Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

get audio working on here. Zoom is not responding. You know, I shut it off when you pointed to six o'clock. Uh, we'll have roll call, please. Ease here. Gley here. Longer here. Milner here. Pinkerton's absent. Roar Schaefer.

Is she online? Mhm. Well, wait a minute. Uh, CO is absent. Sellers here. Webster here. Wendell here. Peace here. And class is absent. Do we have a motion for the minutes for the last meeting? Make a motion we approve the minutes of the last meeting. It's been moved. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Being none. The minutes will pass as such. Uh we have election of officers tonight. Yep. Yep.

Three years. So make a motion to retain the same officer this year last year. Doug Fe and Mr. Eids is vice vice second. I guess it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor by saying I oppose. There being none Webster's secretary also say and then appointment for leaison to Marshall County and TRC is usually Fred. Yep. Is that all right? I'll stay with the TRC and it's a package fee.

I'll I'll I'll stay with the county for another year. the other TR sleep member was gonna say in huh unless somebody wants to take another night off and go to the county meetings and hope they notify you that they have a meeting. Uh that's getting a little more difficult. It's all right. All right. All right. I didn't hear anybody jump up to volunteer. All right. Thank you. You get paid big bucks for that, too. Yeah. Same as this one. Oh, no. They get the founding guys get get compensated. You're the only one in there that doesn't.

Yeah. Hint hint. We We That We've heard that hint so many times, Fred. We're not going to fall for it. Formality should probably motion vote on that. Why not? You guys on on Fred as as secretary or as the appointment? Well, as I think as secretary it's fine because the motion was to retain the same state officers. Okay. But uh for the appointment to the county and to the TRC move we appoint Fred Webster for the TRC and as our representative the county planning commission. Second.

Been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. They're being done. We'll move. I believe we have two more seats to fill in the TRC. you're on there and you're also on there. When does that mean on when does CRC meet? Uh 9:00 on Tuesday. So we have business to transact. 9 in the morning. Yeah. 9 in the morning. Second and fourth Tuesdays. That'll work of the month. I uh uh I move we retain the other two just as they are. And since we don't have anybody else who's not here tonight.

Yeah. Yeah. So, Pinkerton, Republic Chaper, and Cord. Uh, we'll just we'll keep the two right here. They're all They all might get mad at us. So, I nominate these two for the other two seats. Do we need to do that? I thought we There's three seats. I thought I think we're appointed, though. I thought we were appointed. I mean, but we're not I don't It's been a while since I've been appointment is usually vendor here and that's only I don't know. Yeah, because I don't think I when I have gone, I do not vote. I I have to hit the Yeah. Well, there's really no vote. There's no vote, but I just go and listen. I'm just

All right. Well, I tell you what, uh, between Kyle and I, we'll find out what the, uh, uh, if there's an ordinance that dictates that, then we can correct it at your next meeting. All right, that'll be fine. You're probably going to have to go back about 10 years for that. Kyle's really good, is he? I I can look in the code if it's codified, but if it's not, how's the map? All right. All right. All right. We go on PC 202601.

I was almost getting your hands over the P. It'll be up there. All right. So, for your agenda, you've gone through roll call reorganization and minutes. So, for PC 2026 01, um they're not online, correct? Okay. I'd recommend just kind of sliding this until after PCO3 if that is okay with the board. You want to table this that towards the end of the meeting. They're not here, right? They're not here currently. They're not online. That's what I just learned. Yes. Okay. That's okay with the rest of the board. Make a motion we table this. You don't We don't have to rearranging. Rearranging the schedule.

Okay. We're going to wait. I see if they show up. All right. Got it. No. That's fine.

