Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning everyone. Uh I'd like to call back to order and end the recess of the April 16, 2026 planning board regular meeting. Seeing we have a quorum. So the recess is now ended and we can return to our deliberations and what was item 7.4 Four, amending the various section of the town's UDO regarding planning board and board of adjustment powers and duties, roles, composition, and ter as directed by the town council. And where we left it, we had uh reviewed the planning board items with some number of adjustments to the original suggested text. But when it came to section, make sure I get the right one. uh 2.4 on a board of adjustment. We were requesting that they weigh in on that and which I think they worked on yesterday and I see we got some paper on our desk here called board of adjustment. So Ron, why don't you update us on where we stand on that section and then after that we can then take up where we stand on all the other revisions to the revisions uh to the sections not not including the planning uh board of adjustment.

Oh, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to update you. I was I attended the board of adjustment meeting yesterday and the board reviewed in entirety section 2.4 and the amendments that they made were to section three under membership and composition. If you go to the very last sentence where it talks about the ETJ members rights and privileges, they added the language that you see there in red in front of you that says when the ETJ member shall have equal rights and privileges with other members when acting on matters affecting the ETJ. And the added language says and all areas within the corporate limits of the town. If you forward to what would be page three in your handout for the board of adjustment section 5A under oath subpenas where it says the chairperson or his/h her design they then added the language or clerk of the board of adjustment are authorized to admin oath minister oaths and so on. That was the only changes that the board of adjustment made in section 2.4 for and voted on those changes and passed it in its entirety.

So, this is what they recommend that we include. Make sure I understand. We had originally a text amendment with a bunch of red lining replacement for section 2.4. So, I guess I don't know how that relative to that is. It replaces that in its entirety. So correct other words we we had this original version with with all the red lines. So this new document 2.4 replaces everything that was here.

They reviewed the document that was sent to them by the governing board. They also had in their packet the document with the red lines. They reviewed the original document, made the two changes that I indicated, and they voted on that and accepted it. I think it includes the red line.

I'm just trying to read this first sentence to make see which one's which here. Pursuant to NG20 there is here it's the red line is hereby established a board of adjustments for the town of town the board of

Yeah. See the red lines are in there. So the red is incorporated in this one. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Even that last sentence right in the town is cons ordinances. No, described by this ordinance. Not ex it's not exactly the same. The last sentence isn't exactly the same, right? Because if you look at the delegate described by this or now it's delegated by this ordinance. So is this more like the original? I don't mean to offend complete. I'm just reading if you read what I'm doing is the 2.4A1 text amendment language that we got at the last meeting is not the same as this language. So is this language replacing this one? And what's in the current UD UDO? Do they? If you just look at the last sentence, I guess you can see that they're not the same.

Yeah. The one that we got handed today, the second sentence says the planning board. This should be board of adjustment. Right. Right. You see what I mean? You guys see that? If you look at Well, we got 2 A1. If this that first paragraph one compared to one that we just got today is not the same. Yeah, I think they got this.

You see that Ron? Right. So does are we saying that what they wrote here and again Steuart brings up the point is the planning board exercise only shouldn't say planning board it should say the board of adjustment and then is everything else then do they just not look at that first paragraph or you see my confusion well I don't know exactly what the DOA got because I did not I was not at that meeting yesterday. I was not able to be there things going on. Right. Um I watched it. They didn't comment on that first paragraph at all.

So did Should we not take their number one and take the uh Ron Sadderfield number one because I think they say the same thing. when I tried to mirror the two the document of what we got from council when I tried to bring it over I tried to use as much as possible the current code language so there were fewer changes

obviously in the current code it says and to point out Mr. Jones's um what he just pointed about the planning but just reference planning board under establishment authority current code already had board of adjustment so that's why know I did not change that obviously um the current code already referenced the correct statute so there were some not as many changes to that right because even as you see what you have is so I don't know where this came from because like I guess because like B we have a one two, which we didn't change. Well, nothing was changed, but they've changed it now. But it's it's powers and duties,

but the rules have it. The powers of duties maybe form is formatted slightly different to hear and decide appeal parent special use permits. And then the second sentence says the board of adjustments shall follow statutory judicial procedures. That's current code language. And when I created the tried to mirror the merge the two documents, I did not feel like we needed to have to change it just for the sake of changing it because it says the same thing. Um, so I'm going back to what you guys originally propose. I don't think we have to it's the same wording. It's just format

what you a formatting thing. And when my opinion is on on a grammatical perspective, you don't have an A if you don't have a B. You don't have a one if you don't have a two. Okay. So, I would I think it's I would take what their changes are, what they're proposing or recommending and just just in make sure we incorporate it into what's being so in their number one we need to replace planning board with board of adjustment.

