Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

meeting of the Shauny County Planning Commission to order and we thank you for your attendance here. We will first have our I guess I am just uh announce the uh hearing procedures. The purpose of the public hearing is to gather information from the public to help the commission to formulate recommendations. In order to ensure a fair and orderly meeting where everyone can participate, the commission requests that you act respectfully to everyone in attendance and follow the public hearing procedures. The chairperson will call the public hearing item. The planning department will present the staff recommendation. Commissioners may ask questions of staff. There'll be a presentation by the applicant andor representatives. Commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. The chairperson will open the public hearing. And before we begin public comments, uh speakers will be limited to four minutes per person. Keep your remarks focused on the topic of the new case under consideration. This helps ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak and the [clears throat] discussion remains relevant to the item before us. The applicant will have a chance for rebuttal comments. The chairperson will close the public hearing. Commissioners may ask questions. There'll be discussion and then take action. Speakers must speak from the podium and state their name and address for the record. The chairperson reserves the right to establish the time limit which I mentioned was four minutes. The designation of a spokesperson for groups sharing a common point of view is encouraged. All comments and questions will be directed to the chair from the podium

and not to the applicant, the staff or the audience. When the hearing is closed, additional public comments are not permitted. Will you call the role? Dan Brian here. Myron Lenweather here. Chad Gearhart. Um Janette Johnson here. Rosa Kvassos here. Terry Robinson here. Okay. With five members present, we have a quorum.

Thank you. there been any communications from the public to the staff that we need to know about? Um just I would mention one email that was received in regards to the case. Okay. Um so this morning we received an email um from uh a neighbor in regards to the first case that you're going to hear um in regards to opposition. Um it's been printed and added to your packet for your review. Thank you.

I would I guess also just add since this is a rehearing or at least one of the matters is a rehearing that all emails or communications that had previously been presented um anything that we've previously heard at the public hearing um before would all still be relevant and apply that all still is applicable to to your hearing tonight. There been any exparte communications by members of the commission? No. [snorts] Any declaration of conflict of interest?

Then the chair will call the first item the conditional use permit and ask the staff to present.

All right. Thank you. Um my name is Perez and I'm the planning and zoning administrator. Our first item is uh CU2503 Hammond Partners LLC, a request for a conditional use permit to operate a short-term cabin rental facility. It's located at Southeast Woodring Road in Monmouth Township. Um it's about 119.10 acres. Um here you have the general location um of the site uh by the shown by the blue star. Some background. Um, this item was heard at the planning commission hearing on September 8th, uh, 2025. The applicant originally submitted a request for an RV park and short-term rent cabin rental facility proposing 43 RV spots and 24-bedroom cabins. After the submittal, the applicant reduced the number of cabins to 12, eliminating all that were located on the west side of the property. During the public hearing, the applicant's representative attended. They provided comments and answered questions. 12 people spoke in opposition, none in favor. Five letters of opposition were received prior to the hearing. Um, the staff findings were the proposal met the golden factors and was recommended for approval with conditions. Um the planning commission action there was a motion to recommend denial which passed four to zero. After the meeting the applicant's representative contacted contacted planning staff to discuss public and commissioner concerns. Uh the board of county commissioners heard this item on December 8th, 2025. Staff advised the BCC that the planning commission recommended denial of the original proposal. Staff also noted that the applicant had revised proposal and

recommended returning the proposal to the planning commission for reconsideration. The BCC voted three to zero to send the matter back to the planning commission. So, the revised proposal um they eliminated the RV park. Uh now they're going to be offering short-term cabin rentals only. Uh 15 cabins. They're going to have a maximum stay of 14 consecutive nights. uh they must vacate this the property a minimum of five nights before they can return. They're going to have a camp manager on call 24 hours a day within 30 minute drive of the park. They will also have a backup manager available for emergencies. Um as stated uh they're going to have 15 cabins with the max day of 14 consecutive nights. um reservations and guest rules. Um were there were there were no changes to those. Um same thing goes to the lake use and recreation. Um under vehicle and site management as mentioned before, the camp manager is going to be on call 24 hours a day within a 30-minute drive of the park. And then they're going to have a backup manager available for emergencies. While no single golden factor is controlling all factors were considered in the writing [snorts] of the original staff report and this update, the golden factors as are as follows. One, the character of the neighborhood. Two, the zoning uses of nearby properties. Three, the sustainability of the property for the uses to which it is restricted. Four, the extent to which the change will affect the nearby properties. Five, the length of time the property has been vacant as vacant as zoned. Six, the gain to the public health, safety, and welfare by the possible um diminuation

in value of the developer's property as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual land loaners. Seven, the recommendations of a permanent or professional planning staff. and eight the conformance of the requested change to the uh comprehensive plan. So here um number one character of the neighborhood. The property is located in rural area of Mammouth Township and surrounded by agricultural and large lot single family residential use. The proposed short-term cabin rentals build upon the property's historic recreational character, which was Camp Hammond, and will continue as a recreational destination. Operational rules and restrictions ensure comp compatib compatibility.

Compatibility, thank you, with the surrounding neighborhood. Um, number two, zoning uses of nearby properties. All surrounding properties are zoned RA1. The proposed cup is consistent with uses permitted under RA1 by a conditional use permit and provides a recreational use that complements existing rural and residential land uses. Three, sustainability of the property for uses to which it is restricted. The property is sustainable for recreational development due to its size, existing lake, and historic use of a camp. The proposed short-term rent cabin rentals are a natural extension of the sustainability and utilize the site without requiring a reszoning. Four, extent to which the change may negatively impact surrounding properties. Uh potential impacts such as noise, traffic, and activity would be addressed through operational rules such as quiet hours, pet restrictions, and so on. The property's large size and separation from neighboring residents further minimize potential impacts. Five. Length of time. The the property has remained vacant as zoned. Um the property has been used for recreational purposes since prior to 1981. The proposed use would continue this recreational function maintaining consistency with the property's historical use. Six. relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare versus hardship to land owners. The proposal will provide recreational opportunities, promote tourism and generate econom economic activity. Seven, recommendations of planning staff. Planning staff finds the CUP request reasonable and consistent with zoning regulations and the comprehensive plan. Eight, conformance with the comprehensive plan. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan which encourages recreational

development that enhances quality of life while preserving the rural character of the county. The proposed short-term cabin rentals align with these goals by providing low impact recreation with within a larger rural setting. Here we have um the update the updated site plan. Um as shown uh you can see the cabins are in purple. Here's the vicinity map. 13 letters were sent to property owners located within 1,000 ft of the site in Shauny County and Douglas County. At this time, one letter u was received expressing opposition. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions. The applicant must ensure that the driveways and turnarounds areas are adequate sized to accommodate uh Shauny Heights Fire District's um apparatus. Um, documentation demonstrating compliance shall be submitted to the Shauny Heights Fire District for review and approval. Two, the on call manager must maintain an up-to-date list of campers and cabin occupants available to emergency responders upon request. Three, a designated severe weather shelter is to be identified to ensure adequate protection for occupants. The location of the shelter must be shown on the site plan. Details of the shelter shall be reviewed and approved by Shaunie Heights Fire District prior to operation. Four, the applicant must coordinate with cellular service providers to evaluate and improve cellular coverage if necessary to ensure reliable access to 911 services. Five, the applicant shall coordinate with Free State Electric

Cooperative to determine the appropriate type and extent of electrical service required for the development. All necessary improvements or extensions shall be implemented prior to occupancy. Six, the applicant shall contact environmental health to determine the appropriate permitting requirements for wastewater management. If the site's estimated water usage is below 15,000 gallons per month, a county permitted lagoon may be allowable. In that case, a soil profile test must be conducted to determine the required lagoon size. If water usage exceeds 15,000 gallons per month, a KDHE permit will be required. Seven, the applicant shall coordinate with Douglas Rural Water District number three to ensure the proposed water service is adequate for the development. If any additional meters or infrastructure improvements are required to meet the demand, they must they must be completed prior to operation. Eight, the applicant shall coordinate with Kwaka Township in Douglas County to address use and maintenance responsibilities for road roadways serving the site. Nine, the applicant must operate in accordance with the business plan submitted on October 3rd uh 3, 2025. Any changes to the scope or nature of the business shall require uh shall require require review and approval through an amendment to the conditional use permit. 10. The applicant shall utilize the access route map submitted on June 26, 2025. This designated route must be published and clearly communicated to all guests and visitors. 11. AT&T has indicated that presence of buried copper within the rideway on east side of e first road. The applicant must coordinate with AT&T before commencing any construction activities. 12th. The applicant shall ensure the removal of the existing

driveway at the intersection of 1500 road and Southeast Wooding Road as required by Sha uh Shauny County Public Works. And that concludes um this item. Thank you. Commissioners have any questions of the staff? All right. Then the applicant is to make a presentation.

Good evening. Lee Hendris, uh, 1800 Brickyard Road. I'm general counsel for Bettis Companies. Included to that is Hammond Partners, who is the applicant this evening. Thank you for for putting that up, Brie. Um, there has been a as as Miss Perez just stated, a unique trajectory um to this application. I'm sorry. laser pointer. Here we go. Unique trajectory uh to this proposal. And I think it's important I know I spoke with some of you in September. Some of you I did not speak with, but I think it's important to to walk through kind of what's occurred. Um because it will in many cases answer some of the concerns that will be brought forth to you this evening. some of the concerns that were brought forth uh in front of the board of county commissioners last month. Um as discussed, this this came in front of you in September and in [clears throat] pre-meating discussions and during the review by your staff, it was brought forth that uh if I can do this on this perhaps.

Can you guys see that? I can't. When you did off to the wall, it showed up. I'm wondering if the TV Y we'll go old school. [clears throat]

It was discussed by Shaunie Heights Fire Department that cabins which were originally uh discussed to be on this west side would be concerning to them because of access over that dam uh of emergency services. So prior to coming before you after hearing that concern we remove those westside cabins immediately. Uh so yes, I would certainly agree with folks who have brought this up. The plans, the application did change prior to your meeting, but it was in response to the concerns that were brought forth by the Shauny Heights Fire Department. Uh after your last meeting, your meeting in September when I appeared in front of you, there was uh numerous concerns brought forth about the RV side of this application, namely the 44 uh possible RV spots. Those located in this area on the east side. Um, discussions were had about concerns with with RV traffic on Woodring Road, uh, damage to those roads, um, and and frankly the itinerate nature of RV campers, concerns about safety and the like. Those were brought forth at that meeting. Uh, between that meeting and the meeting with board of county commissioners and my discussion with your staff and In response to those concerns, we discussed the removal of those from the discussion points. Um that occurred prior to the October meeting. Um and so now we've gone from as you saw earlier uh 24 cabins and 44 RVs down to 15 cabins. I would state that 15 cabins is a max. And by that I mean I think we would begin with five and see what the demand looks like. I just don't want to come back in front of

you if it increases to 10 or increases to 15. So, uh, RVs are out, west side are out. Um, at that October Board of County Commissioners meeting, we knew going into that that we were going to recommend uh removal of from the the item from the agenda coming back in front of you. Um but still that hearing goes on and at that time um I didn't feel comfortable when the matter was called to speak uh or to respond because it it hadn't been uh it we knew that the end result was that it was going to be sent back down. I just bring that up because there was about 30 to 45 minutes of comments and I understand the commissioner's approach, but they allowed comment at that time and I didn't have the opportunity to respond to any of those comments uh or concerns then. So, I I just want to bring those things forward to you this evening again so that perhaps it helps us in dealing with some of the issues that might come with the folks that are here tonight. One of those items was was notice. As Miss Perez discussed earlier, the is not in charge of notice. It was your staff that sent that out. [snorts] I know there were discussions about Monmouth not receiving notice, about certain neighbors not receiving notice. I appreciate those concerns, but that is not on the applicant. That is put forth by by staff. And from everything I can tell, it was done correctly, but I just want to make make it clear notice was not uh on our on our side of the agenda. Um, one of the things that was discussed uh, ad nauseium at the October meeting was the fact that the scope uh, of our proposal changed twice before the meetings before your meeting and then changed again before county commission meeting. I understand if those changes adversely affected the

neighbors in a negative way. In this instance, I think it's clear we lessened the impact both times those changes occurred. So, while I appreciate that an amendment, yes, did occur prior to each meeting, both times it was in response to concerns either from the Shauny uh Heights Fire Department or from the neighbors themselves. If I had increased the impact to the site, I think I'd have more concern uh and I would understand the concerns of the neighbors. But in this case, both both instances, we lessen the impact. So I I see, you know, I think to claim that that was damaging to the neighbors is is misleading and frankly disingenuous. Lastly, I discussed with your staff um understanding, you know, for for 20 years I've I've sat in those chairs uh as counselor for entities like this and I understand that when you're supposed to to uh appear and and hear a matter and change that. A lot of people do show up. And in this instance, at the board of county commissioners meeting, it was done during the workday at 8 a.m. I shared with your staff my concern on that. I can't send notice out, but I spoke with two neighbors and told them a week prior to that hearing. I understand this is still on the agenda, but it's our intention to send this back to the planning commission. And while you c have the right to be present and be there. I do not intend to argue the matter. The matter will not be pursued today. It will be sent back down in front of this body. Uh in fact, on on October 7th, I spoke with Tom Medil and specifically asked him if he was able to speak with some of these neighbors to discuss my plans and he said they were well aware of the amendment and he would