We're going to skip quickly to PCO2. So PCO2 PCO3 are amendments to the zoning and subdivision ordinance. Um rather than read you this long aspect, I'm going to go through it with you instead if that's acceptable. Uh for 2026 PCO2, uh for there are three sections to this amendment to the zoning ordinance. Um within article six, chapter 190 for the public improvement standards. Uh this is talking about sidewalks, who gives waiverss and how that whole process begins to work. This is a part of a essentially a two-part process that we're going through with amendments just because there's a lot of pieces that are going through it. Um this is coupled with the zoning ordinance, the subdivision ordinance and um city code as it relates to the complete streets policy so that they all align together. They all begin to make sense as to how all of them read. And so for this portion here, it talks about sidewalks. All developments shall be required to install public sidewalks along any public street within the adjacent to the development unless an exception is granted by the commission and approve according to the exception procedure of the PL streets policy. So we're looking to update that policy but we're looking to strike the portion where it says unless an exemption is granted by the commission which would be you. exemptions or waiverss or variances from the zoning ordinance is traditionally heard from the border of zoning appeals, not the planning commission itself. So although it was written in good understanding, doesn't necessarily apply to how and where it's located. Article six, which is where this portion is located, is a series of development standards.

Chapter 190 within article 6 is the 19th standard type within that chapter itself. We just added a zero. Why we do don't know but it just reads 190. The public improvement standards is what 190 is. And within that is section B which goes over the sidewalk requirements. And that's kind of where we're looking to strike this one portion of a sentence unless an exception is granted by the commission. So then moving on to section two. This is a part of a long section uh within article 11 for processes and permits. Um this one applies specifically to variance petitions. Um, we're adjusting the words uh for the required information to be may instead of shall for supportive information because for those of you that have attended or sit on board zoning appeals, several of the items that come through for different applications, everybody technically has to provide a site plan and that site plan has to meet certain details and not every pace makes sense for a site plan. A lot of the supportive information that's within the list does not make sense to require that of some members of our public that don't necessarily need that supportive information to assist their case. Some cases definitely need it, especially when you get into commercial development, those sorts of things. But when you're talking about a homebased business and whether or not they can put something on the property, it's usually not as big a deal to have that information present at that meeting. But a lot of your bigger cases or commercialbased projects where you're talking about a lot site plan aspects, then yes, you would want some of that information to go along to give better understanding of how that's going to

have an impact. So we're wanting to change the adjustment from shall to may. Um, and then at the public hearing portion, it's not uncommon, especially with larger projects or projects that may seek uh legal counsel where they'll send a representative in attendance. Currently, the way it reads, the petitioner and any representative, meaning that that petitioner must be in attendance. It doesn't have the option to have a representative be there on their behalf. So we're wanting to adjust that standard so that if the petitioner is unable to make it but a representative is able to be there such as their surveying team, their engineering group or their legal council are able to attend on behalf of that project making it so that they're able to attend without the petitioner specifically having to be there.

Do we define what representative is? No. Does something define what representative is? The representative is typically going to be either a legal counsel, the surveyor for a setback reduction or survey of sorts, somebody or an engineer, another family member, another family member could be in attendance. So if a husband fills it out, the wife is technically not the petitioner, but only at the same residence or like if I sent my uncle within good sense. on you though. Correct.

Shouldn't they have to provide some request in writing or some evidence that they're sending a different person than themselves?

In times when it's necessary, we'll make sure we have that, but oftent times it's not necessary. I just I just think of the new Dollar General case where all of a sudden there were multiple people in these conversations going why is that where did that company come from all of a sudden that's how large development works? Well, I know but I understand that but how do you how do you confirm that in fact that is that person represents that company? I mean, I know it's a stretch to say, well, somebody will just show up and say they represent a company, but uh I think you're stretching a little bit.

I just I just I want I'd like to have more assurance that who's speaking is actually the people who are making the decision. I don't think anybody's just going to show up. No. And I I I know that. So, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that. I just wonder why we wouldn't say, "Okay, if you're not going to if you can't come tonight, you're sending a representative. Who are you sending?" I was asking from the other way around that we wouldn't turn somebody away because they weren't officially a representative for like a a homeowner type matter. I've had a generation up or down represent.

Yeah. I've had um a member that was away at training who sent their father to come in and represent that case even though he's not the owner of the property. Neither's the sonically it was in mom's name. Okay. I always thought that was just kind of an unwritten rule that that's what we did and I I just because we've done it before, right? And so we're working to adjust and fix that. So technically we are following what we're doing.