Correct. And it's already fine and it's already and what you received last week and talked about last week already references board of adjustment. But what language are we using? I'm still not We have this language on this document doesn't recatch the language on the text amendment. We are still voting on the text amendment, not on this piece of paper. I agree. And the text

if we're voting on the text amendment, why is the text amendment reflect what the board of adjustment wants? And if you're sensing, I've had enough of this and we're getting real close. We have a text amendment before us at the last meeting was recessed to allow any further changes the board would like to the text amendment that was given to us. So if the proposal now is to replace everything that was in 2.4 with this piece of paper that's one thing or I have no idea what we got. We are still looking at the text amendment cuz that's what's in the UDO%

agree. Is this a text amendment? The board the the board of adjustment had the document that you just held up the original document that was given by the council. The board of adjustment also had the redlinined version that was delivered from Mr. Satderfield. The board of adjustment made the changes that you see in that original document and that's what they voted on. But that's not the text amendment. We have a text amendment before us. We don't have an original document. We can we are reviewing and voting on a text amendment. I need to see the text amendment. I can only give you what the board, Mr. Chair, I don't know what you want from me. So, is it now on

I don't know what the text amendment says anymore. I can't I will not do a motion to approve or deny. I can't either because I don't know what the text amendment says because the text amendment we had at the last meeting which we're still considering after the recess doesn't match this and if if this is what the I have no problem with the what the board of adjustment wants but it needs to be put into the text amendment. Are you hearing me Ron or am I you could tell me I'm wrong if you want to. I'm I'm happy I'm fine with that but that's my mind. We have a text amendment. the board of adjustment and I thought the instructions were for them to look at the text amendment and say what they want and what they don't want which is what we got here but we don't have it in the text amendment now we are we are looking at a text amendment that's been published correct

I got advertised I got the board of adjustments stuff this morning I was not here yesterday I did not I like I said earlier I was not able to be here yesterday for this discussion was not not even sure what they received other than what chief has just said they got this morning. I was I have not incorporated what they showed because I got it this morning and I was trying to print out what I realized when I walked in the door this morning that in your box you did not have correct that's the text that I have that I made since your meeting and that's what I was trying to do before this meeting started and just to further defend my computer was not I got a new computer because it crashed yesterday at last after this meeting.

So are we just not ready for this? Yeah. I'm willing to just ad admit defeat and say we're not ready for this yet because of this is what whatever changes are made. I just want to make sure chief you understand we we are required and have obligated to review and vote on a text amendment but we really don't have one that's complete at this time for whatever unfortunate reasons that occurred. Now, we might be tried to push the envelope to squeeze this all in. It was just not possible. Uh yeah, I feel like we're pushing too hard, too fast, and we need to get it right.

I mean, we're trying to meet some these deadlines, and we tried, but I just don't think we have I not sure what I would move on and what I would vote on today. Yeah. what what remains to be reviewed in this entire rewrite minus the section 2.4 because I left the last Thursday's meeting before it was recessed. Had you made it through we made it through the whole the whole document with the exception of 2.4. Well, and we including 2.4 for sort of saying that our preference is that the board of adjustment looks at this first this text amendment

and tell us what they can weigh in at what they can what they agree with what they don't agree with or whatever which I'm assuming they did and tried to do yesterday they did okay so their thoughts and this needs to be put into this text amendment so short of adding their two

but into this text amendment I don't think you can do that straight up. I mean, you have to look at the language of the what's in the UDO now and incorporate what they it might be just a cut and paste the new one in there maybe like I just said like on that first paragraph it don't you can it doesn't work what they got doesn't work the wording is wrong it says planning board not board of so we can't even cut and paste that one in because it has to be fixed again sure

so Maybe we just rush the envelope too much. Ron and uh Kimberly when she comes back where it needs more time to look at what they said, put it into the text amendment. It looks like I got an email the other day. I forget when it was. Was it Tuesday with this updated after meeting this updated text they just handed me which is our changes to the planning board and other sections. So, we need to review that to see it agrees with the meeting. Yeah. And there's issues in there, too.

You're right. I caught a few, but not a lot. I didn't have a lot of time. I was busy on. So, I just wonder we just didn't I I think we just face the facts. We didn't give enough time for everybody to do their jobs properly. So, we need to figure out how to give staff and everybody time to I mean, Ron's feverishly working here, but stop, Ron. And you're not going to fix it at at the moment unless we give you more time. The original the original direction from the board was to either approve or not approve. Is that the council or the council? The governing body,

right? And that document was sent as it was sent from the governing board. They looked at the document, made those edits, and they approved it. Well, they can't they can't

they they the way this works is the planning board has 60 days to provide revisions based on what we've been handed and at that point the council has the obligation to hold public hearings on the now accepted changes from the planning board to the council or a public hearing. Now, my understanding is, and Stuart, keep me honest here, is they've already scheduled a public hearing. Well, there's nothing to hear.

In other words, they're not going to we're not going to have a document that reflects the revisions made by the planning board to the UDO that are ready for consideration by the public. So, with respect, because I'm learning as I go, please understand that. So if they can't vote on this, which the chairman said they can't, we sent it to them for review and comment only. Right. Am I correct? And they did just that. Right. So that needs to be inputed into this text amendment. They gave you two minor edits which could be added into that text amendment. Yeah, but you're looking at the wrong basic text.