share my plan with the signal group chat with these neighbors. So, we did everything we could to try to inform folks that were showing up during their workday that that was not going to precede that date. The the claims that occurred both in front of you in September and in October, I just want to run through those quickly and discuss my thoughts and responses. I want to make sure we all recognize this is not a resoning request. It is a it is a request to allow a use pursuant to a CUP. And this is an approach that has been contemplated by your predecessors on this board and those who drafted your regulations. Um, this is a use while not identical, it is a use that this property was allowed to do previously, not only contemplated but allowed in the form of a YMCA camp uh amongst all of these neighboring homes. There was a claim at the board of county commissioners meeting that it was just um a western portion of the parcel. We no longer that was subject to the prior YMCA camp. That is not the case. It is it is the parcel in question. Um impact on roads. You may those of you who were here last time may remember there was discussion on the impact on roads. There were multiple individuals who commented that that these roads were for agricultural use not RV or passenger use. I I had a hard time understanding that frankly. I think that agricultural use can many times be heavier than than RV traffic and certainly passenger traffic. But I would state that in this instance RVs are now off the table. So we are talking solely about passenger traffic for initially five cabins and perhaps up to 15. If there is wear and tear on the roads from passenger vehicles for five cabins, that is not an issue with our application. That is not

an issue with H That is an issue with those that are working the roads, whether it be Monmouth Township, whether it be whether it be Shauny County. This is not high usage. This is very low usage given what we're talking about. Uh deteriorating Woodring Road. Um this is a very valid concern that was brought forth by numerous neighbors uh last month. northbound on Woodring uh from the northeast corner of the parcel. If you take that road, there are portions of it that are dangerous and not good for RV use. I had discussed when I was in front of you last that in the event we proceeded with an RV park that we would do everything in our power to ensure that no one came in or went out on RVs to the north. Again, RVs are no longer part of the the equation here. We're talking about passenger vehicles only. We still would stress through no left turns coming out of the property and everything we could to try to keep those passenger vehicles off of that north portion of Wooding Road. But again, we're talking about passenger vehicles, not RVs, and a much lower number of them coming through. Uh, you know, road safety is a township and a county issue, not an issue for the applicant. U employee housing, this is something that's come up at both meetings. This is something that's come up on social media discussions on this application. I want to make it abundantly clear. This is not being used in any way for employee housing for Hammond Partners, the applicant, for Bettis, or for any of the Bettis companies. That is a sexy comment to make online, a racy one that people might be attached to, but it is not a fact whatsoever. Uh, in our conversations with your staff, we

specifically stated that a shorter duration of time to stay at the property, 14 days in this instance, with a 5day off break would further hopefully show folks this is not about long-term or even short-term housing for employees. I cannot state it enough. Uh, it might look good on Facebook or Twitter, but I'm telling you that is not what our intentions are with this property whatsoever. um safety and and proximity to to neighbors. Um certainly one of the concerns and I I discussed this earlier was the proximity of the RV park to the folks who would have been who live over in this area. Um again, the RV park is now out of the question. Um what we're talking about is is cabins at the center of a 120 acre parcel. These cabins would be located right here at the center of this parcel. And you can see the amount of tree lining we're talking about. Before I was here in front of you discussing how the trees along this road really block the view looking in to west. Well, now we're talking about all of this tree blocking where this would be. Mind I just have a very short video I want to show you. Before you start, if you might, this is the northeast corner. U as we were looking before the northeast corner of the parcel we are looking south down Wooding Road. This is where the entrance is at this time. Uh one of the one of the points the requirements of this cup is to move this entrance so it isn't confused with 1500 road or directly across from this property owner's entrance. So this road would be made pretty much square and come out here in this spot. So, while it's coming from the corner now, I can show you back on the GIS what the intentions are. If you wouldn't mind playing the video. What I want to express here is the distance we're talking about from this road. This

is a a row of trees you cannot see through. But for where this gate is, but beyond that is a field of crops which will still remain during this time. You're traveling down this road. Now would begin the buffer that I'm talking about of trees that are blocking that from all of the neighbors to the east again further down that road. Now you can see where the lake would be. Again, as I discussed, the cabins would be right along this bank area. Gives you a bit of a look to the south and to the west. Now to the north. Again, the separation with all of that tree line. Now you're looking due east. I think here's where our Yeah, my drone guy that was miss me. I think he got a little overzealous. There might be a little spin here for those who get dizzy. You can see that tree line I talked about along wood and again that thank you that road you go back this road would be straightened in order to meet one of the requirements of your go. you came in on that flight from there. I I think it's important to show you this because if this isn't a reasonable site, you

know, your your regulations um have contemplated the existence of a cup of this nature on a property like this and if it isn't allowed on a property like this with this kind of tree line around it in the center of a 120 acre parcel, again, no RVs, um just cabins in this area here and possibly here. If if ever there was a an application, this is the one. And if it's not this one, I question when a CUP of this nature that comes in front of you would be reasonable. I I think you could serve on this body for 30 years and not have a situation where a low impact project is this covered from all the neighbors all around. Another concern I I I would I would mention one last thing is someone at the board of county commissioners meeting discussed uh dirt had already been moved. The project had already started. No no dirt has been moved. No projects have started. I think some folks have been there fishing, but you can, you know, hopefully you could see from that there there's no uh excavation. Nothing has occurred on that parcel to date. And you can tell from that video, that video was shot last week. Uh, another item that that you heard two months ago was uh water service to the property. There were multiple individuals who stated that um they had family who had attempted to get a water meter or a benefit unit in this area that they were told that there was no more left that it was some deal that Bettis had in order to get this when others couldn't. I I want to be abundantly clear prior to meeting and coming in front of you before we were told specifically by Douglas World Water

3 that at 44 RVs and 24 cabins there was sufficient water service with a single meter to serve all of those folks. We are now down to at most again at most 15 cabins, five being the initial approach. Water meter uh one water meter is still more than sufficient to satisfy that. I verified that again with Douglas County Rural Water District number three. And in fact, we went over and purchased two benefit units. So there's no doubt about availability. Those are in our possession. Uh and Water is not, you know, there may be things that come forward this evening. Uh, water availability is not a matter for discussion this evening. Um, hunting rights. Uh, Tim Fritz is the is the property owner to the north. uh he didn't uh state this to you at your meeting in September, but in October he stated to the board of county commissioners that he had comments with a game warden who had recommended a 200yard buffer for firearms. Stated that he had hunted on his property to the north there and that uh that was the recommended buffer. I'd like to think we all recognize this, but if we don't, if my client chose it could build a home right here or right here, right on that property line tomorrow with no need for any sort of conditional use per just like any of the neighbors can on an A1 property. So to claim that there should be some sort of hunting buffer from the north property to ours is ludicrous. There is no right. Should I and my son choose to go out on that property and fish, we have the same right that the

right for some neighbor to hunt firing onto that property does not trump our right to peaceful use of our property. So, while I understand that might be how that property is used, certainly without a cup, without anything in front of this board, a home could be built right up on that property line legally and with no question. And we all agree you shouldn't be firing into your neighbor's home. Now, while I'm saying there's certainly more distance from here to there, I would still be concerned about someone who thinks it's allowed to fire into your neighbor's property, whether you're in the county or not. dangerous proposition and one that I was very concerned about when it was raised previously. Those are just a few of the claims that were raised and I no doubt will be raised this evening. You know what are we what are we left with? This is a not in my backyard matter and that's okay. I understand not in my backyard. I think it is fair of neighbors to say this is not a project we want on the property next to us. And I wouldn't ever argue against that. But by the same token, we have the right as a property owner of this 120 acres to apply for such a use. The county through its regulations has contemplated such a use. And as I said, if not in this instance, 120 acre park parcel in the center of it with an impact not being 44 RVs and 24 cabins, the impact being five cabins and at most 15 cabins. If not there, then I don't know what instance it makes sense. We've twice taken comments and considerably reduced the impact of the project significantly in response to what folks here had asked for. You know, one of the claims that has been made at both MA meetings and online is that the

Bettises don't care about Shauny County. This is not the Bettis don't live here. This isn't their neighborhood. Someone they don't want to be a good neighbor. Someone who doesn't want to be a good neighbor, pushes forward with this plan full boore, doesn't listen to the comments we've discussed, and doesn't take the impact from 44 RVs and 24 cabins down to 15 at most. A good neighbor doesn't. A bad neighbor doesn't do that. Uh, the Bettis Sports Complex here in Shauny County that isn't near the Bettis homes. Does that make it less of a benefit to the community? I think we'd all agree that's not the case. Um, this is a unique property. You can tell from the video and it is one that is not found in many places around the county. They came to me and said, "This is our vision for use by citizens of this county and otherwise. We have attempted to make it as reasonably sized as we can to meet the demands and concerns of the neighbors. And I think that's abundantly clear with our revised application. I I truly appreciate the comments of the folks that are present and I think that proof positive of that appreciation is the fact that we've repeatedly amended this to try to make it something that is amendable to neighbors as possible. I just hope that as you hear these additional comments, we focus on the facts and what are truly matters at stake in this and not Facebook comments or things that are put forth in the hopes that uh they'll get clicks and get views when I've made it abundantly clear many of these matters just aren't at stake whatsoever. Uh I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again and I will be uh stand for any questions once the u comments are made by the neighbors. Thank you.

Do the commissioners have any questions at this time? I I have a a question. I understand the the road in question from which this will enter. It's Southeast Wood Woodring Road by Shaunie. The North South Road. Yes. Yeah. Is that Shaunie County and Douglas County have the same same name? I see. I thought I saw something else, but that that's the questionable road. That's the road we are talking about. Well, that that is one that is on that is the county line.

And as far as questionable, what I would say it it is the one on the east side of the property, but the part that the neighbors and again, I've driven it many times are justifiably concerned about is northbound. There are two very low water areas that that could be dangerous um but are dangerous for all the folks who own homes north of there as well. Again, with RVs, I completely understand it. Taking RVs out, I'm not as concerned. So, my question is, is is there any kind of confirmation of who which county is going to take responsibility for that road for maintenance? Yes. I think I probably asked you guys that question. I'm not 100% sure.

Is that a question for us? Um, it's already Woodr is already under maintenance and I believe it's Monmouth Township for the portion that's maintained by Shaunie County. Anything that's maintained by Douglas County or their townships, I'm I'm not 100% certain, but Monmouth Township is the one who maintains Woodr um along this area. It's just that the road seems to be somewhat of an issue that we've heard in the past as far as its condition. U and uh and you haven't talked to any either either county in regards to the the maybe the prospect of of upgrading the road somewhat at least you know gravel or whatever. I I certainly think um had the had the plan proceeded with RBs that would have been a necessity. Uh there is discussion as one of the requirements of the CUP um from your staff that that conversation occur. I think any improvement that can occur on on Wooding Road benefits not only the folks that using this property but also the folks that live along that that road. But with the traffic passenger cars to initially five cabins. I'm not as concerned as I was before. And again, we would stress in every way possible. Um that any traffic leaving here does not go north. There would just be a no left turn. Everything is south over to 69. Um so that conversation is a is a part of the cup, but certainly I think it is less of a concern when we're talking about minimal passenger traffic versus 44 RVs at a time. Yeah. But that conversation hasn't happened yet.

It has not happened. No. I I will point out though that anytime we have these applications, we do send them out to all of the appropriate entities and none of those entities have approached us requesting any sort of update. So that's not a requirement or that's not a condition that we've placed on the applicant because that hasn't been requested by any of the entities to us. Thank you, sir. Yeah, sir. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Yes, ma'am. At one point, you said or in our information, it said 12 cabins as a maximum, but that's changed to 15. Correct. So,

but starting with five. That's right. When when it was it was reduced from 24 when it was here and here from 24 to 12 and then the 44 We took the RVs off and then like I said, I'm not a betting man, but I don't think 15 occurs unless it's a really popular spot. But again, I don't want to come back in front of you. I don't want to say 12 or 10, even though I don't think so because I I don't want to come back and add three later. So that's correct. And in your business plan, do you prohibit firearms or is that

I would I would certainly say it's prohibited. The question legally. It just becomes what can and can't we do for someone who enters there? You know what I mean? Um I know you can't frisk everybody.