If I could add a little bit for first of all um to Mark's concern the easy thing to do would be to say the representative authorized by the applicant of his writing again. So if they're sending a representative, all they have to do is send something either to Tai or send it with the representative saying that they're authorized to speak on my behalf. But or you do that leading toward Alex's point, my question would be what's what's the purpose of having the applicant here? And that is I believe to answer your questions. And then the question is, why does it matter who answers the question? Since you're able to get the questions answered, does it matter who it is who answer?

Does the qu does the answer to the question become evidence? So if the if the applicant comes back and says, "That's not how I would have answered that question." Well, you sent that representative. That's how they answered it.

There are no evidentiary rules. I mean, if if we're talking about if there were future litigation, what would be perent in the litigation is your findings. So, if your findings are based on those answers, then you have to be satisfied that you got the answers that you wanted before you make those findings. As an example, in a past case, we had a representative in attendance and not the petitioner slashowner of the property or the project. And that case ended up getting tabled because the representative did not feel comfortable making certain commitments. Okay.

That were not what was that's a risk that the petitioner or the applicant paid sending somebody to answer on their behalf. If they're not able to answer the questions and you're not satisfied and you deny the request or table it then that's on them. They didn't set

that's their timeline that they screw up. So if they're asking for a setback reduction from 20 foot to 10 foot and we look back and say, "Hey, would you take 15 because we feel comfortable doing that?" And the representative can't give a yes or no because it is not their physical project at the end of the day. They're the ones constructing it, but they're not the ones that's going to live with it. They're not the owner of that project. Yeah. if they're not comfortable making that decision. A representative is better equipped to answer the questions than the applicant themselves. And that's where you often have surveyors, legal counsel, engineers in attendance to get into those specifics.

We had people in here that well, I can't answer that question. You know, I just I'm not comfortable. We've had that in the last last year a couple times. Right.

And so this is just seeking to amend to how it's been operated in the past. Make sure that we have proper verbiage. Otherwise, your BCA is then taking the burden themselves in hopes that it's not litigated in the future for not following procedure. So that's where section two is seeking to make those adjustments. Getting into section three, it's the same aspects adjusting the required information from shall to may and then changing the representation from and to or section four similar aspect and it's in relationship to the zoning map amendment. When you're changing the map a bit, you're changing the zoning districts from commercial to residential or one color to another. Pick which two doesn't necessarily matter. The principle is the same. You're looking at or supposed to be looking at what are the available uses within that district and the district standards in terms of the setback requirements, the impervious coverages, those sorts, not necessarily the site plan that comes along with it because they are not held to that site plan. they are not held to that project. What holds is the change of zone. So therefore, within the requested information, it does not make sense for them to be required to provide you a site plan for a project that may or may not go. You're voting on whether or not that planning commission case changes one zoning district to another district. That is it. So seeking to amend that as well and making the amendments for the representation again from and to or and then it was a little too long could fit all on one slide. The rest of section 4 finishes out with the

petitioner section as well. questions, comments, concerns for the zoning map on this section, the zoning map amendment, special exception process, the variance process, and the sidewalks. Um, for the analysis, I kind of break this down and try to help consolidate a lot of that information. The zoning subcommittee of the comprehensive plan has continued to meet over the last several months. And I come to the latest update to amend portions of articles 6, 10, and 11 when pertaining generally to the variance procedure for sidewalks. The requirements laid out for various uh variance matters and representation of specific meetings is outlined within the zoning ordinance. The concern initially came up during review of the processes and procedures for various applications. uh to better confirm to conform with the existing operations and a simplification of the request. Staff presented the proposals to the zoning subcommittee. The update is split into a couple different sections. The uh section one seeks to um symbiotically amend the variance procedure with proposed amendments to the complete streets policy for sidewalks. Currently, the process is complicated and not proper and needs to be simplified. Section two. Uh this section seeks to amend what information is required to be submitted by the variance applicants uh to simplify what truly makes sense to be included within these applications. Uh section three, the section seeks to amend what information is required to be submitted by special exception applications to simplify what truly makes sense to be included within applications. Section four of this se section seeks to amend information uh is required to be submitted by the zoning map amendment applicants to simplify what truly makes sense to be included within applications and section five included in many of the above items. It

amends who it is required to be in attendance at different required meetings to permit uh a representative to be in attendance and carry the case forward without the petitioner being present. is through these amendments that it will create better clarity and reduce complexities within the administrative side of the ordinance administration. Now it is up for your recommendation. There is public hearing for this as well but at this point questions for staff.