They had both of the documents available. Well, okay. We we we have already before us a text amendment. We can't adopt that text amendment and this document because they don't agree. We either need to replace what's in the text amendment with a new text. But looking at the new text, it's not right. We already determined the first line isn't right. So, we can't just say remove section 24 from text amendment that staff provided on April 16th with text from the board of adjustment on April whatever it was yesterday 21st

21st because that's not even right. We then now have to start working on theirs if which I just believe we're we it's like running too fast and falling forward. But I guess I guess my question is and again I'm learning as I go. Yeah. If they don't vote and those board of they don't have a vote really. So if they don't their two edits could be added into what you're about to vote on. I agree.

Just those sentences. So a matter of 25 words if that could be added into your existing text amendment language because if we we keep going back to they don't vote, they don't get to approve this. What they said was here's two minor edits we want. include those in your text amendment. So go back to Ron's text amendment of April 16th and add their two comments. Add those two comments if that's the only changes. That was the only changes that we walked out of that 27 meeting 27 minute meeting. Okay. So we have 2.4 and this blue lined one here someplace. Right.

And I didn't realize you guys had gotten what I thought I heard you guys talk about last week changes. So I that was the blue line is supposed to be representing that. I've heard maybe that you have some further edits or don't believe it captures everything. That's fine. That's what we're here for today. Um, but it was based on my notes and understand like I said earlier, my computer crashed. Literally crashed after that meeting Thursday and I had to get a new computer. So, I was making changes. I understand why it crashed. This this whole thing has been a bit of a crash and burn. So, so just for what we're saying to do is only look at the red part. That's not on this document.

So, I can tell you I've just quickly looked Mr. Bruno, you said stop working because I don't need to do this, but I can tell you where those changes would be in the blue line. Now, are are we extending our reach beyond what we are endowed by ordinance? I mean, it sounds like, okay, we're going to we're going to change the text of the UDO based on submissions by an organization to which we do not belong. No. Yeah. But we always can do that. I don't think I don't think going beyond your scope and reach in my opinion because you're the board that is making a recommendation to town council. Okay.

Town council had asked that we take the initial amendment to the board of adjustment for their feedback, which is what was done yesterday. you're you had asked that they also provide some suggested language under their section 2.4 board of adjustment. So they don't typically make a recommendation or get or even get opportunity to make it pay to have input on the text amendment. So let let me as as the chair pointed out. So you could take this document you just gave us and you can those two edits and you can put these two edits someplace in here so we could see them. the two edits. I can tell you where they go for now. Where do they go? All right. So, under 2.4 C one.

Yep. At the very end, add and all areas within the corporate limits of the town. At the very end of one, C1. Yeah. Where the ETJ period is. So, ETJ period would go the period's gone. period's gone. Yep. And all areas areas within the corporate limits of the town.

Okay. And then if you flip to letter E, oath and subpoenas is a couple pages. All right. Under one after designate, comma or clerk or the board of adjustment, comma. So it would read the chairperson and I had proposed stricken striking his his because his slash her is irrelevant and not needed language. So the chairperson or designate comma or clerk of the board of adjustment comma is authorized to administer oaths.

Okay, those are the two changes that they propose. Okay, perfect. And then the other items on this original sheet have been incorporated in some way, shape or form into this document just in other places or slightly varied words. I there were couple of times where we I tried to remove redundancies, redundant language just as an example, but all of 2.4 four as initially suggested by council is incorporated and what you talked about last week and it's incorporated in the blue what I just passed out.

Okay. So now we can go back and look at the blue and see if it agrees with our notes right and from the last meeting and before we start at the beginning maybe to help save some time Mr. Chairman. Okay. I'm always for that. Based on your feedback last week, unless I just missed somewhere, missed something by mistake, I have put you guys back in the review process for major site plans and preliminary subdivision flights. I may have missed something. So, I apologize if that was the case if you found something, but that was so basically the back half of this document um under the common review procedures,

right? You guys are back in the process. 2.14 special plan procedures. I basically just rejected all changes on this document. Right. So the blue should reflect the original red and then our discussion. That's was my intent. Again, if I missed something, I apologize for that. But it was based on my recollection and the notes that I had taken. Okay. Well, we can review then we will forth with review that to uh

but certainly the intent was to your direction that I heard you say was you guys want to be part of the major site plan review process and the major preliminary subdivision process. Correct. That has been restored unless I just missed something but that has been restored. up we'll try to

and if you find something that's fine but that is the biggest change that I've and some of the other convers you know the conversation the composition feedback etc. I mean the question the main part of B what we redid was instead of if I remember correctly instead of repeating stuff we put an opening paragraph and then all the added duties that could be added or confirmed whatever we call it. So the third sentence, the planning board shall have the following duties at town council's request in an open meeting by majority voted to count council.

That's what I thought I heard you say, right? You as and then all these numbers one through one got we crossed out here. So one fair review recommend through town council comprehensive that's the land use plan right. So as an example Mr. Chair with modifying that first lead in if you will I then went and deleted any where I could find anywhere where it said at town council's request. Right. Right. because that's covered in the first line and these are all the things that can be requested

which is the land use plan is number one number two is the periodic review of the land use plan basically right correct three is what we're doing here review and make rep regarding UDO text amendments should be a comment there right zoning amendment zoning text amendments zoning map amendments subdivision regulation amendments and other development regulations. Right. So basically three is what we're doing today is any UDO changes. Right. Right. Staying in a nutshell there. And that's retaining that's just retaining those right that duty.