Correct. Correct. Yeah. But again, I I I want to double down on that earlier firearms comment that that was is really concerning to me is again we have the right to peaceful enjoyment of that property and that would be the same of any guests who were to come to that property and I just I'd have a real difficult time understanding how just as your neighbor should you live in the county can't go firing with the concern of a bullet going onto your property. The same applies in this instance whether it's a single home that is completely allowed by the law as it stands now or or up to 15 cabinets will be allowed by a CUP. Thank you. Thank you.

I have a question. Um in the plan you mention that they someone can rent the property for 14 days and then they have to vacate the property for five days. Correct. So, how will you or is this something you can even ensure if um I rent it as Rosa Kavaso's and my significant other rents it as Joe Smith, but the first 14 days is under my name, but Joe Smith, we're not married or Sure.

You know, how is that an issue? Has that been thought of? Because then that's 30 days, nobody's leaving technically,

right? I mean, I I think you could use that. We we model these off of Shauny County's uh or rather off of Shauny Lakes policies and an effort to try to find something that if you ask why, we could say we're just trying to find something that's been used and proven as valuable. There are always I mean, I can always find a a a roundabout way to get around that. You're you're right. And there is no way I could stand here in front of you and say definitively that if Joe Smith is there for 14 days that that yeah Ann Olsen doesn't show up and do it and they and but I guess what I would say is you will have a manager who's on the property and I think it would be determined pretty quickly when the same vehicles are there, the same people are being seen, things of that nature. and and frankly that five days we discussed that as an effort to try to um thwart the concerns about employees. If if we made it 10 days as a term of the cup, wonderful I don't have any problem with that. We're try I'm trying to show things that are just not a factor in this and that employee one is not one of them. But I think that you know someone could get around that at Lake Shaune or anywhere else given the approach that you had. The only thing I would say is that would be up to management. With a smaller number of cabins, I think management would have the ability to say, "Boy, this looks like the same people." Did they catch it on the 15th day? No. Did they catch it on the, you know, before the 30th? I bet so.

Okay. Thank you. Um, what was my other question? I had one more. It'll come back eventually. I'll be back. Yeah. I'm like, "Oh, is it going to be open during the winter time as well?" That's our intention. Okay.

That's our intention. My guess would be it would not be much of a draw. So I say that now to leave the option open, but I could certainly see a situation where if it's up and running and we find boy, come this weather there's just a dip, that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to have a manager out there for one property or two. And that's when I get a little concerned about the nature of the the tenant that is staying there at the time. So it could be something where we say this is closed between the months of November one and March or whatever the case may be. But at this time we have it limited. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I got one question for you or maybe I'll see how you feel about it. Maybe Jonah can answer. Okay.

But so under present use we're saying that this is a continuation of basically a cup from Hammond Park to a recreational destination. Do we have any indication? I mean since 1981, I mean in the last 10 years, is it being used as a recreational park for the YMCA regularly?

Well, it was while they owned it. And I want to make sure I'm clear on this. I I stress that it did have a CU. It has a CU on it, but it was for recreational outdoor activities, fishing, hiking, camping, uh but not cabins. That is certainly a new element just as RVs was as well. I think it's important to recognize that those who sat in your chairs before you realize this property and the value of a property and had to have that cup once your regulations were passed because it was a it was in violation under the regulations and then they allowed it under uh the the cup. Uh is it exact? No. But is it similar? Certainly the uses are similar.

I would also point out that this is not a continuation case. Um, it's not that we're trying to suggest that it was used in the same manner and that they're just applying to continue to use it. If that were the case, they would have had to come back and ask for a conditional use permit. They could have just used it. Um, that special use permit, like Mr. Hendricks said, was put into place and it was used in a certain way. We propose or or utilize the information about Camp Hammond for historical context so that people can see and understand what parcel it is we're talking about how it's historically been used uh memory lane. There are plenty of people in the county who have have been out to Camp Hammond or had been out there or you utilized it when it was the YMCA camp. We use um those for planning purposes so that we can portray which property it is that we're talking about and why it is that they're choosing to utilize it for this this particular use.

Okay. Any other questions?

All right. Then the chairperson will open the public hearing at this point. And I just want to remind everybody that speakers are limited to four minutes each. Uh remember to state your name and address and sign in um before you speak. Hi everybody. I'm Ken Corbett. Uh a representative of these people called me a while back and said, "We'd like to get together with you. There's something we need to talk about." That's the only reason I'm here. Some of the concerns that was brought to my attention that you're going to hear are tons of this tonight. What do they rent for? Are they commercial or residential taxes? That was some of their concerns and the uh will come out later, but the water issue seems to be big on their their agenda. Uh one person will probably say tonight he tried to get a water meter turned down, then they found two more. If you've got 15 units, you would think you'd have to have 15 meters. That was their concern. So for some of you who are not old enough, back in the 50s and whatever went through a drought and they had to drill county wells to get water and I from what they tell me I don't know this but this project goes through there'll be no more water meters for their area that's the issues they brought to me it's something to think about and I'll stand for questions if you

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is uh Jose Castillo. I live on 7946 Southeast 69, which is directly south of the proposal. First of all, uh the planning committee made a determination that the proposal met the golden factors. I have to take a closer look at the proposal as the golden factor test. I respectfully disagree at with their conclusion. Character of the neighborhood is single family uh dwellings agricultural. This right here, the steak alakas, they're trying to put 15 dwellings on one property. you know, we have neighbors that have attempted to put one building in our uh in their property and was rejected. So, you know, to me, you know, that's not right. That's not fair. In addition, you know, what is the comprehensive plan for the county, you know, for the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years in the future? Is this does this meet that plan? We have never been provided with any type of plan. Then we're looking at what is gained by this. Nothing is gained by it except by the betettis. You know, yes, our fears are that it's going to be used as a labor camp. You know, they actively are recruiting H2B workers. You know, I don't have any proof that that's what they're going to use it for, but once they get those workers and they start housing them there, who's going to monitor them? It's them that are monitoring the situation. Of course, they're not going to call themselves out on it. And as you indicated, yes, they can put one name on the uh reservation, two weeks later they can change it. I know that because I worked at Shauny County at the lake and that's what they attempt to do. And you know, and we call them out on it. Said, "No, you have to move here." It's them guarding. It's like the living the fox guarding the hen house again. There's no real oversight on this, you know, and so yes, we don't know who's going to be there. We have women,

children that are out there that are either playing or walking out there. You know, we don't know who's staying there, who these men are that are going to be there. You know, as you know, when people uh go home and they try to wind down and you have these workers there, they're going to be out there. They're going to be drinking and probably even have drugs with them. So, that is a major concern for us out there, you know. So, what I'm asking is, you know, don't do this to our neighborhood, to our community. We have major concerns. I have pictures here of the road the way it is right now. They're proposing 15 cabins, two cars per cabins. That's 30 vehicles. You look at the way our roads are right now. You know, yes, I'm passionate about this because I'm out here. I moved out there 23 years ago and built my house out there because I wanted to be away from the city, away from business, commercial properties. I wanted to enjoy my nature, the solitude, and this is going to be a total disruption of that. Thank you. And I'm sorry if I get a little emotional, but this is where I live. This is where my neighbors live. You know, this is what we want. You know, all we ask you is to let us live our lives the way we believe in it. We have somebody that's coming out there that doesn't even care about it. They're they're going to just cram this down our throats because because they can. Thank you.

I'm Aaron Hoffman. Uh 6645 Southeast Woodring Road. I said it before, I'll say it again. There's not one person in front of me that would want this in your neighborhood. There's there's just not. So, if you vote for this, that just tells all of these people you do not care because it's not affecting you. So, that's why I'm actually confident that I'm looking at pretty normal people up here and I'm thinking you probably vote against it. We chose to live unlike him 23 years ago, seven years ago, I decided to move my family out there and it's pretty sweet. You know, this doesn't look like maybe a lot of people if this was happening in Sherwood where we moved away from it would be down the halls and everybody be like, "What is going on? They want to put an RV park right in the middle. I paid how much? Million dollars for this house next to the lake and they want to put a So yeah, it'd look a lot different, but this is a lot of people from the community and we need to forget the economic benefits that this would bring to our area. I guess our kids can have a lemonade stand finally. I I guess I mean there's no economic benefit. They want five cabins. I'm just I'm just thinking I'm not super smart. Didn't go to college. I am a business owner, but I'm not saying I'm a great one. Have you thought of I don't know how much that property is worth, but if you've ever looked into opening an Airbnb and how many what at least a couple million dollars for this property, I'm guessing you want five cabins. You have a maximum

night of 14 nights. Who out there is paying $700 a night for this premium location for a twobedroom cabin up to 14 days? No, you're you're in Kansas. This is not a hot spot. You're going to get $150 a cabin probably. I mean, if you're staying for 14 days, who in Colorado is going, "Yeah, we're going to Bitton to stay at this lake, how much you got. Why do you want only five cabins?" Maybe it's because you want your foot in the door. Because this is your toughest battle. I get it. He's doing a good job. He's got his neck on the line. He's got somebody to answer to because he's a performer. We are preserving performer preservers. We're trying to keep the area how we moved out there for. That's all I got.

Hi, my name is Tim Fritz. I uh own I live at 5937 Southeast Woodring. just wanted a little bit of a rebuttal on their council's diagnosis of my shooting buffer. Yes, there someone could build a house there. They could build three houses there. But us as neighbors, we stay in contact with each other. We know where people are at. I mean, let's not blow smoke. Everybody in here knows what's going to happen with these. They're they're going to be a work camp and there's going to be they're two bedroomedroom cabins that are mobile. You can pick them up with a forklift and move them wherever you want. They two bedrooms, how many bunks can you fit in there? So with a house being built or three houses being built on that frontage, I'm dealing with one maybe two hunters that I stay in contact with every day and not dealing with 66 people who may want to hunt that I don't know nothing about. So with that being said, I you know I we're just like everybody else. You know, we got almost a million dollars wrapped up in this property. and to watch my property values go down is not something I really care to do. We had a a a PowerPoint prepared tonight, but we were told that we could not present our PowerPoint, which I realize now that was a farce. So, with that, I'd just like to say please cut us some slack. Thank you. My name is Jerry Edmonds. I live in 1468

East First Roseberry in Kansas. This is my house. This is my mother's. This is all over in these streets. Venice put all over one of them right there by Mitch's house these people bother Mitch turn the other day and wanted to take a picture because you could not see where you were And we are when when it was camping, we had people coming to the house in the middle of the night. That's before I built my house at my mother's house. Coming to the door 3:00 in the morning because they got lost walking up and down roads. That's not going to happen. What's going to turn out for keeping on? They want to decide to put camping spots in there later or add more later. It says, does it say that you can't add more anywhere? That's got to be cut off. And I really with his drone flew flew along this road, but he stopped right here. He says that We're all going to be here. This is a retention pond

and this is a real sharp bill. This is a real sharp bill. I'm afraid for Mitch and his family more than I am concerned about myself. Yeah, the migratory workers, that's the thing we're worried about. There is not enough water to serve all those houses and not take it to where we have low water pressure and can't use our I don't care what the water district says. It's too It can't have anything smaller than a 6 inch water man. And that would either have to run across Mitch's property or my property. That's not going to happen either. Thank you. My name is uh Jim Modic. I live at 1554 East One Road. It's about a half mile south of the Camp Hammond or half mile north of the Camp Hammond property. I just want to go uh on record to say that uh I'm opposed to the to the change in use permit. I've lived at this site for 32 years, this house, and we plan on living there a good many more years. We hope.

What concerns me a little bit is even though it's now down to 15 cabins, that's going to be additional impact. on the roads. That's going to generate about 30 more vehicles, which is about an 80% increase in traffic that's there. Now, you've already heard about the bus turnaround. That's a significant concern in terms of the safety of those children. And the bus can only go halfway in from roughly 69th Street to 60 61st, something like that. They can't go across the low water bridges. So, they have to turn around and come back out to the south to complete the bus route. The other thing is the change in the environment. You can't go from a rural urban or I mean a rural agriculture environment that single family homes on individual lots and then add 15 cabins in a small area. That's a change in density. It's a change in type of occupancy. Those are transients. They're not people that have ownership. They don't have the the pride of ownership and taking care of everything. So, I'd like to basically say in closing that um I am opposed to this and ask for a favorable vote for us who are pat our community patrons for this area. Thank you.

If there's going to be a security issue, we will address it and ask people to leave. I'm not looking at you. I was looking at the woman in front of you. Please stop because we can't ask you to leave. Good.