Do we have any more questions? Can y'all hear me? This is Angie. Yes.

Hey, sorry I missed a roll call. My laptop died, so I'm on my phone now. Um, but I've got a question about the sidewalk piece. Um, will there be Oh, pardon me. Um will there be training for the uh zoning um BZA around just complete streets and the thought process around sidewalks and all of that like to ensure like a smooth handoff of this um task that was previously with the planning commission? I mean, they be presented with uh the staff report that goes over the importance of sidewalks and similar um staff reporting that the planning commission would have received historically as well.

Okay. But no specific training. No. Would it be possible to add that just to go over the complete streets policy and the multiple multiple modes of transportation for sidewalks and you know all all of that to just I don't know I was part of like the complete streets committee when we wrote all of this and I'm just kind of protective of sidewalks so I just want to make sure it's a smooth transition and nothing's lost in the translation. I'm sure it's something we can explore with the BCA and have a conversation with them about it. Okay.

So, what you're saying is if somebody brings in like we've had out there like Sure. We're they're putting in and we said, "Well, you don't have to put sidewalks in right now or some of the other stuff." So we won't be able to do that anymore. It would not be heard in front of this body. Now because sometimes it's kind of a uh if we okay for something to go in, it's kind of a bargaining thing we've used before. Mhm. Uh to make sure that we've gotten pieces of property for sidewalks. Mhm. So and and the BZA can do the same thing.

They have the ability to create conditions and commitments. Okay. And and I think the the reason for this really is that this is really kind of a weird situation. Every other variance from development standards and zoning ordinance has to be approved by the BCA. The installation of sideswalks is the only standard that is waved by the plan commission and not BCA which is confusing to applicants. And there's also coordination required under the complete streets policy for the border works as well. We're seeking to get that amended and clarified along with this.

So it's all one simple process rather than a procedure that's not currently followed. So if somebody comes with a subdivision they need to do and we approve a subdivision unless they get a variance from the BCA, sidewalks have to go in. sidewalks would go in unless party A grants that um proposal and based on this ordinance change it would be through the board of zoning appeals through the variance development standards process. The way we were doing it was kind of a one-stop thing. Then now you're going to require them to do two things is what it amounts to.

No, technically it's missing a step as it sits right now. There should have been multiple cases that have gone through the board of public works under the city streets policy. Board of appeals. That's what it's going towards. Right. You you said board of public works, correct? They should have been involved. So, we're working to get that fixed. Pardon me. Couldn't we make an argument that sidewalks are um something we're prioritizing on behalf of the planning commission and that's why it's different from everything else? Just to play devil's advocate here,

it the zoning ordinance has variances that goes through it and those variances go through the board of zoning appeals. The subdivision control ordinance has what's called waivers, which is the equivalent of a variance. um and it's not written in that location. So every other development standard one 10 series through 220230 within article 6 all go through the board of zoning appeals. And this one minor section only references the planning commission which contradicts the rest of how those procedures are written which does not make sense. Anything else? Uh, open up for public hearing. Do we have a motion?

Make a motion we open up for public hearing. Been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All right. Anyone from the audience have anything to say on this matter? All one of you. Do we have a motion to close? I make a motion we close the public hearing. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. I. You. I. I.

So, do we have a motion on this? uh either a favorable or a non favorable. That comes another question. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So, are we trying to limit these requests not to put sidewalks in? It's not trying to limit or anything along these requests for variances that I don't want to put a sidewalk in. Are we trying to limit that now or are we just going to We're not trying to limit anything.

I think we're trying to make it more streamlined for an applicant to develop a piece of property. Are you suggesting that putting in a sidewalk is somehow making it difficult to develop a piece of property? No. No. I think if if they had if they needed a sidewalk variance and they needed a separate variance, they would have to go to BZA for the other one and then come here for that sidewalk one previously. If you needed two different variants, two variances, a sidewalk one and a step back one, you would go to one meeting and another one. Yeah, correct.

