says, "Hey, I'm within 300 ft." And and I wasn't notified, then we could say, "Well, you didn't meet the requirement." I mean, that's similar to what would happen if we didn't notify uh everybody within 300 feet. We'd have to redo that meeting. Good question.

Yeah, I think the burden needs to be on the developer, not so much on the small staff that we have here to do that. For sure. Other thoughts? I have one more question. Yes. Does that have to include a time frame like a notification that you have x amount of months or weeks or days for those notifications to happen for that 300 ft? There's a provision in the we probably ought to have them I mean obviously they're going to have to do that before they come to you with their for any approvals. Um,

as far as the time frames, it just have to occur before uh it would definitely have to occur before the public meeting. Whatever time that was. I mean, we could set a time. We could say, you know, within two weeks uh you need to two weeks advanced notice, you need to notify everybody within 300 ft that uh you're considering proposing a subdivision within 300 ft for the benefit of the public. Um Director Lloyd, town doesn't currently have a town engineer. Is that correct? That is correct. So, what do we do about the town engineer reference in here? Maybe

uh there's reference scattered throughout the code. And I I personally, in my opinion, being a licensed professional civil engineer needs to stay there. But as far as uh why we don't have a town engineer, I think that there actually is a town engineer on contract. It's not me. It's not necessarily called the town engineer, but there's people that are on call. There's three different groups on call uh for engineering services. It's important for the community as well. These subdivision plats can there's a lot of engineering technical soils reports, geotechnical reports, um flood control, a lot of engineering design goes into these reviews. And I think a town engineer uh on contract is going to be essential. In fact, I think uh as you look at this uh code, this this proposed code, they have to sign off on the on the final plat uh as the town's engineer and they're an integral part of that uh that development review team. Um and I believe the whoever's making applications when it comes to the landscape plans, they have to be a landscape architect registered uh and an engineer of record. So these people that are submitting these projects uh obviously have the expertise to read the code to understand it and then to hopefully draft up something that complies. So you have that as an additional assurance that they're going to be complying with the code. In fact, it might even make them attest that they are in compliance with the code when they make that submittal. Maybe that's an option as well. So, okay. Any other questions or thoughts or comments? Chairman, anything else from you? Okay. Have a motion.

I do. I I move to uh recommend the town code uh title 16 subdivisions to comply with HB2447 and allow for administrative reviews without a public hearing to the council. Um but um stipulating that the applicant must provide notice of a community meeting uh regarding the project to addresses provided by the town all residents or concerned parties within 300 ft of the applicant's project. I might call it a neighborhood meeting rather than a community meeting. Maybe more of a neighborhood meeting. Neighborhood meeting. Yeah. I think that maybe implies the immediate area rather than a time frame of two weeks. Two weeks. Yep.

Did I not say that? I wrote it down. I didn't say it, I guess. Two weeks. Yep. Okay. Now, we have a motion. We have a second to that motion. I second that motion. We have a second. All in the favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? I've opposed. I don't think this serves the best interest of the community. I don't think that we uh necessarily uh disagree with that, but we're under a gun by the state. Talk to your legislators, talk to your state representatives. That's where it's going to have to change if you want to have more input. Comply with the state.

Okay, it moves us on to item. Go to the next here. Item D3. This is a discussion and possible action regarding House Bill 2247 and amending the town code title 17 related to site plan review. Director Lloyd, pretty much the same deja vu as the first case. So, probably less conversation here, but

yeah, this one's a little more painful of an ask because it removes one of the powers of the commission, one of the two powers.

Questions of director Lloyd, member, you want to address this issue as well for citizen. Thank you, commissioners. Basically, I have very similar concerns. Um, it's difficult with is the ramifications of the lack of public encouragement um actually discouragement by eliminating the public hearing and the noticing. And again, um, it was talked about historical sites. I would say the community has yet to identify a historical s uh, excuse me, a historical site within the community that they felt they would go through the process. So, it's like all this language in here is not relevant at this time to the community. And again, as we move ahead, trying to have codes that create a quality of life for present and future residents. It seems that not having the site plan review process, uh, even noticing is cut back. Now, unless people happen to see an agenda item that is coming up and they know that's something near where they are and they have an interest in it, they're apt not to know there's even meetings going on. the some of the different things that I thought found I thought would be important too to discuss is we in the

past had a town forester we have had uh the landscape code we used to have a committee that was called the open space committee we had a general plan uh I'm sorry general plan uh citizens committee and so there were people within the residential non-b businessiness development sector was an open space committee that got it uh put just abolished years back I have sat in with a coffee with the council recently Monday and I'm sorry Tuesday and uh led on the value of engaging citizens as our community grows. I feel that we need to move ahead. You as commissioners have taken on a responsibility to make recommendations to our council and deal with certain items that are the duties of being the planning commissioner. And I'm hopeful that we seem to have our arms twisted to just go ahead and and take this on now. That maybe between tonight's action and what is actually presented to the council that there will be some improvements in encouraging citizen engagement as the year goes on with this change in the House bill. And again, I am disappointed that it passed in March and we're here on December 11th for the first time talking about this. Uh the material that is in this I think is very important to the community and we're missing an opportunity to look at

it closer before the recommendation goes to the council. And with that, I'll step aside and maybe some others or you as commissioners would have opinions on this also. Thank you. Any other member of the audience like wish to speak on this item? Commission members in this particular item.

I think we pretty well discussed it too. You know, I again I think uh you know, we kind of you know, I think Jeremiah mentioned earlier, director Lloyd mentioned earlier that um you know, the original language uh suggested that it was the language was may rather than shall. Uh I think that is that correct? Do you know when that change do you know when that changed to shall I? I do not know when that changed. judge uh only found out about uh and working with other communities having to go through the same thing and then um uh then then started the conversation with the town attorney. So, uh like I said, initially when we saw this, it was a May and I thought, well, it's a May, so we're not going to do that because I don't think it's a great idea.

Mhm. Right. Okay. Um do we have a motion on this item? I move to uh recommend amend recommend amending the town code chapter 17.84 site plan and plot review and approval to complied with HB2447 and allow for administrative reviews without a public hearing to the town council.

Is there a second? I'd second the motion. All right. All in favor show by raising your right hand. Motion passes three to two. This is not an easy thing. Obviously, we we we don't delight in not having our uh opportunity to comment and have public input, but this is being forced upon us by the state. I've talked to an attorney as well. Um he talked to the town's attorney and uh former mayor that I was walking working with wanted to not approve it and the attorney said don't approve it and see what the state does and it was pretty much he understood we we we're under the the police powers that are given to communities cities and towns in the state are granted by the state of Arizona. Our whole zoning authority is granted by the state uh under the zoning um zoning powers u police powers public health safety and welfare. So we're here to ensure that. Uh so we're a political subdivision of the state under their rules and regulations. You don't like their rules and regulations. I would encourage you to call your representatives and explain to them your disappointment. Um my my guess is that one day maybe one of those representatives will be disappointed in the type of development that will go next to their home. Uh that would be uh be interesting to see how that works at that point. All right. Any other comments? I think that that wraps up our meeting for this evening. I'd like to adjourn the meeting. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?

I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. Motion to journ.