Good evening. My name is Kyle. I live at 1542 Road, Bington, Kansas. Um I know like when you guys went over the golden factors and how they met all the golden factors, most of that was based on the history of it seems u when it used to be a YMCA camp. Um they bought this property not as a boy camp to continue in the same continuous use permit was originally designated for. This is basically a subdevelopment that will have people come and go no part of the neighborhood. Um how anyone can say that this meets these factors does not fit the reality of the neighborhood from character to safety or relative gain to the neighborhood. In fact, this is ab there is absolutely no gain for anyone that lives in the neighborhood or surrounding community where the roads will be used from all directions. Both townships that maintain the roads, Canwalka and Monmouth are strongly against this proposal uh due to the already poor road conditions. If this passes, it could lead to more building, setting a precedent, further disrupting the balance and character of a rural residential and agriculture neighborhood, compounding every one of the factors that they did not satisfy. They um if this gets passed, everyone will be affected on the road and within a few miles and not in a positive way. Property values, noise, pollution, safety, like I said, not a single golden factor has been met. They will be the ones in charge of the campsites. no oversight or overseers and they can do what they want once they get a permit to improved. If this is denied then no one is hurt can still use the property like they have for the last several years just like every all just like all the other neighbors do. Uh they are not not out anything no financial loss if it is denied while on

the other hand everyone else will be affected negatively if it is approved. Thanks for your time. Please vote for denial and not pass this for individuals for one individual's business endeavor as so many others and who won't hurt financially one one bit unlike the harm that will be done to all those who live nearby for years to come. Thank you. [clears throat]

Good evening. My name is Pat WZA. I live at 1568 East One Road, which is about 3/4 of a mile north on the east side of the road from the proposed development area. One of the things that was mentioned earlier by the representative for the project was that when Tim Fritz mentioned at the county commission meeting about the thousand foot barrier, there's been a little bit misconstrued. What that actually was was that when that was when you call that a public access as a comp campground, there is a restriction under Kansas state hunting regulations, if there's a public access. You cannot fire a weapon within 1,000 ft of that. If that was considered a public access campground, that would affect negatively Tim Fritz's entire south property line. That is the entire north boundary of this. That is when wildlife and parks recommended if it was considered as a public access which I do not believe it will be considered as a public access. That's why he was trying to get clarification when he says that they have minimized all the time on this that they that every time they have minimized the impact on the on the neighborhood. We appreciate the minimization of the impact but it's kind of like shoving a knife in eight inches and pulling it out four and acting like you did a favor for me. One of the things that I see here in this room is a tremendous amount of support of people that are not for this that are opposing this project. I would like to see a number of hands of the people out here that are supporting this project. To the best of my knowledge, there's one. The people that are opposing it have taken time off from work. Even though we were supposedly contacted, a lot of us took up time for work because there was not a definitive answer of what would be voted on at that county commission meeting. The individuals that came here in support are paid to be here. He is paid to be here. One, these individuals in support of denying this are paying to come here with their time, with their money, with

their efforts, and with their sleepless nights because they're going to see their property values devalued. I've lived out there for 25 years, and I've called the law numerous times. There's been trash cans stolen and lit on fire. And it's never people in the neighborhood that are doing this. This is a very desolate road. And he would I would agree this is a very beautiful area out there. But let's leave it that way. If in the very first meeting it was proposed of 67 units, it was stated this is not a money-making scheme and then it went down in number and then it went down in number. Now we're down to five and up to up to 15. If it's not a money maker at 67, where are you going to make money at five or 15? So again, you got to look at what's the motive for this. The thing that I keep hearing is that 30 minutes away with a site supervisor and then I hear there's going to be a manager on site that's going to determine whether or not if people are staying for longer terms or not. Is there going to be a site manager on site or is there a site manager 30 minutes away? Who's going to monitor the sound? Who's going to monitor the animals? Who's going to monitor the fire pits? Who's going to be contacting law enforcement? Who are we supposed to contact when we have conflicts with these individuals? You look at the the aspect of somebody said that this provides us financial opportunities. Somebody addresses where those financial opportunities. There's financial opportunity for one person, one person only, the owner of that property. And as the previous one said, if you deny this, nobody gets hurt. Everybody goes on. We all own our land. There's people that have been out there since the 1860s taking care of this land directly across from this property. You've got somebody here that's owned this for seven years that wants to come out there and upset the entire neighborhood. When it was YMCA and campground, I can understand a conditional use permit because that's a good use. Let's get the kids outside. Let's teach them archery, hiking, hunting, healthy habits outside. That's not what we're looking at here. This isn't for children. This is for grown adults.

They talk about they're going to put signs up there when you go out to say, "Oh, you can't turn left." How did you get there in the first place? Every one of you that drove out there, if you did, plugged it into your phone like everybody else is with a GPS. And if you live west, east, or north of 1600 road, which is 53rd Street, or east of One Road, which is Woodr Road, or west of that, north, that is going to bring you up the level of road that is going to bring you up the stretch of the road that the attorney has agreed is unsafe. the United States Postal Service has discontinued service on that portion of the road because it's unsafe for their carriers. I understand that. Yeah. So, he says maybe this would improve the roads. Can walk it and Monmouth has both said they are not going to dump any more money into maintaining those roads and I agree. We've taken the RB aspect out of it out. But every one of us neighbors knows how to drive that road and we know each other and we toss slow down at the top of that hill. One of the things that's never been addressed, are there going to be are there going to be any art uh ATVs, UTVs, ETVs allowed in this whatsoever? Got people running up and down that road up there. We don't know who they are. Again, who do we call? Who's going to monitor the fire pits? When you've got fires out there, you've got 30 minutes away from fire of any time. I appreciate your time and I would appreciate you guys. I am opposed to this and I appreciate you turning down this once again like you did the first time. Thanks for your time. Good evening. My name is Nancy Sexton. I live at 1498 East First Road. Our driveway is right in line in line with the north entrance onto the Venice property. I want to say that I'm uh opposed to building the recreational camp there. Mostly it is security. We have had issues in the past since owned it. They had family members come out and their

up and down. It scared our cles, almost injured the husband. We've had to call the sheriff because of people uh not on the vet property, but along the road doing meth, you know, drug. Um I just want to say I oppose it. Thank you for your time.

My name is Barbara. I live at 6423 Southeast Wood Road. I'm 80 years old. Can't hear too good. Can't see too good. I'm hoping that you guys can hear better and see better than I can. I'm hoping you can see through what's going on here. Um I'm worried about my safety. I live I'm living right next to where this is going in. This is my backyard. I have a picture window. I can see the lake. The drive is going to be coming right in almost next to my driveway. I live with my son. He's going to watch. So, I'm not going to get out of control here. I'm going to stumble over my words here probably. I'm worried about the safety. I'm worried about my safety. This is in my backyard. I probably will get out of control here. We have teenagers in our household. I live with my son and daughter-in-law there. They invited me to come live with them. Thank goodness for them. They invited me to come. I like it there. I don't want it to change. I can see all of this change. All the a lot of foliage. It's all dropping now. I can't see people leaving living in those cabins in the winter. We in the middle of winter, we've had power out outages. I can't see people living there in the winter time. They'll be without power. How are they going to heat themselves? How are they going to live there, get in and out, get groceries? Could be days without power. How are they going to survive? Are they going to be knocking at my door? Are they going to be hopping over the fences? Are they going to be looking in my picture window? I like to watch the sunset come down. Are they going to be looking in my picture window when I'm watching the sunset come down? Do I pull my drapes?

Do I open my door when I hear a knock? We got that will protect us. We've got guinea hens. Are the alarms going to be going off all the time? Guinea hens go off all the time making all this noise. Are my alarms going to be going off all the time? Are the dogs going to be barking all the time? Is my life as I know it going to change? I don't know. Can you see through this meters? How did they get meters? And I causing Can you see through this? There's some underhandedness going on here. Somebody's got to see something going on here. It's not right. There's something wrong. I'm I'm Robin Edmonds. I own the property 1452 E1 Road. Uh I looked it up this evening. My family has been there since 196 1967, excuse me, 57, sorry. 67 years. And people really realize what a pain in the in the neck having that thing back along the road there that is not watched. It's closed now. If you open open the gate and allow the public in, the traffic's going to be terrible. We have very very slow time and responsive of uh law enforcement there and

I'm opposed. We stop with that. Thank you. Hi, my name is Mike Stewart. Pardon my voice. I I have got a cold and I apologize for that. I'll try to be as clear and and succinct as I can. Um, my wife and I uh moved out to 61st and Stubs in 1991. So, that's about 35 years ago. And we were the border of Camp Hammond on the north and then of course later who sold off that part and another person has established a home on the west part. This is the east part of that property that you're talking about because I went out there as a little kid and stayed overnight. I've always loved Camp Hammond. And so as my adult life proceeded, you know, into the mid 40s and 50s, I volunteered through a friend named Bruce Holt who worked at the Y to be part of the Cam Hammond mission for taking little out. And so since about and I can't tell you the exact year, somewhere in the mid to late 80s, I've been on the Camp Hammond board for the YMCA had its own board. The North Y had a board, the Central Y had a board, and Camp Hammond had a board. I was also the president of that board for quite a few times. During that period of time, we had a lot of uh events for kids, but we never did have, and I want to clarify a little bit here for you, we never did have any vehicles in this area at all for about three and those are located here. and about

member named Ron Brown, a real police department at the time and also a retired Marine, brought his marine troop out there and cleared all that brush and created three campsites. But those, like I said, were only tent camping. So there's never been any vehicles on that side from the Y uh business except during the time when there would be day camp established. They would take the bus into the swimming beach, swimming beach right here. And they use that old road and park the bus right there. And then they would swim. It was never overnight for that. take them back either up to the cabins because in that eastern half there were cabins that have been there from I guess the day they first got to camp. So, um my wife and I like the solitude. We sit on the patio every night and watch the deer honestly and sometimes turkeys, occasionally coyotes, bobcats. Um we also have rattlesnakes and cobra heads. I've managed to catch four cobra heads on my patio in 30 years. Not that that's a big risk, but it's something else to be considered. Some people don't much like camping among the snakes. Um, we're opposed to this simply because it violates two or three things that we consider kind of values. One is the original intent of the camp was always to be a pristine wilderness place and for use for kids. Um, I know that the family who owns it now could easily donate it to a couple of different entities where that could be preserved. Um, I also like the state has a program for managing properties if they if it no longer fits their need or want for a recreational place, which is why they originally bought it. And you know, they used to run the quadrunners all over the place and we could hear them and all that. It's kind of a little bit of a

disturbance of the sound, but they usually quit in the evening and So, I'd like to see them do something like that. All the projects that they have done have benefited the community in which they were located. For example, the baseball park,

uh, the lake, beautiful stuff. But I don't think this project would demonstrate any kind of value for the community in which it's located. So, my wife and I are both opposed. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mitch Ston. I live at 1498 E1 Road, uh, directly to the east of the proposed site. Uh, my family's own that property where I'm now the fourth generation to either farm it or live on it. I've watched the area grow up from only a couple of houses to the houses we have now. all these people I thought were interlopers that came out but now consider them all friends and almost family. Uh fortunately I don't foresee that happening with this proposed campsite. These aren't people invested in the neighborhood. Um I just I don't see the value that it brings to our neighborhood. Uh we've already had to close uh the Douglas County the North 1500 road. We petitioned Douglas County to have that closed because of people uh coming from town, tearing up and down the road, as my wife stated. Stampeding cattle just about cost me my life. Um yeah, I just I'm not a good speaker. I apologize, but I'm just not happy with this. I'm concerned that it's going to just drive down our way of life out there. just having additional transient people, not employees, not workers, whatever, just folks coming in out that we don't know that we don't can't get to know. It just I don't know. It just feels like it's just going to ruin our

neighborhood. So, I'm opposed to this and I thank you for your time. Um, my name is Melody Claire. I live at 6530 Southeast Dubs Road, 7 and a half years. Um, which is, I guess, Kitty Corner from the proposed location. Um, just to be clear, as a Mexican woman, um, I was born in the 70s, grew up in the 80s, I lived in Oakland, um, for 30 plus years. So, we were a very tight community because everyone knew each other. All the parents always kept us in line because we knew how it was. It was very old school. Um, you know, if I did something wrong, my parents were going to find out about it. That's all the way that's the reason why it was that. Um, my husband and I both have four kids in this community, all attending all school levels. My son is a senior now. I have three daughters, 15, 12, and 10. My husband's goal was to give our kids the same upbringing we had as kids. Um he's given up time of his hard work, family time, weekends, holidays, everything to get us out into this community where we could live like we did as kids that I could literally just let my kids go play in the woods, make boards, stay out all holler when my kids were ready so we could live that life. It is because we know our neighbors, because we are all invested in our community and the schools, not for just a day, a week, two weeks, because [snorts] we live there permanently. We deliberately paid extra money. We saved