Um it's not seeking to limit the public's ability to pursue a variance for sidewalks. That's not what's being sought. the planning commission but yet we've adopted a plan in the city for complete streets which includes sidewalks but yet we're going to make it we're not going to try to limit variances to not put sidewalks in but we didn't limit it before

I know we didn't but maybe we should the the intent with this change is is not to have any effect on the outcome. It's really just a procedural change. So that when an applicant is requesting what is currently a waiver of that requirement, instead of submitting a waiver request from the requirement to put it in a sidewalk, they're simply submitting it as a an application for a variance of development standards of the requirement to put in the sidewalk. doesn't change the requirements. I I don't anticipate it's going to have any drastic effect on the outcome. And certainly the administration's policy of favoring sidewalks is not changing. It's simply procedural change to who receives the application and makes final determination on that variance. But a lot of the requests by the staff has let us or we've been by the staff recommended that we waiver a lot of the development from having to put the sidewalks in lately. So like if we're going to require sidewalks then let's put sidewalks in. That's what I get irritated that we have these these ordinances and then we just waiver them all the time. Like that's if we're not going to care about sidewalks then just take the dang thing out and let them develop however. But like if we're going to

this is essentially our sidewalks. This is essentially make taking the decision away from the plan commission and putting it on the BCA now. Is that is that correct? You're shoving it over to a different department to make a call and everything. It's putting it where it should have been in the first place for a variance and development standard. Technically, there is no application for this waiver of sidewalk in front of the planning commission. you will not find it.

I I understand the streamlining of the process for the applicant, but I'm I still I think Ry's echoing what I'm trying to say is is we have this polic we have this procedure or policy that says we we we want sidewalks, but but now everybody and their brother knows that just go ask for variance. They won't make you do it. you know. Well, I think that's really the case. That's only going to happen on all throat. Well, well, I don't want that to be the standard, though. I think that's why I feel we set as a standard now. We're just going to keep waivering. I mean, everybody's going to different. Anybody want to build a sidewalk now just has to submit a request to the planning commission for the waiver.

And it's not the case that they just submit the application on other variances of development standards. It's not the case that they just simply submit their variance request and it gets granted. the the BCA makes determinations based on the zoning ordinance and circumstances of that case in the same way that the planning commission makes determinations for a sidewalk waiver. So do you are you suggesting that every I I believe this every case stands alone and the idea well you gave that guy a variance you have to give me absolutely so you do agree that that that is not wait a minute for my own sure

you you're saying that I am correct that there is no there is no precedence from one to the other or is precedence there is no presidential impact by previous cases If I give you a variance and no don't put you make you put a sidewalk in that doesn't mean I have to give him a variance. That is a correct statement. Okay. And and I think that's very well illustrated if you look at the easily cases involving requests for chickens. Um they they make it very clear that every every case stands alone and they are not bound by their decisions in previous cases

and legally that's true as well. there there is no binding presidential yeah but the facts the facts in each case are different so you take the facts from that case and you say how do I apply these facts to this case that doesn't mean I apply it to the next case correct and and what decision they made in any previous case has zero effect on the decision they're making in the case of

so so we're just correcting it needs to go to the BZA BZA needs to make these decisions not the plan commission. The fact that we have a difference of opinion that if you have somebody on Oak Road that they're the only one in the world that has a sidewalk out there, it's not going to do a dog on bit of good. Okay? If one lot has a sidewalk and you've got four miles that don't have a sidewalk, why would you force somebody to put a sidewalk in there? But you can force them to pay for that sidewalk when things start moving along at a later date

and and the BCA can make those same determination. That's right. So this Yeah. Uh follow up on this. Uh we have plans to make a sidewalk from uh west of the hospital all the way out to Walmart. Where where are we on that right now? We're in the process of going through the funding acquisition and grant process. Okay. Okay. So, we are still making progress on it. Yes. Okay. When does the funding stuff have to go? And we'll be making a presentation to end that on Thursday to uh hopefully secure that grand. Well, that's the that's the question somebody Well, we're not putting you know what scary, isn't it? Huh? No, I I' I've seen the presentation. I'm very confident.

