Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Stand for the pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation indivisible. With liberty and justice for all.

Call the role. Chair Philip Lantry. Vice Chair Russell Alexander here. Member Megan Marshall. Present. Member Don Griggsby present. Member Rou Ruby Bridgeworth here. Member Teresa Riley Odori here. Member Emit Patel. Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum and Ms. Riley is avoiding members. Thank you. Looks like the first item is approval of the minutes for the meeting held on March 17th, 2026.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting. A second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? I I passes 5. Is that right? Yes. Next item is ordinance number 202623 48 exemption city code amendment CDA 260000003.

Good evening members of the commission. Tisha Manning, deputy community development director and tonight I am print presenting to you the 4 exemption. It is going to be a land development code amendment. Um and so it is amending the section of the code that speaks about um the number of animals that you can have and um and those exemptions. Um we are bringing this forth because as we continue to annex some of the properties from Oyola County and individuals come in that have these exemptions, we do need to address these challenges. This is case number CDA26-00003 and it is ordinance 2026-23. Um, so at the February 12th city council meeting, staff was directed to amend section 8-7 of the city code and section 8-7 currently establish exemptions under chapter 8 animals. Um, and the exemptions must still follow the restrictions of section 8-6. So currently in our code, it has an exemption under section 8-7 that says you are exempt from from from having certain animals for if you are a member of 4 or um FFA. However, you still have to meet certain zoning restrictions and those zoning restrictions then hinder people that are or residents in residential neighborhoods from having animals even though they are participating in the 4 programs. Um so what we're proposing is notwithstanding the foregoing if at any time of annexation a property qualified for and received a valid 4 or future

farmers of American exemption under the Oyola County code. The property shall be considered non-conforming and shall be exempt from the provisions of section 86. And again, 86 is the section that gives the zoning conformity that your lot has to be of a certain size. You can only have a certain number of animals and so forth. So those individuals that already have the 4 exemption at the time of annexation were still not able or were in non-compliance because they could not meet those zoning conformity codes. So, this proposed amendment is going to take away the zoning conformity requirement. Um, and it goes on to further state, the non-conforming status as granted here shall be deemed abandoned of no effect if at least one resident of the property has not participated in a 4 or FFA program for a period of two consecutive years or the owners or owner of the property at the time of annexation into the city sells or leases the property and no longer resides thereon. That is because if you have the 4 exemption, you sell the property, the exemption does not run with the land. It is for the individual that has the 4 exemption. And so staff did review this ordinance. We went through and staff does recommend approval of ordinance 2026-23. And we also request that planning commission recommends approval of ordinance 202623. and I'm available if you have any questions.

Does anyone have any questions? Of course I do. So, uh, let's say that somebody is selling that property to somebody who absolutely wants to be able to have that same benefit of the exemption and they either belong to or are or going to belong to whatever to one of those organizations. are they going to be able to or is it going to be nope sorry you sold the property it's no longer able to be utilized for that?

So what this what this ordinance is really trying to encompass is those people that already have the animals and already have the exemption in Oyola County. So then when we we annex them we don't want them to be like oop sorry you're annexing to the city so your 4 exemption no longer applies. Um in the case of someone selling the property then the 4 exemption again is with the individuals. So if you sell your property and someone new purchase it they do not have a 4 exemption at the time of purchase. If they join a 4 program then that's fine but they won't have the same exemptions as the people who maybe already. So let me give you a good example. You come into the city and say you have 25 chickens because you have a 4 exemption. You have some roosters, you have a 4 exemption existing in the county. You come into the city. The city's chicken keeping program only allows an individual to have six in residential neighborhoods and no roosters at all under the 4 exemption because you can participate in different programs, husbandry, um breeding of chickens and things like that. It may be required for you to have that number of animals. But when we annex you, we don't want you to say you have to now get out of the program and you can no longer participate. So this is strictly for individuals that are annexing.