Number four is advised account council on land youth growth management event. So that's advisory which is covered also right is number four. Five drops down to to

conduct studies and prepare advisory reports. That's nice. Kind of open-ended. Okay. And related related to land use infrastructure planning growth trend. Okay. Six which everyone agrees on and is trying to achieve to promote public participation in planning process and provide opportunities for community input. Yes. and seven perform other advisory plan they be directed by town consistent with 160D. So I guess the question to Stuart and everybody else is that the inclusive list that we derive from the original list in there. It sounds like it to me

it's in there. I still have an issue with, you know, the very first statement saying that, you know, we have to have town council's request. Uh so in here is UDO amendments. Over the last two years, we've come up with several UDO amendments that the town council didn't request us to do. I feel like we can't initiate a a UDO text change on our own. That we can only do it if the town council Which number is that one?

The very first one. Well, it's the very first line. Well, that but I'm wondering we should we could we could put that as a separate item with now maybe I'm missing something here but when I go to the UDO text amendment section 216 which is you don't have because there weren't any proposed changes to that right it says proposed amendments to the text of the ordinance may be initiated by any interested party that includes the planning board. Well, maybe we got to work on the first sentence again because I think it says the planning board shall have anybody can propose a texture,

right? And then and then 216A1A says proposed changes or amendments to the zoning map may be initiated by town council, planning board, town administration or by the owner his So, I think we just got to fix the We need to be consistent. We need to fix the first sentence again. The planning board shall have the following duties, and additional duties something at town councils request an open meeting by majority vote. Yeah. And you know what I'm saying that they can we have the following duties and the town council can if they vote on provide additional

additional duties or you know what I'm saying? I think you need a comma and then and in there so that the town council can say, "Okay, we want the planning board to do this." They take a vote on it and then we do it. So read what you're suggesting. Well, I'm thinking the planning board shall have the following duties, and additional duties as assigned by the town as or assigned by the town council in an open meeting by majority mo vote.

So, we have these duties. The town council can deliberate something, vote on it, and assign us an additional duty in an open meeting. Yes. Right. And then we're consistent. I believe that makes us it allows it allows them to assign additional things that they think we should be working on and but we have the base duties in here that that are consistent with the rest of the UDO. You am I making sense, Stuart and Ron? and you guys. Yeah. So, this this would allow for someone to come directly to the planning board in some cases,

right? Because it's elsewhere in the UDO. And so, this would would be consistent with it.

And I guess this is where I don't disagree what you're suggesting, but I'm going to just look at what the current code reads, look at what the statutes read, etc. When you look at the current requirements or or powers and duties, if you will laid out on the statute, it's laid out in the current code. It does not specifically say that you have to initiate a text amendment as an example. Why is that not there? Because you don't need to because it's listed somewhere else in the code. When I look through the planning board composition or 160D301 in the general statutes in there, neither does it say that you explicitly have the require rights to initiate a text amendment or map amendment. So it's implicit just there, right? But we're back to where we were because it wasn't broken before,

right? Okay. And so all we're trying to incorporate in here is what appears to be the county council's desire to be able to assign, request, whatever you want to call it, things for us, things for the planning board to do. Sure. So I would have been happy leaving it just the way it was. And you can make that recommendation. So we could go back and trash the whole thing in general. We were trying to accommodate what appeared to be their desire that if something comes up that they want to be able to deliberate and vote on it and give us the duties. Now uh

but we tried to eliminate that as a necessary step. I mean there are situations in which

staff may come across a somewhat urgent need for a UDO text change and if I mean and that's a fairly timebased process and what I fear is now we're adding another step okay council has to approve it before we can even start instead of in some cases the ability of the police the fire department, someone may who may suddenly come up against a a need for a UDO change. And I'll give you an example. The text change that we made on the basis of electric cutoff that was a FEMA um requirement that needed to be done fairly expeditiously. My understanding is council didn't look at that.

Oh, yes. the uh No, staff staff brought that to you. Yeah, staff brought it to us and we said, "Oh, yeah. We need to get this done." Now, ultimately, council votes on it. Correct. But it did not go to council first. But what we don't want is, oh, you got to go to the council to get approval so you can take it to the planning board. Now, the planning board can approve it. Now, it has to go back to the council. And I don't read that into this. I mean, I think that's I I don't I don't read that in into that. to me with the ability of the current of the current code language in 2.16 where it says that any interested party can petition to have this code amended. Interested party includes the planning board. Interested party could include the board of adjustment, right?