I'm just That was my That's why people ask that people make sure that asked this. The project itself goes through and is built uniformly rather than different styles, different sizes. What's the uh what's the price tag on that project roughly? That's a question for the city engineer, I believe. Oh, what was the question? What's the What's the uh what's the bill going to be for the sidewalk project? What's the build date? No, the price of it. What's it going to cost? What are you What are you looking as it stands? It's estimated at 4.8 million. Four almost $5 million. Okay. All right. I'm just just asking questions.

Walk through. That's pre-esigned. Only we're off of it. I mean, is that on the hook for all the maximum from the engineer in 2031 when it starts construction? But I think we're So, are we making a Yeah. a recommendation to the council then or correct? This is only a recommendation. I move we make a favorable recommendation on PC 2026-02. I'll seconded. It's been moved and seconded. Um beforehand I do want to say usually Angie since you are online you will need to be visual during and you'll have to do a roll call since she's virtual. We're

voting. Yeah. Well, there's my dog. I can't One minute. Selfie mode. Well, I'm trying, but it's not letting me. Hi. Do you see me? There you go. Okay. Okay. There we go. Uh, we will vote by roll call then, please. Yes. Gley, yes. Longer. Yes. Milner, yes. Pinkerton, no. Schaer, no. Sellers,

yes. Webster, yes. Wendell, yes. Beast, yes.

Is that both of those together? No. Good news. The second one shortly

pretty.

All right. 226-03 uh for plan commission. This one's also a couplearter. Um, but I went through and I was able to break it down. This is in two different pieces. The first section to this is the subdivision control ordinance under section 1.11 uh the resubdivision of land or replatting. Um, replat's not requiring a hearing. So rather than so just to kind of put this as an example, we're changing the word removal to adjust and then adding adjust and not increase uh to the ordinance itself. So if you have two lots, one is a quarter of an acre and one is 3/4 of an acre and you wanted to make them both halfacre lots, you want to slide that property line over. That's what's called a replat. if it's lots three and four within that subdivision itself and we wanted to replplat the two of those currently you have to go through a whole process and come back in front of the planning commission in order to do this whereas if you make this adjustment to set of remove that lot line make it one whole acre that's the only way that you can accomplish that without um coming before the board and working with Dennis you go through and you just want to make it one whole acre, you erase the line, take it to Dennis, he signs off on it, it's all good to go. But if you wanted to take those two chunks and make them both halfacre lots, you would have to go through a whole minor subdivision process, come in front of the planning commission to get that signed off on when all they want to do is slide that lot line over. still has to meet all the standards, minimum lot size, minimum lot width, meet the setbacks, if there's development on the parcel, but rather than having to have them go through that entire process and a meeting itself, if you make these adjustments, it'll

allow Dennis to be able to sign off on that plat and they're able to move forward. Does that part make sense? So Dennis will make the this will be Dennis's thing then, right? Dennis as a zoning administrator would be able to be the one to sign off on that, right? I imagine Dennis and I would have a conversation about a project. Yeah. Before signing off on the too many of those anyway. It's not super frequent, but we've had one recently the Dollar General. Um, it would be one, but it is not a part of a subdivision that I'm aware of. Is it like number one up here?

No. So to replplat would infer that it is a part of a subdivision already. If it is a part of standard acreage out in the county where you're going from section corners being able to go from call out lines and surveyor markers that wouldn't be eligible under this understanding. Number one would be a minor subdivision even though it's a very very simple aspect. If it was one property south, it would have went to the county, signed off administratively, and they would have went not far on their way. That's because under the subdivision ordinance for the city of Plymouth, it's a minor subdivision.

If you do this with if you do the minor subdivision, then you have to have it surveyed. You have to have it surveyed both ways. Okay. All right. But it changes the it from an administrative process to a board process and that can save time. And from a simplicity standpoint, if I own both lots and I want to adjust the property line, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to have to come in front of the board to get something, typically it's going to be very, very simple. I've got three lots and I want to get rid of all the internal ones or I want to make two small ones on the sides and make a big one for me. I can't do that currently. Does it have to be by the same person?