thousands and thousands of dollars to be able to live into a better community so that our kids could have the life that we did that gives them the freedom to play, to be children off of electronics as we did. Um, if this were to happen to our family, um, we would be limited to what we could do. That's all there is to it. We paid for our land because we wanted to invest in our family in our community. But the people who would be coming, whether it be for cabins, RVs, from my understanding, he he he kind of flip-flopped in that a few times where I heard he said it's not completely off the table, but for this discussion, it was as minimum as this, but probably maybe this. And again, I'm in agreements. If they get their foot in the door, who's to say what else will they require? You know, more approval for that. My worry is is that once that foot is in the door, there's no telling what can happen. So, I leave you with two questions to ask yourself. If you lived where we lived, would you want that cabin place next to you? Would you be up here opposing it like we are? The second question is if an entire community, which we all are opposed to, if we are all opposed to this, why would you force this on our community? There's only one person to gain anything from this, there's an entire community that's going to not benefit, and we are going to be the ones paying it in the long run. Thank you. Hello again. Uh, my name is Crystal Wesley Arrington. I live at 5829 Southeast Wood Ring Road. I'm one of the

people that said it before and I will say it again. I did not receive a letter regarding this conditional use permit proposal. Um, however, that is because my property is located 2,000 ft away from the property, the proposed cabin rental site. So, I'm not within the legal 100 ft requirement to notify. However, this is my children's bus stop um right across from the uh uh primary exit that they're moving down the road um where my 15 uh 13, seven, and sixyear-olds, three girls and one boy get off and on every single day. U moving this down slightly doesn't stop anybody from seeing a bus go back and forth with small children on it. So, um, just so you know, any instance of an assault, rape, kidnapping, or worse caused because you decided to allow this establishment of revolving neighbors happen, those extra 1,000 ft mean nothing. However, emotions aside, as you are not accustomed to make decisions based on concerned parents, um, so let's talk about the things that you do consider. the golden factors um the golden factor factors that were listed here. I'm actually quite surprised and almost baffled by the fact that this is outlined in the proposal. Um because if you actually look at it, it's more generalized responses made to satisfy checking the box on an application guised as addressing community concerns. Apparently, it fooled someone because it made it this far. So, let's go through the actual facts. what the golden factors apply to on Wood Ring Road. One of those, the character of the neighborhood. It is a RA1 rural agricultural district, a low density rural environment with limited infrastructure and services, a

quiet rural lifestyle, space for agriculture or hobby farming, fewer neighbors and natural surroundings, protection from urban sprawl and dense development. the zoning and uses of nearby property. Another golden factor, the RA Rural Agricultural District zoning is designed to preserve farmland and support aggregate agricultural activities while allowing limited rural development and to prevent encroachment by urban or non-aggricultural uses. Land use here includes many legacy farms whose owners are not current currently interested in urban encroachment. Another factor is the suitability of the property for current zoning. Well, the property is correctly zoned as an RA rural agricultural district. It is currently used as a recreational property with open pasture consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and low density residential uses. the COP, I'm sorry, the COP would change that substantially. Another factor is the impact of removing the zoning restrictions on nearby properties. Um, while the proposed short-term rental, it would negatively impact the nearby properties by increasing traffic on rural roads, introducing noise and activity inconsistent with the quiet agricultural character of the RA1 district, and reduce the privacy and security of the long-term residents. Another factor is the length of time the property has been vacant under current zoning. Um the property was bought and I think around 2018 and has remained unused, undeveloped apparently for fishing um until uh by coincidence um you know this year the uh big beautiful bill act brought tax credits to short-term rental

property owners. I think that was enacted in July of 2025 and then we got this in August of 2025.

Can I just make one more point that um I have a lot more things to go over that I'm not going to be able to, but this whole side to the north here that is not going to be used, it's barely even usable by the people that live there. Whenever it floods, which it regularly does, as soon as it snows, there's an 85 foot hill frock. That's our emergency route to the south to the people that live there. And you're asking for it to be worn down by people short-term rental properties, 15 cabins, two cabins a day, 60 people a day, possibly. You're taking away our emergency.

Great. Garington 5829 Southeast Wood Road and I oppose to this. Thank you.

Uh Terry Adams, 6525 Southeast Wooding Road. Lived out there. We enjoy that for 13. We we moved out there in 2013. Um, I can't really everybody's covered everything that uh I was going to have and everything, but I uh want to say one thing that uh I know well I'm not on Facebook and I don't have access to Twitter or anything like that and uh because I don't get into that but uh I do for practically know for a fact that that this place we don't need it out there. There be too many people, more traffic, and I know it's going to be a camp out there for workers. Thank you very much, Bill Boner. I'm the clerk for Mama Township. Um, we maintain the E1 E1 road, Wooding Road, that mile section of it. We have a contract that signed years ago with Camwaka Township. Uh so we don't have to fool with the center line of the road. We maintain this section of road. They maintain the north part from 53rd [clears throat] to basically 61st Street. We also uh maintain 69th Street. Um a lot of people don't know this, but January 1st of 2027, Shauny County is turning the road maintenance back to our township. So we're going to additional traffic on this. We're going to have to fix these roads. We may not have the money to do it. We got a lot of other roads we got to get taken care of because the lack of maintenance currently just I'm also a bus driver for the school district and I've been there for 15 years. We cannot go down over those low water bridges. Buses have to turn

around. One time I had a route that was out there We are against it because of the additional traffic on our roads. Thank you.

Joy Adams, 6525 Southeast Wooding Road, Bington, Kansas. Your representative says that that place is remote. It won't bother anyone. Well, you're talking about a revolving door. Strangers coming out, coming and going, coming and going, coming and going. A revolving door. So, it's going to affect someone. And that place is in everybody's backyard. I don't know how he figures it ain't going to bother anyone. The roads are bad. They're going to get worse. With that much more traffic on them, you're devaluing our property. increased traffic walking for people walking, horseback riding, bicycling and he's five to 15 cabins don't matter. Well, it does matter because that's that much more people are revolving door of people coming and going. Strangers in our neighborhood coming and going. Okay. And I didn't learn about it on Facebook e either. I heard it through around that way through the Bettises. Somebody knows somebody. Somebody knows somebody. Came from Bettis about the migrant camp. And there's plenty of ways you can get around. You got to be out by this time. Oh, heck, we got 20 people in this cabin. We'll just put it in this one's name. So, and even if it wasn't a migrant camp, we don't want the strangers coming and going in our community. continuous and driving on our roads. All righty. Yeah. Self service when they're storming. Who gets sell service? Who gets sell? I mean, you don't even get a TV where we're at

when they're storming. You have nothing. You're out there watching. So, that's a safety another safety issue. I don't know. I don't know why you would guys would pass this when you're affecting everybody. You're affecting a lot of people's lives and community for one person ought not be. And let's see. Oh, he says it's not going to be Can we get it in writing tonight that it's not going to be a migrant camp? Thank you. My name is Sean Claire, 6530 Southeast Dubs. I've been there almost eight years. Uh my main concern would be the safety of the neighborhood. Uh the presence of law enforcement is not out there even when we request them. And uh the way that they state that there was going to be an on-site manager, they've changed this to an on call manager. So we have no defined limits on when somebody's going to be there and if they'll show up and who to contact when there are issues. That's all I have.

Hi, my name is Christina. I live at 6423 Wooding Road. I want to thank you all for your patience tonight. I know this has been long and this is the second time. Even though they have changed the plan of a C is to allow for flexibility zoning by special uses that are not a matter of right but may be desirable for a community. This is not desirable for our community as seen by the of the folks here tonight. This does not provide a benefit for the community at large either. There are so many campgrounds in the area that have larger lakes, lakes where you can keep the fish, the easier access, and the list goes on and on. Thank you all for your time, and I ask that you Good evening everyone. My name is Mitch Nam. I live at 6423 Southeast Woodring Road. I'm the property directly south. That is my wife. That is my mother. They all live there with me. Um, everybody has spoken on many concerns, valid concerns. I think there are four key points that I'd like to uh address tonight. Uh, first I'd like to talk about recusals. There's a vacant chair here this evening and it's been ne never has been publicly declared that the vacant chair belongs to Chad Gearhart and he's had to recuse himself because he is an employee of Bettis. He also manages the property in question directly to the north of me. He is the manager of that. Like I said, I'd like to get it on record that he has not recused himself.

He is essentially not here to recuse himself. The fact that he manages a property listed as CU under the CU253, which represents an obvious conflict of interest, not just for the this issue, but for his role on the planning and zoning board in general. It's important that every decision here be made without bias or influence, and this situation calls that into question. Second, past conduct. that has come to my attention and others on in our little community. And I'd like to address the fact that it was stated before that somebody had said Bettis doesn't care about the community. I said Bettis doesn't care about my community. My community is Wood Ring Road, E 100 53rd all the way down to 69th. That section of land, these good people here are my community, my extended family. It's being played out that uh I said Bettis doesn't care about the community. I said he's not a good neighbor because is never present. I said he doesn't care about our community, the community that we have out there. We are on our own out there. We have problems. We help each other. We clear each other's trees. As somebody who's a little bit negligent in their duties, the Bettis property has two trees laying across the road that have deteriorated on the road for the last month. We remove each other's trees if needed. Otherwise, we remove them ourselves. It has come to my attention and to others in our community that Chad Gearhart has previously been seen operating sidebyside vehicle at high rate of speed on Woodring Road, nearly causing an accident with local a local resident. As the saying goes, future behavior can be predicted by past conduct. This raises serious concerns about judgment and responsibility. Qualities that are essential when decisions like this are made on behalf of the public. He was on a side by side, came over that hill that everybody likes to play on,

Dukes of Hazard style, catch some air and run down the bottom of the hill. He almost hit Pat Walmsley. Pat Walmsley was just exiting his driveway. I understand the allure of the hill, but holy hell, that's not safe. Third, the community opposition. Please take note of this petition. There are 79 signatures on this petition from that section of land. Every one of them opposing this issue. The fact that these are here, if this measure goes forward, to me it shows a clear bias. If this measure goes forward with 79 people opposing, we stopped at the immediate area, the immediate section of land. We didn't go out into the community, all of Monmouth, like I had thought about doing. We stopped in the immediate area. 79 people oppose. There is not one single person that I think you will find that will be in favor of this. Uh, I'd like to point out too that Monmouth Township is against it and Kanawaka has also been against it. They denied this. They don't want people driving up and down their section of the road that maintain and Monmouth doesn't want it. It's not the weight of the vehicle necessarily. It's the amount of the traffic that's coming through. Our little minivan tears up the road just as much as anybody else in a heavy vehicle. It's really too bad. 30 some odd minutes. I'm Tom model. My wife and I own about 98 acres that pretty much is all against when campaignment was in operation. We had a lot of trouble with people trespassing, leaving trash, you know, just not respecting anything and it's all fenced. I mean, it still is. I don't I

think that'll probably just start happening again. Tim Fritz and I share a boundary, too. And when we're going to be shooting, we communicate with each other, you know, so we're careful with each other. I don't There's people we don't know. I guess they won't know until they hear shooting. Anyway, my wife had it. We don't want it either. Is there anyone else that wants to speak? Anyone else in the overflow? No one else out there is here to speak. So she checked.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Um if there's no further comments from the public, then the applicant does have a chance for rebuttal comments. Lee Hendricks for Harters. I will uh I'll [clears throat] keep this very brief. I I know I know the world we live in now. Uh I know how people view applications like this, but not everything is an ulterior motive. Not everything has some hidden agenda. Um, I did say last time I was here, I'm going to spoil the ending and tell you that this is not a money-making venture for Hammond Partners or for the Bettis companies. And certainly, when you reduce the number of of uh rentable properties in the manner that we did, it makes it even less. What this was was three children, Bettis children who run these companies who said this is a beautiful piece of property that is getting very little visits that is uh a benefit to the community and what is a manner in which we can share that that is the bottom line of when this why this came forward you saw from that from that aerial what I'm talking about and they said what is a man which we can do this. When told by in this instance the neighbors and those who have opposed this what their concerns were, all we have done is attempt to limit and limit and limit the amount of impact by reducing that. Not a money-making venture, it is a benefit to the community. Um, multiple individuals stated once [clears throat] a foot is in the door. I'm not going to spend much

time on this because if if our effort is to get 15 and then sneak back in, guess what? We're back here in front of you doing this same thing again. And I don't think I'm going to look very good if I'm coming in here having made promises that now I'm backing out on later. That is why I said to you, our intention is not 15 at this point, but I'm giving you that number so that you know that is uh the high mark in the event we do it. But if I If there is some change, you're going to hear it again. This body is going to have a vote. The board of county commissioners is going to have a vote. And all of these folks will be back here again for that conversation. I I said to you, it's not an issue. I don't know how many ways I can say this. Claims of a migrant camp, employee housing. Look, very easily my client could plat this property, build homes, and put workers there and not have to go through all this rig. I wouldn't be coming in front of you numerous times or dealing with the arrows that I am. There are other ways to do that if that's what they wanted to do. It isn't. It is a benefit to the community. There are other manners to get employees in. If that was the case, it sure as heck wouldn't be through this process. I don't know how many ways I can say to you, this is not for employees. That is not for migrant workers. Like I said, that is a exciting topic to put out there on social media or whatever it is, but that is not a fact. Those are not that is not the case in this instance. Water meters. I'm no civil engineer, but I know this. A civil engineer was contacted by Douglas County 3 specifically about the water that would be necessary to serve 44 RVs and 24 cabins and was told and even when we went down to 12, we revisited that and said, is a single benefit unit sufficient? I I can't tell you why that