They could say, "Hey, we've run into so many variances for side setbacks that we think the planning board and town council ought to reconsider that st that standard. I'm just throwing I'm using Yeah. Yeah. So they have the ability to initiate or at least bring something to our attention and see we want to move it forward. Yeah. But are we writing code here that contradicts that? I know what you're saying. I hear you don't see it. I don't see it. But others could see it. I don't see it. But others could see it. Yeah. I think it needs to be fairly explicit. And if since and I would say so maybe

some legal scholar could make the argument that this is the implicit powers and duties and the other ones no this is explicit excuse me powers and duties and the other ones are somewhat implicit. So explicit overrules implicit. I'm going to read the general kind read the preamble. The general statute says duties. A planning board may be assigned the following powers of duties and it lists seven or eight duties. Seven duties, right? And then nowhere in there does it say

are we just going about this wrong? Maybe. I don't know. We were all all we were trying to do is respond to what we think is the C does the council want to ass preapprove and assign all duties to us in advance or not is what Richard is saying is that what they want do they want the power that everything we do is assigned by them first or they don't want that really they just want to be able to if they find something appropriate deliberate and assign it to us as needed. What do they want?

I haven't had conversations with the council, but my but when I read this initial proposal, what I read into it was if they want you involved your input and take the lead, let's say on a comprehensive plan, they would request it. Don't we already have it? Where there's things where it said at the town's pleasure, at the town's pleasure. At the town's pleasure.

Yeah. when you bring up when you when you decided to put it at the town's pleasure at the beginning to me then you're opening up the can of worms where it says at town council's pleasure you can review and make recommendations do text amendments that wasn't the intent the intent was on these studies chief please if I'm speaking out of mind please please correct me because I haven't had conversations with council on this when you decide to put that at town council's request at the beginning now you're saying that one you go from interpretation Mr. chairman that the only time that that you can get involved in text amendments if council asked you to do that we had it in individual one section two section three it was only at those times where council

town council's request so what you're suggesting is by doing it this way we're negating yes the all right so that's why I kept it as individ I understood it was redundant language but when it was specifically in one or three or five, whatever the numbers was without me looking back at the sheet. Those items specifically, state law says that you have a role in reviewing text amendments and map amendments.

Well, I mean, we go back with the original redline version, but again, I'm back to where I was as, you know, in all those places after the word town council's request as confirmed by a majority vote of the town council in open session. you want to add that language to every single one where it says town council request. I'm okay with that if you think that it's the better way of doing it. When I broke it down, that's why I kept it like it was because you have a role in the text amendments. You have a role in comprehensive plan and studies etc. if council asked you to. Well,

which is exactly where we are now before this,

but no, I mean, we initiated the land use plan change and it I mean, we were the ones talking about updating the land use plan way before council directed us to do an update to the land use plan. And I and I think in that case, if I may, Mr. Jones, yeah, is if you feel like there's a need for a study, a need for a plan, regardless if this has changed or not, you bring it up to administration. You have a planning, you'll have a planning director, full-time planning director at some point. You have the min the town administrator and your discussion said, "We think we need to have a study on X." That then goes through the town planner who may bring it and who likely would bring it to the attention of the town administrator. At some point that's going to go to town council to be budgeting. Town council then decides then priority of whether or not what they want your role to be.

Correct. We never spend money. That's request correct approved by them. So does does I don't think this precludes you from bringing up whether it changed or as written or or not precludes the town planning board from saying hey I think we ought to consider amending or cons I'm sorry updating the land use plan. Does it preclude you from that? think because ultimately it's got to be budgeted, right?

And then when that budget process, the RFQ process, etc., that's where roles are then further defined. County council may decide we want the planning board to be the lead kind of like I'm going to use in air quotes steering committee of what you were going to be. And council may also say, well, we'd rather have, you know, a steering committee of 10. Let's have one member of the planning board, a member of town council, and eight other citizens. often it will come to you for adoption or for for a recommendation to be adopted but just gives that ability to do what's your suggestion and language I think the revised language as you were presented last week

the red one the red one was consistent with what council had proposed and to me it does not take any powers and duties away they're almost a mirror image of what the statutes read they're not in which is cons what you what the red language from last week was consistent with the statutes the current code is consistent with the statutes. Yeah but the red lines

starts confusing things again at the time my only objection to the to that one was the request was done by a vote not by I don't What is a town council request? Somebody from the town council's sending me an email and I wanted clarification of after the word town council request that it's a vote majority voted item not a an email from somebody and if that's the direct that that could certainly be recommended to council ultimately council can make will make the decision

if they want to include that or not. So, going back to the red line version, if you kept everything else like it was, but then incorporate well, uh, define I'm going to say define what that townhouse town council makes request. I I can't go back to the red lines because that still includes us not approving site plans and subdivisions. I'm not talking about his entirety. I'm talking about the purpose and duties at the moment. I'm sorry. Sorry. I'm I'm boxing in right now this powers and duties. Yeah. B paragraph sub paragraph B. Okay. Sorry for the confusion. That's where my focus was. Right. No, I'm with you on that. Okay. So,

so where are we

in sub par in article two planning board subp paragraph B powers and duties is to go back to the April 16th version. with the inclusion after every time you see the words at the town council's request adding a clarification which I would go as comma as confirmed by majority vote of the town council in open session would be suitable language that that clarifies whether request is and then everything else should agree. I guess number six, I'm not sure item six in this is to promote a public part that we need that at the count council's request. That could be removed in its entirety. We should be doing that all the time, right?