Okay. And and I totally buy all that. Get it and think it's wonderful. Still the person who is out there selling houses and when somebody goes to buy a house in the in where it used to be county they're being annexed in. Not always by choice, but if they're annexed in and that property is set up and is meant for that type of animal housing,

that might be why somebody's buying it. So that's why I'm just saying that is that going to be something that would be handled separately. Well then that if I might so the language of the of the changes to the code talks about notwithstanding the foregoing with regard to what's you know in the code now if at the time of annexation at the time of annexation that's the critical time the property qualifies uh for and receives the valid 4 or the future farmers exemption then it's then it's deemed non-conforming and then that is abandoned if at least one resident of the property has not participated for a period uh of two years consecutively. So I think that may speak to your the new person coming in. They don't have that two-year if they're they're coming. Well, it depends on the annexation period. That's first and foremost. What's

it's not the annexation part. Pardon me for interrupting. It's not it's not about the annexation or the rule what it is. It's about when it changes. It sounds like we're giving the property the exemption or the annexation, but then whenever they sell it, it goes with the person as opposed to the property. And I would think that somebody out there would be buying a like property because they would want those uh that same ability to have the same type of animals, the same number of animals, etc. when you usually buy outside. So that's just what my concern is,

Miss Grisby. So I I think I believe I follow you. If someone is purchasing a property with the intent to have large animals and different animals, they're typically going to purchase agricultural. This ordinance is to speak to those people in residential zoning districts such as like R1, R1A, the smaller districts. This isn't necessary for the people that are agricultural and are purchasing their property because they want to be those large land owners and have that type of ex those type of animals. That's that's if I could just to finish my thought that's why I was reading through the last two uh exculpatory clauses which is that the non-conforming status which is achieved at the time of annexation is not going to apply. It's abandoned if and then you got the two components at least one resident of the property has not participated in such a program for two years or the owner or owners of the property at the time of annexation no longer reside there. So it it it takes it out. It's not really focusing on who's coming to. It's focusing on who's coming in at the time of annexation and what their stature is in the language. It's not really from in your scenario, the focus in your question is the buyer and can they kind of

No, it's really the property. My whole intent is that the property is nonconforming, which is a new word I've learned this week, too. If it's nonconforming, doesn't that mean that they whoever is moving in? People usually buy like for like this. And I'm not talking large. I'm I'm talking about maybe an acre or whatever it is that they have that's if they've got some animals. But this is not exemption running with the land. It runs with the owners at the time of the annexation. Correct. Right. So you're buying in the city that is now annexed. You just need to be aware that you would not be permitted to have the same luxuries or the opportunities of the of the ownership as the people who are leaving that piece of property. Okay. Interesting.

Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Are there any other questions for the applicant? I'm good. Thank you. Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll make it. I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of uh resolution 2026-23 city code amendment based on the six factual um matters within the land development code. Have a motion a second. Second. Motion a second. All in favor? I

I I that's five. I have one more question though. So no roosters are allowed in the city limits. Correct. So within city limits on properties that are not zone agricultural. Yes. No roosters unless you participate in a 4 program and you have the exemption that allows you to have those roosters. then it has to be a specific exemption because again 4 does offer programs such as husbandry and different things. So the 4 exemption is specific to your animal. Can I do a follow-up question on that?

Yes. not trying to prolong this whole. So, um I hear roosters all the time in my neighborhood and how do we um confirm whether the owners are 4 exemption like how do we know because around my property there's quite a few roosters squaling. Um so what you could do is you could make a formal code enforcement complaint. We go out, we investigate. If the owner provides us with the documentation that they have the 4 exemption, okay,

then they're allowed to continue to have their roosters. If they cannot provide us that documentation that they have a current 4 exemption, not that they're going to get one, that they already have one, then they are in non-compliance. Okay? because I think that there's a little bit of misunderstanding around the um state streets uh because they're not in a HOA, they're wide open that they are allowed to have a rooster.

Um so that is quite I don't know if anybody else has experienced this. It doesn't bother me much, but um there are other individuals that say to me, "What's that rooster doing?" Anyway, it's okay. No roosters within city limits. Okay, gotcha. Thank you.

All right. Next planning commission meeting is May 19th, 2026 at 6 PM. Anybody like to make a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Second. A motion and a second. We're done. Hi. Hi.