is, but I know this twice. I was told by the experts that it was sufficient. We purchased two benefit units specifically so I could say to you we have that available. And in the event that we had to to to change course on this, at least I knew we'd have the ability to provide water to that property one way or the other. roads. I I don't know. It was stated that no matter where you put it in on GPS that you're going to end up going down that dangerous north part of Wooding Road. I've come from my office in northwest uh Topeka. I've come from Lawrence. Both instances I came in from the south on GPS. I don't know what to tell you other than that's exactly how I came into the property [snorts] and it would be something that would be stressed to anyone who's using it. I you know if if this wasn't I I understand that it's a crutch that some folks know that Bett is asphalt or that the Bettis companies are a heavy highway company. But if this was Joe and Susie Smith who was in front of you on this application, I don't think anybody here would be asking what the applicant is going to do to fix roads for five to 15 cabins. They wouldn't. that's baked in because of the nature of the business we're talking about. But that is not something that we as an applicant are responsible for. Again, I think it's reasonable if you have 44 RVs that are constantly going to that property to say, look, this is heavy use on a community asset and therefore that is something that should be u looked at whether or not we should be responsible partially for that. We're talking about, as I've said numerous times, five to 15

cabins. This is not a massive increase or even a substantial increase of road traffic on those roads. And again, if it wasn't Bettis that was in front of this the name, I don't think we'd be saying, "So, what will you do for the roads?" I told you that the the net result of this would be not in my backyard. And I told you that is completely fair for neighbors of this property to say we don't want this here. Uh, multiple people said to you this evening, "Look at this as if as if you're a neighbor." I would I would disagree. I don't think that's your job sitting in these seats to say, "What would I do as a neighbor?" I think I think emotions certainly come into this, but that's not the job that you guys have and that's not the rules that you play by. Your job is to say what is a reasonable allowance based on your regulations, the golden factors and the recommendations of your staff who by the way have approved recommended approval to this both times both the more impactful version and now the much less impactful version. What is what is lost in the comments this evening is that I would wager a bet that not a single person here would want to be told what they can and can't do with their property. That is part of what's happening here. It's a 120 acre parcel that we're being told. Look, they can do whatever they want, but not this. We're being told what we can be do, what we can do. Now, we are in front of you for a CUP. We are not approaching this with a development or a home or something that is allowed specifically by an A1 district. But, as I've said to you, it I'm concerned. I would be concerned were I sitting in your your shoes that if you deny a cup of this nature with the facts that you've had in front

of you with the limited limitation of impact on the property with the surrounding tree lines and distance from all the neighboring properties. My concern would be that when other folks in the future consider a benefit to the community and this is deemed not sufficient because of purely neighbors being upset. What instance will ever arise from a a project of this nature that would be allowable under your regulations? I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening and I I don't believe this had any other allowance for responses at this time. Is that correct? Or do you want

um you can respond to anything that was stated within the presentations from or comments from the public. I have nothing. Thank you. We will close the public hearing and the commissioners may ask any questions or discuss. Does anyone have a question for staff or the applicant? No. questions. No questions. Would someone care to make a motion?

I would move to deny the conditional use permit. I second that. Who was the second by? My

is there any discussion? I always have to ask that because Robert's rules says that

I appreciate Robert's rules. Um, you know, I I sit on a couple of boards and I definitely choose not to get on social media because I don't want to influence um the way I would vote or anything like that. So um so being you know um being told that we you know may have seen or that this these rumors have come up I'd say that's the first time I heard it because I I just I choose to stay away so that I can keep uh very mindful of of what is happening. Um this isn't my first planning commission to sit on. I sat on the city planning commission as well and um had some very tough decisions to make and uh and sometimes you know the the part with the emotions of uh neighbors and and what was going to happen in their neighborhood um was tough and that's definitely something that you know can pull at your heartstrings and um I happened to be one of the people that was on the planning commission when they were building reers at sixth and uh Croco and um you know had to sit for a a 2 am board meeting to um to discuss how that was going to play out. Um and so I I get everyone's um emotions. I get um facts that are presented to us and um and so it isn't something that I take lightly at all in anything. Um, I still sit here and and it's still a tough decision. Um, you know, sitting on a school board when you have to decide whether you're going to mask students or not and people are talking about those things. Um, so I enjoy making the tough decisions. I I otherwise I wouldn't be sitting here. Um, and I really appreciate everybody coming out here and stating um their feelings and um the facts and emotions.

and I definitely, you know, plan to take all of that into consideration. Um, and so just thank you all for being here. Um, I I know it's a long time. It's a lot of work. Um, and if for those of you that were at the commission meeting at 8:00 in the morning and took time off of work, um, everything goes, um, does not go on deaf ears. So, uh, thank you for providing us with the information that you did and thank you to the neighbors who came out. So that's all I need to say. Mr. Chairman, have comments.

First of all, I would like to let all of you know that we have a fiduciary responsibility on the planning commission to look at everything. Um, for those of you who live in the community, I I am certainly um sympathetic to your passioned pleas uh that can't be what determines what we do and don't do here. We are we are governed by other principles and responsibilities. To Mr. Hendrickx, I would say this. I'm not comfortable with the road situation. I've heard the passion of please, but they do not sway me. That road sways me. I thought there was something else after that.

Yep. Done. Okay. So, if no other questions or comments, we have a motion and a second to deny. And just to clarify, if you vote yes, that means you're supporting the motion to deny. If you vote no, then you would be supporting um approval. Um Myin Lenwitter, yes. Dan Brian, yes. Janette Johnson, yes. Chad Gearhart, Rosa Kvassos, yes. Terry Robinson, yes.

With five members voting yes, the motion to deny has passed. So, the recommendation to the board of county commissioners is that it be denied by the planning uh commission. The hearing on this in front of the board of county commissioners would currently be scheduled for December 8th, 2025 um at 9:00 a.m. at the 707 Quincy, which is where some of you had been the last time. So, December 8, which is a Monday, at 9:00 a.m. take a short we'll take a short recess before we hear our next item. But I do want to thank you for coming. I want to thank Mr. Hendrickson for all of the work that he's done and the staff as well.

Um the second agenda item is case number Z101B Higgins Ranch LLC. Uh, a major amendment to amend the building stone and landscape villa number two, master PUB plan to remove restrictions on C2 and C4 uses, adding I1 zoning restricted for storage units, and also reconfiguring the property into three additional lots, replplatting will be through the city of Topeka, and replacing regional service uh, sewer service with an on-site water uh, wastewater system. It's located at 1041 Southwest Rock Road in Mission Township. It's uh about 23.7 acres. Here's the general location of the site. Um as you can see the blue star, some background. Um, so in January of 20 2010, the applicant submitted a request to reszone the site from RR1 to a PUD with commercial usage. Um, the master PUD plan divided the lot into two use groups. Lot one was block A with a C4 commercial district and then lot two, block A, was a C2 commercial district. The project plan uh program defined limits on the uses that were allowed to go on those lots. Um specific uses prohibited under the PUD were identified. There was an amendment uh number one which ended up being a minor amendment which was approved administratively. Um a minor versus a major amendments to a PED master plan. So minor amendments are small changes that don't alter the overall intent of the plan. For example,

a minor layout adjustment or landscaping updates. Um this is approved administratively by the planning director. A major amendment is something significant uh that conflicts with the original planned or exceeds the minor limits. For example, reszoning one of the lots. Um this follows the same process as the original PUD approval. So here we have a PUD major amendment. Um they're requesting to the removal of the prohibited uses from the PUD under C2 and C4. They're wanting to incorporate I1 limited limited to storage usage unit usage um usage as an option. They're wanting to do a new lot configuration creating three more lots. Uh changes in the project program to accommodate those uh new lot configurations. replacing the regional sewer service with an on-site wastewater system. Uh present use, so lot one block A is partially developed with an existing business which is Hagen Stone Company. Lot one block B contains a storm water management easement and the remaining area consists of vacant land. Uh the proposed use the applicant plans to evaluate interest in the property for development opportunities uh specifically a convenience store and storage units. So here we have uh the proposal. Uh I believe they're currently working with the city of Topeka to subdivide the the site as shown. Here's the vicinity map. um property owners within a thousand square feet. So 22 letters were sent to property owners within a thousand feet of the site. No responses were received. Staff recommends approval of the request

as submitted subject to the following. The commission finds that the request satisfied the golden factors and recommends approval of the major amendment to the PUD subject to the following conditions. One, coordinate with environmental health to establish the minimum lot size for a convenient store use after usage factors and soil types um loading rates are determined if applicable to obtain a comprehensive storm water management plan addressing collection, detention, and control release of runoff throughout the subdivision. The plan must be submitted to Shauny County Public Works for review and approval and the applicant and or developer must comply with all conditions of the app approval prior to site development. Um update the master pan uh PUD plan as applicable. Three, obtaining a comprehensive uh TIS which shall in part demonstrate that no operational conflict will occur between the east and w access points and that traffic will not queue into unto southwest Auburn Road. The TIS must be submitted to Shauny County Public Works and KOT for review and approval and the applicant and or developer must comply with all conditions of approval prior to site development. Again, the updated um they are going to have to update the master PUD plan as applicable. Number four, the applicant shall coordinate with the city of Topeka to complete the replanning process, creating the three additional lots. All minor plat requirements must be met and um and the replat shall be approved and recorded prior to site development. Five, the applicant shall ensure that all proposed on-site wastewater systems are designed, permitted, and installed in compliance with environmental health standards and all applicable local and state regulations. Each lot must have its own

individual wastewater system meeting these requirements. Six. For lot two block A, lot three, block A, and lot two block B. Each lot shall be developed under one of the approved options. Option A, C2, or C4, or option B, I1 limited to storage units, provided all applicable development standards for the chosen zoning district are met. Each lot must be developed in accordance with the standards of a single zoning district. Um update the master PUB plan as applicable prior to issuance of any building permit. The property owner shall provide written documentation to the Sha uh Shauny County Planning Department identifying the zoning designation for each lot. The approved zoning must be reflected on the site development plan, which shall be submitted to and approved by the planning department prior to commencement of any development or issuance of any building permit. Following approval, the zoning designation for each lot shall remain in effect and may not be changed or amended except through a resoning or an amendment to the PUD master plan. Number seven, revise sheet one of the master PUB plan as follows. Replace and with or in the zoning designation for lot two and lot three block A and lot two block B. Designate lot one block B as storm water management easement. Number eight, update the master PUD plan to remove all references to a public sanitary sewer system under utility notes. Delete note number five under circulation parking and traffic notes. Delete note one and or vice note two to reflect two entrances from Southwest

10th Street. Under building and structure notes, delete note four. Note four. Um and item number nine. All use and development shall comply with the recorded amendment number two to the master PUD plan for building stone and landscape villa number two. That concludes Thank you. this item. The commissioners have any questions of staff?

Yeah, I read through all that before I got here and I'm still I guess confused because that's a lot of back and forth. But so we have one piece of property that has not been divided, platted, but we're going to change the zoning on potential. So this um this case originally you can see from the Z number it originally came to the planning department planning commission in 2010. At that time it was divided into two properties and I will stand real quick and show you the original the original dividing line was right here and the top was the bottom was a second lot with what is now Higgin Stone developed over here. The way that it's been developed is that there is a road that's been put in here with a little dead end turn. It does not go all the way through, but the original plan allowed for one entrance here and one entrance here. This is 10th. This is Auburn Road and so it does allow for an entrance here. um they've come to us a couple of different times with some development options and the current PUD significantly restricts what can be done um with development. And so the um owners and the their their consultants, the engineers have worked with the city and with the county in reconstructing this um specifically with the city because it does have to be replatted in order to divide this into smaller parcels. Um but then with us in regards to the zoning, so it is currently a PUD. Um and it allows for C2 on one parcel and C4 on the other. um it has a bunch of restrictions on that so they can't do anything within C2

or anything within C4 and part of that has hindered their ability to develop it further. Um the other part of that so so the way that the proposal works now is that they are asking for each of these parcels the undeveloped parcels to be able to be either C2 or C C4. So they they would still keep a C2 or C4 potential designation. You don't interchange the C2 or C4. Whatever it shows as C2 or C4, that's the potential on those lots. But they also wanted to add the potential for storage units, which we only allow under I1. So then they they would like to have the option for that I1. But once like they don't know who they're developing with yet. Once someone comes in and wants to buy or develop that property, they would have to pick the C2 or I1 or the C4 or I1 and they would develop it as that and they wouldn't be able to change it to a different zone without coming back and asking for an amendment.