Yep. Yeah. Uh but everywhere else including adding to the number seven that again directed by the town council adding the same language there I don't know what directed and requested is but thoughts on that Stuart just on that section I'm okay with with that change to that section. Yeah, I'm okay. Richard, um I'm a little still a little confused as to what we're changing and uh we're going back to the

red line. We're undoing our change, sort of reconsidering our change, going back with Ron's original uh red line text amendment, just adding adding the uh language after every time you see the town council's request, insert that little phrase between two commas. Yeah. And then uh and I do think some number six and seven maybe need some. So we're replacing that phrase with what language?

So just as an example, Mr. Digger under a under the powers and duties number two. Yep. And Mr. Gruno Priest, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would I just what I heard say it would read to conduct periodic review of the comprehensive plan or land use plan and recommend updates as needed at town council's request as confirmed by majority vote in open session. Okay, I'll add in open session.

That's how it should be made. Right. So there's a number of places where you see the count council's request the town at where we add the uh I don't know I'm going to call it a clarifier or definer. What again what is town council request? I mean my thought was somebody sends sends somebody an email is that that a request I would say no request certainly that they have a motion and an open meeting and they vote. Can we add the word formal request? And then I don't think you need it.

I kind of like it. Um and and then the definition of that is a majority vote of the town council in open session. The word formal doesn't add anything in my mind, but it's just the original thought on trying to get this compressed was to get rid of words, but apparently we're going to need the words. If I may, yeah,

the intro to that section in B outlines everything that follows in the sub points. So if you make that formal request, majority vote, open session, and that opening under powers and duties, everything that follows in points number one through seven, the big concern with that, right? Big concern on that one, as I point out earlier, is number three, they already have a role in making recommendations to council on UDO, text amendments, zoning text amendments, zoning map amendments, subdivision regulations, etc. So they have to be part of that process. So if you add the town council that town council's request and what I'm going to call the preamble. Sure. Then it kind of gives

and blicks with the rest. I understand. So that's how we're going back. And item number six, we're eliminating that language all together. Yes. In item six, I would I would take the atount council's request out just to promote public participation. should be all of our I think that phrase needs to be inserted only in the numeric items in which it right is pertinent. So which would be in number one, number two, not in number three. I took it out of number four. Four. Advised town council manage management. Not in number four. It's in number five. Right.

Correct. Yep. And then not in number six. Number six. Not in and not at the council's request. That should be everyone's duty to promote public participation. And and number seven, I think we do need it at because it says as directed by the town council. I think it needs to be added that one too. Maybe at the end directed or after the word directed in that case. Can we keep the language? I mean there's a big difference between requested and directed. The language should be consistent throughout. You change directed to requested? I don't know why they change put that as directed. Was there some

Ron? You have some idea why you wanted directed there because because of 160D? Yeah, I'm checking. Huh? I'm looking at 160D. You might have. So 160D reads to perform any other related duties that the governing board may direct. All right, we can leave it that way and be consistent with 160D, I guess. Um, since we said consistent with 160D. Yeah, it's the same. I get that. Doesn't make any All right. Sorry for the confusion, but we're back on track. Right. Right. So, I'm adding and I'm trying to do this on the fly because I imagine you guys want to see something. Uhhuh. Um, which I don't have access to a printer at the moment. So,

well, you can always store it on a Well, it can be stored. I just had someone else can print it. Okay. So, that's what we're going to do on paragraph B. C I think you had correct. We just struck one and the first line is there, right? Correct. And based on earlier conversation, if we don't have a two, I'd prefer not to have a one in a code, sir.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. I took the number off, right? And then uh sub paragraph D membership vacings and meet V vacancies and meetings, excuse me. Two was removed, one I think we were all okay with with the ETJ membership and the county board, right? Yeah. So if two's removed then three becomes two. Two, right? Make sure I'm catching this. Right. Terms of service would be service of pleasure. Correct. Yeah. That was your proposal.

Great. So turn to members of the plan board shall serve. I see the serve in there now. for terms of three years. Such terms to be staggered and beginning on a date of appointment until successor is appointed and qualified must continue is qualified a period then what does the qualified mean? They're appointed. Let me read it until appointed should end at appointment right then it will say comma unless earlier removed by the town council or the or the we took that out commissioner. So we took that out. Yeah. So qualify it has to be appointed right

it's a period there after commissioners that's one no second commissioner no we took that last sentence out right I'm just saying and qualified should have also been removed right does the qualified mean it's after appointed take it out the the the crossout just needs to go further left the strike vacancy we had the which is now number three. Yeah. Well, okay. Fix the numbers. It fixes them when I change it. Okay.

Yep. So the next four would be starting with the word faithful. Right. Right.

We're taking out the annual I went back to the original red line. Sorry. So we took out annual organization confirmation. Yeah. Great. But that's fine. You missed two consecutive meetings. Not excused. You're subject to removal by the council. Right. And before I forget, you your comment or what I heard last week, yours meaning the board was you want this consistent with the board of adjustment 2.4 and I changed theirs to two as well. Okay. Okay. But they have a different number of meetings, I thought. Right. Well, you're they're scheduled to meet annually, but they'd only meet when we have an item.