It is not. It can be two property owners where they're wanting to correct a longstanding issue with a property line. They' be able to go through the administrative process with this amendment. This this also extends to the two-mile limit. Correct. Correct. It requires it to be a part of a subdivision. Okay. So, if you're in the two-mile subdivisions, you could do this. Okay. So, if you own three lots and you want to make it two or you want to make it three and you want to adjust lots, you can do that. But currently, the only way it reads is you have to get rid of the whole line. You can't just slide the line over.

Now, if you want to split part of that off and sell it to somebody else, if you want to add a new lot, then you're still following we're still we're doing right now. Correct. All right.

The portion about no increase is that you're not increasing any additional lots or anything along those lines. Yeah, that would not be a reap. You're adding to what was originally there. So, that's part one. Part two, we're going back to the Shay and Matt, the shall and may aspect, which kind of gets us into case one uh that we're talking about tonight. Uh upon request, the commission shall um review a sketch plan. We're changing that to may review a sketch plan or plan for a minor subdivision. So, should we have had this conversation post this approval council, the individual that has the case for us tonight on case one for a two minor subdivision, they would not have to come in for a sketch plan. They'd have the option to come in for a sketch plan to make sure everything's hunky dory, good to go. But currently, as it reads, it shall review a sketch plan. Trying to change that to May. make that process a little easier. So from an analysis standpoint, the zoning subcommittee of the comprehensive plan has continued to meet over the last several months and I come to the initial update to amend portions of the sub control subdivision control ordinance through a few reviews of three plats and minor subdivisions. It was understood that there are a few simple clerical amendments that can simplify and expedite the resident projects and reduce the need for meetings that prolong the process. The first section of the amendment expands the ability for the zoning administrator to sign off on lot line adjustments, not just lot line removals. The second section of the amendment provides option to the procedure when reviewing minor subdivisions on when to require the initial steps. is through these two amendments sections that it will create better clarity and reduce the amount of potential plan commission casework and reduce lead time on projects and development while still addressing the intent of the ordinance. That is up for

your recommendation. Any questions for staff? This one's shorter. Seeing no questions. Motion to open the public hearing. Second. It's moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Anyone from the audience have anything questions? There being none. Motion to close the public hearing. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I.

All right. Do we have a motion? Make a motion to favor recommendation on this one as well. Yes, the staff is recommending. Yeah, I'll make a motion that we give a favorable recommendation for 2026-3. Second. It's been moved and seconded. We will vote by roll call, please. Essley, yes. Longer, yes. Milner, yes. Robchuck Schaefer, yes. Sellers, yes. Webster, yes. Wendle, yes. Peace, yes.

Sorry. So, we're going to jump back to 20 26-01. Can we table the sensitive petitioners out here? It you can I wouldn't necessarily recommend tableabling it. It's not anything that's required to have public hearing. I know, but when somebody ask us something, it's sure nice to have them in front of us. It's the wish of the plan commission. I'd make a motion to table 202601 until we have a petitioner in front of us. I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded. Do we need to vote by roll call? You're

making a motion. I'd recommend it. All right, we will vote by real fellow eat. No. Wait, we're voting a no vote does not table it. Is that right? Correct. Correct. Yes. Longer. Yes. Melner. Yes. Rob. Chuck Schaefer. I'm confused. If I vote If I vote no, a yes vote is to table it. A no vote is to be against the table. A yes. Table it. No. Western. Yes. Wendell. No.

Peace. Yes. Six. Yes. Three. No. Motion passes to table. Six out of 11. All right. So that is the end of our cases building commissioner update. Nothing this evening. Uh comprehensive plan update. We have a zoning sub permitting meeting this Saturday or not Saturday this Friday.

It's not it's not Saturday. I've got other things. Um and then we've got our comprehensive plan meeting uh coming up later this month in January and we move those to quarterly. So, I'm excited to hear uh some of the additional updates from the other subcommittees. Uh got a lot of good things coming on and pretty excited that we've hit approximately 75% uh completion or ongoing rate within a comprehensive plan itself which again is very much unheard of in two years especially. So, very exciting to share that. Uh, other business. I do not have anything else and it's up to you for an ajournment.

Anyone else? Sorry. Anyone else have anything? Nope. Motion to return.

Second. I second it. All those in favor signify when I say I have for you. Not for you. Up the