Okay, that's that's you did a great job reading. I just Yes, I got I got turned around. I know it's it's complicated and but the benefit like normally you wouldn't see this alternative option, but that's the benefit of a QD is because of that master plan. We can lay those options out and give them that development opportunity. Um, you can't do that with other types of zones because you don't have those master plans. And that's the benefit of this. And some of the other language in there was just cleaning up the master plan to make sure that when someone in 10 years looks at it, they can read it and say, "Ah, this is what was supposed to happen." Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um would the applicant care to make a representation now?

Good evening. I know uh in the sake of time you've been here a long time, but just to add the way it looks right now is probably not going to be the way it looks eventually in terms of lots and and and it was said well that it's all speculative and it depends on what they can do and who they can do to be able to develop the property. So once that development comes in then we can configure lots. This is the zoning piece of it. The loting the lots would still have Shauna County input into the city to pick a resoning or replatting to make the lot lines where they are because we have to have the lot lines allow for that use allow for uh sanitary sewer conditions on that lot. depend on how it is. And then there's also an existing easement that runs right through um east west about the middle of the lot with a a major AT&T duck line. So that kind of that's made it very difficult for the development of this lot as well because it was split north south and that doesn't really work with that eastern lot and the eastern frontage on Auburn Road or K4 would be the the intriguing piece of the developer property. free to answer any question that you have.

So, there's no one person that's really ready to develop it at this point in time. You'll just be marketing the property. um sort of with the the the owner of the property, Mike Higgins, could reserve and and do the development himself. He owns the property and the development on the west side of the property. And that's where we went went into the storage piece of the puzzle is because it it's a highway intersecting and interstate which might result into a potential for storage unit need in that in that area. Just like we just a little further south on on Auburn Road. He has not said that he wanted to do that. We've been looking at a sea store, convenience store um more so as as something that would fit this corner very well, but it's it's a little more difficult with the location of utilities and and it wasn't allowed under the lot on the PP prior. Hope I answered that. Thank you.

So, yes and no. Any other questions? Thank you very much.

We'll open the public hearing at this time and we'll call for public comments from persons in sport in support first. Is there anyone like to speak in support? My excuse me, my name's Joseph. My wife and I built a house on 1048 West Side Drive, which is in Huntington Hills, which we share about 800 ft of the between hitting the stones. In 2010, I was here and I said some of the same things I'm going to say today. When we came and built our home, we did all the research we could. We looked at the zoning. We saw that corner was residential. We were the third house to build in Hunton Hills. Hun Hills has restrictions. We can't have a house that's less than 1,800 square feet. It requires us to have certain sighting. We can't use vinyl sighting. We thought we were pretty safe. We we wanted to live out in the county. We built a nice home with restrictions that we thought of our property values. That was in about 2002, 2010. We had Mr. Higgins came with a lawyer today.

There weren't too many people there at the time to protest it because there was this threat that if we didn't agree to the changing zoning, they were going to put a truck stop there or a a convenience. They were very reasonable. He said he was going to put his business uh in the front half of the of the two blocks and that the access would on road. At least that's what I understood. Also, that there'd be a three-foot burn around the property with Austrian pines. That there'd be a pond. I assume that's where the septic system is. Well, after he built the building, it's a nice beautiful building. It's on the west side. He immediately put a sign up to try to develop the front end of that. And that has been there for probably 10 years. Nobody's biting and he we were kind of sold a bill of goods. So now we have something that's zoned commercial and so now we're going to clean it up by adding industrial and we're going to put a convenience store on that corner. And as I remember looking at the zoning laws or the explanation, it was supposed to be for the good of the community or the area. And I imagine if you took a poll, there's nobody that wants a convenience store off I7 and Auburn Road. You can just imagine the kind of people and the traffic that it would draw simply because Mr. Higgins wants to make more money. And I understand that we need to have economic development. This county is full of pot marked spots where we gave a little bit of zoning empty business or starts and then it empties out. And it's unfortunate because Somewhere along the line, the individual

resident who has a home is is ignored in this process. And and I feel a little bit betrayed because now we're up here talking about something that's far more uh intense than what it was prior. And I don't know who or what part county is supposed to protect residential integrity. When we buy homes, we live there for a long time and we invest and we feel like we're safe. Uh when uh things like this come along, it's very disturbing. Uh Mr. Higgins bought the land from a neighbor down the street who I remember him referring to as his retirement plan. He sold those 23 acres and and the deal was basically based on the fact that it was going to be zoned for a commercial. So again, I feel betrayed and I feel like I listened to what went on earlier today and these people were a lot of emotion and I can understand the emotional part, but I don't know where you stand. You know, you think you do the right thing, you you do your research and then some body, somebody besides they need to make some money decides to change things over. And I think that's unfortunate. Anyway, that's

against Well, I had asked for those who supported it first, but I just wanted to make sure before I got up. So, I was going to say, is there any person here that wants to speak in support of it?

Because if not, then we'll we'll on with those that are opposed. Don't worry about confidence. Thank you. My name is Kent Palberg and I live at 1216 Westside Drive um just to the west and a little south of the of the property that we're talking about. I was also here in 2010 and I remember that discussion very clearly and I remember everything that was just said was so accurate that we were told what we were going to have and then it didn't exactly turn out that way. There was this This group was adamant about the fact that nobody could do anything on that property until there was sewer out there. And there was a reason for that and everybody was happy with the PUD that was put before us and it made sense. That property been for sale for probably I'm going to say more than 10 years, maybe 12 or 15. Nobody's buying it. So now Mr. Higgins wants to reszone it so that he can sell the property. But nothing's changed. The same reasons that you all approved that property if sewer came out there still exists today. So I don't think anything's changed. I don't see any reason why this should be approved. Uh it seems strictly just somebody's trying to figure out a way to get that property sold. It's as simple

as that. And it's certainly not bringing any value to the community. I would say the amount of traffic on Auburn Road over the last 10 to 15 years has increased substantially and there will be a lot of issues associated with something that would be uh increased traffic like for example a convenience store for example would have a huge impact on traffic. So I appreciate uh your consideration of denying this request for this reasonzoning. Uh and it just doesn't make any sense to me. Nothing's changed. Thank you. My name is Jeff Morris. I live at 1039 Southwest Westside Drive. I speak in opposition of the reszoning just as as the other gentlemen have said 15 years ago. We came here to reszone from residential to the to what it is now. Um the reasons not not to to change the zoning. Um you know, I've got small children right at the corner of that intersection. Uh we've got a lot of traffic already increases with with all the development that's southwest of Topeka. I don't think we want the kind of traffic that's going to come in to this part of the area. just crossing Auburn Road from 10th Street, you know, could be anywhere from a 5 to 10 minute wait already. Um, a question I have is in regards to the, you know, even if it does get reszoned, it's my understanding the property still can't be commercially developed because of the three mile radius the city has on this area. So without the extension of any sewer or other utilities,

I think that prohibits the discussion from even being, you know, going further even to the city. At this point, as they've said, this property has been for sale, you know, for 15 years, or at least he's tried to parcel it off for a long time. There's been numerous people that have pursued this property, and the city has denied them over and over. because there's no sewer line to develop the property. So, even if it gets resoneed, who's going to who's going to fund the sewer coming to this area? It's it's not going to be it won't be a benefit district or the neighbors have to chip in because we don't want to connect to it. It would it would only have to be some organization that can that can fund that length of sewer. I'm not against to developing parcels that he has for the intended use that that he agreed to. You know, part of what we all thought we were sold is that, you know, sure, he's going to change the zoning and put in a nice building, which which he has, but but it wouldn't be anything relatively close to convenience store, you know, dentist office or, you know, con construction company that has an office or something similar to that. So, As I said, I I oppose the reszoning and that type of development to this area. Thanks.

Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Prohaska and my husband and our property is backed up to the back of to the west side of um Higgins Stone. When this originally started, it was residential zone residential and when tried to sell everybody. It was he was going to develop a beautiful stone building, which he has on the front corner and beautify that corner with a land lovely landscaped pond and a burm barrier with pine trees on it, which none of that has happened. And as you see where it's at, it is backed up to the back of our property now. It's not on the very front like he sold everybody. And we were told there would be two entrances. The one off of Auburn Road would be where the big trucks with the limestone would come in and unload to keep us safe on 10th Street. That did not happen either. Um so they come in off of uh his main entrance off of 10th Street. And unfortunately when you come around that curve is a little bit of a hill. Right there is his drive. It's a blind spot coming from our side from the west. Um, so that's an issue. Um, the noise, imagine big trucks with limestone and them cutting it. Whatever they're doing in the back there, it reverberates through our property. So when we bought 23 our land 23 years ago only because I had to be convinced because it was residential and I just thought, well, it's so close to the interstate and Auburn Road, but I like, well, that's a big space. Um, so then he came in and this happened and then when he started building it was not on corner like we were told. It was buffered up against the back of our property. So during the day the noise from his trucks, whatever

he's doing to the stone back there, we get to listen to um putting in a convenience store 24 hours. No, no. The noise it would bring into our property, the light and we've got trees there. I'm not saying we don't. When those that's gone, I can see light from the from the 10th Street, from the interstate coming through. Um, I just I I think about the noise we're going to have from something like a convenience store like Like Jeff said, got your name right.

Like Jeff said, what's already there is we didn't want anyway, but that is acceptable. But anything where we're going to have a 24-hour service where there's going to be cars coming in and [clears throat] out day and night is going to be in our back door. It literally will be in our back door. Um and and it's not they don't have a system. I'm really concerned about what water waste system they're cons they're disgusting. My dad worked for the health department for many, many years. And he went out and tested water and did all sorts of things. And I that just sounds pretty fishy to me. I'm like, if they don't have the sewer system out there like they said they'd have to have before he could develop, that concerns me because we have a lot of water runoff. We lit literally have a river going through our backyard, through our property, and down because there's a small stream that goes through there. So that that environmentally kind of 22. Um, personally, what he's already got down there is acceptable for what we've got to deal with. But anything that's going to be um car repair, you're talking about more noise from Well, just drive by anybody that works on cars, you're going to have the the the tires being removed by the heavy equipment. Um, no, I oppose it. Um, it's it's already kind of a pain in my back. personally. So, I oppose any changes except what's there now. I think that's fair and I oppose any uh any other changes to the uh property. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Anthony Conrad. I live at 121 Southwest Westside Drive. I I live within 1,000 ft of this proposal. So concerns I have with this is one that's been brought up is the sewer. So currently Higgins is on a septic system. So without a sewer, if we're proposing some large development on the corner, is it going to be required to be on a sewer system? Is it going to be on a septic system that's on a septic system? It's a commercial business. That doesn't seem like an ideal situation for neighborhood, that kind of thing. Uh secondly, um in the in the resoning application, it talks about the removal of prohibited uses from the original PUB. So I was here like most of our neighbors back in 2010 and you know Bartlett and West at the time probably overpromised under un under serve what what was promised. Um, but here we are again. Nothing's changed and now we're trying to get back to we want to make these restrictions on these or lift these restrictions on the original PED. So, I think I don't know what all's in the original restrictions, but obviously lifting them will give them a little more flexibility. And then lastly is traffic. So, many of you know Auburn Road is a busy thoroughfare. The speed limits 50 miles an hour. Um, as mentioned earlier, traffic getting off at 10 onto I7 near Auburn Road in the mornings between 6:30 and 8 and then 4 to 6 every day you sit for a while and it's 50 miles an hour so they come up on you quick you have all the traffic off I7 going right in into that same area so it it funnels so you put some kind of development on the corner has access to Auburn Road there's going to be traffic issues 10th Streets already acts as a frontage road to the highway right off the highway and traffic can be can be a mess right

there. Um the last thing I'll just point out is the concerns of staff and um you know the reviewing agencies. So the public works departments expressed concerns with traffic. Um you can't just throw a roundabout there or something and if you're trying to put an exit in with high traffic volume, you're going to have problems. You're going to have accidents. 50 miles an hour is you're you're moving. Um, secondly, K DOT has expressed concerns with this. So, my opinion, it's not a slam dunk. I think there's there's lots of potential flaws with this. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Tom Sheets, 1224 Southwest Westside Drive. Um, [clears throat] I just really echo some of the things that My neighbors have said traffic is a big concern. Fine. When he talked about uh getting in and out at, you know, the rush hour morning and evening, a lot of traffic you sit and wait, more traffic as a result of a a convenience store would really hinder, you know, our ability to get in and out, but also the safety factor of being able to get in and out. I've seen reps there. Um I haven't personally had one myself, but it happens. Um [clears throat] convenience stores. How big of a convenience store? I mean, are we talking about a small convenience store? Is this kind of a setup for something really big? Could it turn into truck stop for example? Having semis sitting there like you see them at love truck stops or out on highways or wherever. Um sitting there [clears throat] rumbling all night long and lights and all of the other traffic that happens as a result of a truck stop. So, um, lighting with some type of a convenience store or, god forbid, something worse. And I didn't hear much from gentleman that gave his presentation on what possibly is going to go in sizes or anything, but lighting having that lit up

just, you know, it we bought that property out there in 2022 or 2002, I mean, sorry, and lived out there since 2004 and have enjoyed that rural setting. and this is potentially going to change all that for us. So, I object to it and I don't know if you'll let me speak for my wife, but she also is there any other comments from the public? Did she use her four minutes or

We weren't running the clock because of the shorter period. Everybody stayed within their If you'd like to keep it short. Oh, can you go to the podium because we do have a recording system going?