Yeah, but they're they're u missing meetings. I thought we found there was a difference. Right. We're saying we're miss this one. You're subject to removal if you're unexcused for two missing two consecutive meetings. I thought theirs was slightly different on the number. Theirs is three, right? I changed it to two. Okay. So, theirs is now two. They they agree with that. They didn't make they didn't make the make a change. Okay. And again, like we said, if there's an excuse absence and illness, something that we announced during the meeting, then it's not a it's not I think I did add

Yeah, absences are excused if recognized by the planning board chair during the during the meeting or during a meeting during something dumb meeting. I'm not sure what the be the current meeting. I don't know. During any meeting, I guess. Yeah. should probably during during a public meeting. That was the intent. Yeah, that was like during a public meeting is probably the intent was like when you open up. Yeah, just like last week when Michael said he has a leave, he was excused. So, it's not a miss or if he tells me today I can't come to the next meeting because I'm going to be in uh Could you excuse him at that meeting?

I think yes, you could, but I think you just any public at any in any public meeting. Okay. For minute purposes, I think it's best if it's done the meeting that someone is absent. Right. Okay. I say minute. I say minute purposes on meeting purposes. We knew what you meant. Did you want to add the word public during the public? Yeah, I think so. Not not that we don't have any. They should be public regardless, right? But that could make sure we're clear on that that it's got to be during the public meeting. It can't be like after I adjourn say, "Oh, Mike's not coming next." That would not be appropriate.

And if this is adopted, we'll try to maybe put a reminder on the agenda, absences, excuse, unexcused, meeting schedule or something or attendance or correct. Okay. So, that that's number four. Meetings and procedures becomes number five. I think that's it. We got the rules. I don't believe you guys have any changes to that. Nope. And then number eight becomes number six, right? Correct. Yep. Okay. Moving on to E now. Right.

Then I need to restore that. You my understanding you guys wanted all that. You wanted that back. Yeah. Yes. And that was just restored from original language, right? Yeah. Okay. Then F comprehensive plan. We wanted a May in there, right? Yeah. That's what we've done. Oh, yeah. Yeah. You're on We're on We don't have a page number, but we're on uh just before the board of adjustment now. Comprehensive plan. read comprehensive plan with accompanying maps, plants, charts, and descriptive matter may show.

Yep. Okay. And we fixed some or similar at the end there. Right. Okay. Now, we're on the board of adjustment and we're agreed on that that in section 24. We have everything that was included in the red line version provided at the April 16th meeting except for the two well apparently three changes. Uh do we need a motion to accept those two changes? No, we need a motion at the end of this for this whole thing at some point. Yeah.

Uh right. And I thought I added that in my section here. Yes. Or did I put it at? So in section 24 C. Wait a minute. Yeah, section 24 C one one at the very end. That's where we add in all the areas within the corporate limits of the town. Right. Yeah. I'm not happy with two. because they left in the without cause.

They talked about it and they decided to leave it in. I know. I'm not I thought some of the point of this was to have the board sort of consistent. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. So that becomes now an inconsistency. Right. Still think it's could be mi misconstrued as political intimidation. I my preference is is uh I mean they waffled on it most of them said you know

because it's out of ours I think it should be out of theirs and it's simply just taking out the words or without may be removed in any at any time with cause and take out the words or without. Yeah, because then we're consistent on the two the the two 160 sort of controlled boards would have the same removal process. Yeah. And I think some of the point of this was to be consistent. Correct. You guys at the left side agree? Yeah.

Absolutely. I I know they had a deliberation on it and but uh I think we should be consistent between the two 160D sort of mandated boards that removal be we're saying cause we didn't define cause but we'll assume the state causes are causes so consensus and you haven't taken an official vote but I'm trying to keep up to make a change in the we're on C section C paragraph two just striking the words or without Okay. And then they had one more. You you said you changed the uh

six, right? No. And number six, you have the two consecutive meetings there. Yes. Which is fine. Right. And they have the same thing about Well, they they spell out what their absences are, which is fine. So they're the same as us on the two. And they wanted another change to E1. No, D ah E1. Yes. E1 where they inserted or the clerk of the board of adjustment, right? Yep.

And then nothing in Okay. Okay. So that we're good at really. So we got three changes to that. the two they suggested in red on their document and the one change in the missing the meeting from three to two and then four changes and striking the without cause. Correct. Correct. The board of adjustment should be essentially substantially significantly whatever the word you like the same operation as planning board. Agreed.

Okay. Yay. technical review committee. I think the only change is undoing the change and leaving the planning board leaison in at the end of paragraph three. Right. That was the intent. Yeah. Right. So that's just back to where it was.

I don't know. Do we need any clarification on that? Like a non-participating planning board. You have any preference? I try not to when I'm there not to uh say too much on a meeting unless asked, but I'm open. The original intent when our previous chairman uh had this added uh the UDO was to have a planning board member there so we're informed on we're knowledgeable on discussion that occurs at the TRC. So when it comes to us for the approval, we have at least one person that was involved and has intimate knowledge. Uh, and we just did that with the word planning board chair liaison, but we could add something like nonparticipating, non-medddling or whatever.