I actually I actually checked um for convenience stores in in our area. And it's it's something that's not really needed because within five minutes straight west uh straight east of us on 10th Street there are two at Wana Maker less basically about three miles away and then you go to 21st and um Yurish and there's a Casey's there. Um so I'm looking at what is really needed and convenient for us. It is not another it's not another convenience store. We we have gas stations and convenience stores within 10 minutes of us any just about any direction. So, it's it's not really needed. The other thing is it would it didn't bring up is it would bring crime into our neighborhood with um a gas station, a convenience store. I mean that anybody here knows that that's going to bring people in all night long. They're going to start investigating our neighborhood right now. I would say I don't know that anybody here has had any crime any issues with that. That would bring crime into our neighborhood too. I meant to say that when I was speaking earlier. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Um the applicant will now have time for rebuttal comments.

Thank you Kevin Holland engineers. Um just to rebut a couple has to be a by the limitations of pure size. Um, we have drainage needs for detention and then a septic system out there that would uh take space as well. So, this isn't proposed. It's already a C2 and C4 zoning in the PUB. All it is is lifting restrictions for convenience store or adding the storage facilities, which from a traffic standpoint, the storage facilities generate very little traffic. So, it might a great use on that property as well. It wasn't mentioned, but um the pond that's out there is detention. The current one is septic system under the current facility and septic system on a go through all of Northa septic system on commercial properties works the same as it would on a residential property and actually more restricted from a commercial side than a residential side. Um traffic TI or TIS would be required for the entrances off the 10th Street or or for the traffic for the use. That would have been done already, but it's hard to to put a TI A together for an intended use that you don't know yet. So, that will be done before uh before anything is is uh any development is done. Quick question for you. Uh the way I'm just looking at these potential lines. You said they're not going to be exactly where they're at, but can anything be further developed in the southwest corner?

No, that that is all part of the main hold that as part of his own property. That line could will only go east. It will not go further west. You mean just to make sure? Yeah. He's holding that for his own. It's a buffer for his own property as well. And Kevin, can you point to the one which is the storm water detention that one? So no development can occur on this parcel either. Correct. Basent. Yeah. So it's just the three parcels on the south east that can be potentially developed with this.

And as I said, can you show the other property? There's an AT right through it which is down that line can't be relocated. And we're looking to remove you're asking to have the restrictions removed on C2C4 or the uses. So could a current could a convenience store currently come in without us taking any action right now? I don't believe that's I don't believe could come in. So I'm going to bounce back and forth ask questions. So she

I would have to pull Do you have the original? I'm just trying to get an idea. I mean could an insurance agent build could like a little door strip mall coming in. I'm just trying to figure out what the limitations so that could come in. Okay.

So, the original Okay. So, the original PUD said the following uses shall be prohibited within the plain unit development. All uses which require conditional use permit. Automotive service station. Um, hold on. Amusement indoor establishments, automobile rental establishments, automobile service station, bed and breakfast in billboards, panel posters, construction and mechanical contractors, communication towers and dishes, community centers, community living facility, correctional placement facility, crematorium, like the list goes on. In essence, when when they did this, they eliminated almost all of the allowable uses within C2 or C4 other than a few. What would be like an example?

I have no idea. Okay. So, like it's the ex like if to go through and to have eliminated it, I would have to pull up our regulations and see which ones were allowed. It was very limited in scope. And which what this is doing is adding a couple of uses back in. Well, if if approved, it would add all uses back in. Right. it the way that we had it presented is that they wanted to remove the restrictions and so those restrictions were all removed from the notes and so

I don't know that we are uh strong on that feeling I think we were coming in to be able to look at a sea store or I uses I think we can I think we're we're fine restricting several uses obviously it's easier to have some of those but but uh we're not looking to put a machine or car fix place or repair place or anything like that. So, this might be another Tony question. Okay, I'm just going to pepper her all night. Um, is there rather than taking a sweeping action to lift all of it off, is there a way to just redo that? I mean, I don't not that I want to go line by line, but I mean I just because you may move on. Higgins could sell it. The next guy just because we lift it. I promise I won't put auto body repair right there, but the next guy might. I mean, if we've lifted it, there's nothing correct. And we're not opposed to having restrictions upon those uses for the same thing. So really, I hate to say this, the only way to do this in that manner then with us feeling confident in how we're doing it would be to either have you make like a motion to specifically leave the restrictions on except for a couple of additional uses or so like meaning you would Say the motion would be that we would make a motion to approve the modifications with the the contingency that all of the restrictions would stay except for the following and then have Mr. Holland give us a list of what he thinks. The other option would be to

defer this and have them more clearly line out which ones they want to keep so that we can make it clear within their proposal. I like option two better just as I'm thinking out loud. Um or throw out a third choice. I mean, I guess you guys haven't had a lot of movement on these lots or property of interest yet. So, you're trying to generate more interest. Um is there a way to I'm gonna hold that thought and I'll say that part out loud. I'll think about that in a minute.

There there's been traffic generation in the areas that were coming to try to add these uses in. Okay. If that helps that does help. Thank you. So also with this like part of the concept of doing this resoning in this manner right now is depending on what happens tonight or whenever this gets considered and approved or denied then they can finalize things with the city of Topeka. They can't replplat it with the city if this isn't reconsidered because it would be a waste of time. they could go they they could go repot it with the city but then they would come to us and we would say nope you can't do it and so it was kind of in these situations we always get into the chicken and the egg argument which one comes first and and so they came to us first to do the zoning portion of it so they know what they have the ability to do so they can finalize things with the city of Topeka platting in general whatever happens with the platting is going to be fairly similar to what is here today um if they do have to make modifications to it. It's possible they'd have to come to us for a minor amendment depending really what we're looking at today is the use of it, not necessarily the layout of the land. But there is a PUB site plan that is approved as a part of this. So if they change it with platting, they would have to come to our office. But if it's only sort of as Harem had already pointed out, if if it's only dealing with the site plan and property lines, we can do that as an a minor amendment because it's not impacting the actual use of the property. And so it's, you know, they should be able to do any changes beyond here through a minor amendment, but you can't change the uses without coming back. And so, um, that's where where we stand today and where there's kind of some unknowns at this point.

Seems weird to make decisions like that without having I guess I'm used to having someone come in and, hey, I want to put a rodeo here. I want to put a shop here. I want to do this. And you have concrete things that you know what's coming. But in reality, We put limited oni uses which are that's your office and institutional which is exactly what you kind of have to some degree or what you were talking about in a C2 or Z4 use or the convenience store or the industrial use for storage units. Those two are the the major pieces of the puzzle. Um the other units um could be important but at this point notable if that makes

Yeah. But I mean at this point I mean things can I mean because this may take years to develop and get interest

but if you allowed those uses even and we can come up with some language that makes sense if you were so inclined to go that direction. Um I I know continuing it to next month then it it makes it difficult again. Not that it's a big issue, but all of a sudden now we have, you know, do we reopen the public hearing and have that conversation again and I don't know that the rules on that. We run into that before just making sure we're above above table on everything. Ponder for a minute and stop talking.

Anything more for me?

Thank you. If I can add one more thing, I know we talked one motion or one mention was all night activity. I don't know if that's in the cards for a convenience store in this location as well. I don't believe, you know, if you wanted to put a limitation at some sort of overnight hours, I don't think that's out of out of the uh The client probably would not have an issue with that. And even thinking of that, Joanie, we would have to have a traffic study, right, for if there was a convenience store or

so they are based on the recommendations right now, they would be required to have a traffic study no matter what. So with this the the problem is is that with the drainage or storm water drainage study and the traffic study, we don't know enough about the use for them to properly make those assessments. And so they're kind of they're just not as good of a study basing it off of a bunch of whatifs. So as this you know if if this would get approved as it is before they could do any development that traffic study and that storm water drainage would have to be done. It gets reviewed by public works and health department and planning department and whoever needs to look at it KOT they make recommendations and suggestions or conditions and then we put those conditions on any development so that things don't happen unless those are met. Um, and so in some scenarios, in a lot of scenarios, those happen before you guys hear it when you have a known develop development. There any other questions or comments? Would a commissioner care to make a motion?

I would close the public hearing first and then Yeah. All right. I should should read my notes here. I guess uh we'll close the public hearing then. No, after the original and then with the rebuttal, there's no additional public comment. So, we'll close the public hearing. And now I'll ask if the commissioners have any further discussion or would like to make a motion. I'd move to approve the application given the nine recom or conditions listed under staff recommendations.

Is there a second? Can I second? Can you second it? Yeah, because a lot of times the chair can't. Yes, you can as the chair second.

All right. Well, I will second it just so that we can can proceed and I agree that there are lots of um fail safes here, I guess you'd say, with all of the uh reports that have to be made before anything can be done. Okay. So, at this point, we have a motion and a second to approve as conditioned by the staff report. Right. Um Chad Gearart, Terry Robinson, yes.

Janette Johnson, yes. Myron Lenwer, Rosa Kvasos, no. Dan Brian, yes.

Okay, with three voting yes and one voting no, we have a motion to recommend approval that was accepted. Um, so at this point it does go to the board of county commissioners on December 8th at 9:00 a.m. Um, based on the recommendation of the planning commission and that's at the BCC chamber 707 Quincy. All right, then we will ask if there's any public comment on non-aggenda planning and voting items and then we'll have a discussion of planning related issues. We were planning a work session on um solar energy conversion system regulations which I'm sure you'll find very exciting but [laughter] I don't think we're going to do too much uh discussing of that this evening. But Joanie, you had some things to add.

Yeah, just a couple of comments on the solar energy conversion. Um as you guys are aware, we did the town hall meeting um last month. last month feels like you've kept us busy.

Yeah. So, last month we've done we did the town hall meeting. Um I did take an opportunity to take some of those comments and have tried to incorporate them the best that I could um with um recommendations that were talked about. And so I would say um the one thing that I'm struggling with the most probably would be on Janette's question about how you know can we put a limitation against undeveloped subdivisions. And I I just don't know how we do it. And so think about it if you guys have a recommendation. My biggest concern I I what I did was I went and measured some parcels that are next to undeveloped subdivisions and it's just hard because some of those subdivisions have been sitting undeveloped for 50 years for 10 years and we just don't know if and when that development will ever occur. And so if we put that limitation my concern being that we could be limiting something that's non-existent. Um albeit I completely understand what you're trying to accomplish by that because if you do have an active subdivision then um it would be an issue. I think what my recommendation on that would be that in that we just put maybe a note that says that that could be a consideration instead of necessarily putting an actual restriction so that it's identify it as a potential issue within the what are we you know there's the requirements and then there are the things that we should consider or can consider. Maybe we put that in there instead of a hardline requirement, but as something to consider based on the circumstances because we may have something next to a subdivision that will never develop um that could move forward or in the alternative know that there's development coming and be able to to do

something more about that. So that would be my recommendation unless there's other discussion on it. Sounds reasonable to me.

Okay. So, um, what I'm going to do is finalize the notes and updates and we will hopefully talk about it in December so that you guys can know what it is that you're looking at. We do have a couple of topics that will be in front of you in December. The first is a home plus um location. So, a house where uh a woman is wanting to open sort of like a nursing home or an assisted living type facility, but it's in a house. So, it's very limited in scope. You have a maximum of 10 people um living in a home, a house house with a couple of nurses versus um in a large facility. Um it's very popular nationwide. It we just to my knowledge don't have any here. Um the other item is a maternity home for women who need additional assistance and it's the the request is at the villages where the ch not in the parcel where they were housing children but the parcel right next to it but it's part of that same complex and land that they own. It's a single house and it would also have a few residents um who are expecting children and helping them as they process through their delivery um and such. So those two items are up for December. And so we will probably like we did last year for those of you who were on the commission have a short little holiday celebration beforehand and then our two items and then a short discussion on the solar to get things wrapped up and then we would do a solar hearing in January. We don't know at this point if there are any other items. I I plan on just holding it here. Um I think that based

on our experience, we know how many people we can kind of hold in this room and in the overflow and um I think that we can handle it here instead of moving it elsewhere. Questions? Okay, that's it.

We adjourn. We adjourn. Have you turned off the live feed yet?