What I just as based on what you're saying and you guys again, thumbs up or down, I put in parentheses as a non-participating member. Fine. I'm after after Lee is after chair Lee is on, I put in parenthesis as a non-participating member. Right. Excellent. Yeah. Our goal there was just to hear what was participated in the last one. Well, I always keep going less asked. Well, can I non-participating? I mean, so we're not allowed to speak.

Technically speaking, when it was as my when it was when I was when it was brought up to me that it was added. It was for someone there to observe, to be prepared, to be, you know, be prepared. So when it comes to the planning board, at least someone was there, understood what was being said. Do we want to change the word leaison maybe to observer? I like it just like how it is.

So in practice, what I've done though is I'll just use the chair as an example. When I got the lost palm site plan in, I put the chair as a member of the TRC on the email and he said he couldn't come see if Stu he wasn't going to be able to come see if Steuart could come. So I did comments were given to me on what Stuart saw. I made comments. You did the same thing on one I believe maybe was the hotel maybe or or the and well through I incorporated the comments from from Stuart into my comments. I think I had all but maybe one of them captured anyway. Yeah. I think what we were trying to avoid is someone from the planning board don't sit there and go we're never going to approve this.

Yeah. It's to limit limit. we won't approve this unless you do this. Right? So, it's not avoidance. It's not that it didn't have a say or a voice. There were opportunities for input through me as a plan. Whether or not that was the intent, I just felt like that was good practice. Well, I don't know. Maybe we just like say the just leave it as is. I just leave it as is. Right. There's nothing wrong with But I'm happy you can also add in par just observer maybe or something. We just keep it like it is. Keep it like it is. It could be defined as as the town feels like the role needs to be but the intent of it is you're not providing a bunch of comments or meddling meddling and having use the chair's word and monopolizing a conversation with TRC really the purpose of the meeting

who heads the technical review committee is there is it's planning planning police is invited fire is invited public works is invited I mean who's the chairperson it's the planning director Kate takes the lead on that yeah all right so I mean they could always say, "Hey, sit down and shut up." Yeah. So, but then we we but just so everyone knows, Mike, I know you have been involved. So, planning, police, fire, building inspections is given an opportunity to provide comments. DOT, if it's a DOT street, Brunswick County, um so this may not necessarily be a meeting. It could just be a it can be just convergence of submissions, right? Usually, it's a meeting. Usually, it's a meeting, but it doesn't have to be.

Okay. There were only three of us at the last one. It was fire chief steward and me. Okay, let's just leave it alone because Yeah. Unless someone starts to be an egregious uh pain in the ass. Yes. Okay. Why are you looking at me, Ron? I uh I think that's uh what else did we have? So 212 is back. I'm back. I'm going through the document now, Ron. So I'm just can can I kind of just show Can I So you don't have to keep So what are we doing now? So I could just kind of No, we're on 212. Right. Right. So yeah,

previously you guys had the word planning board. So I'm going to reject the deletion and put you back. Right. Um same thing with major site. Whoa. Whoa. Yeah. Whoa. Put us back. 2121. Yes. Insignificant deviations from a permit issued or approval granted by the town council of the planning board of adjustment are permissible. Small deviations am small deviations are allowed change.

Yeah. Otherwise, it would be immens and that seems to me to be I mean somebody explained to me what insignificant is. Oh, let me see it. I said the code defines it. Sorry. It's always been in there. It's always been in there and it's standard language, right? Let's say let's say somebody showed a 15t set back from a property line comply and they want to move it to 20 ft or 16.

Well, I'm saying 20 it's getting further away from that property line that it was but not close but not necessar negatively affecting. So this these insignificant in insignificant deviations could actually reflect an embellishment of the existing UDO. Are they necessarily going to reflect a deviation? Well, it could be any. I mean, we approve a site plan that had 37 bushes on it and they come back and say 39 bushes, right? Or they could change. They don't need to come back, right? But if they go 30

or Yeah. They say they're going to put one holly on and they're going to instead do a uh oak both would comply. Right. It's Well, my question is is that the the county word generally would be nonmaterial. Right. Right. Right. Another example would be let's say they showed 39 bushes but only 35 are required. And it's not a conditional zoning or anything. I'm talking about right. So then they do things. An insignificant deviation could be the difference between a 50ft ceiling restriction and a 54. No, that's not an insignificant. Okay. I think we're fine the way it is. Unless All right, we'll leave it alone. Let's not beat it anymore. It's worked before.

Again, it's not abused. Well, it's not been abused. I don't think we had So everything So major site plan is back to where it was. Right. Right. I'm going to, just so you know, I'm going to reject the change. Mhm. I'm going to bring that back to what it was previously because that was the direction I thought you heard I thought I heard from you guys last week. Right. So, it's as you did in the blue one here. Yeah. You had a couple grammatical grammatical fixes, but it's fine. I'm working in the red document at the moment, though. I'll go back and

and then last is creation of new lots, division of land. You had a couple grammatical errors and then we didn't want Yeah. No changes in this. Which one was that one? I'm sorry. 15 2.15 2.15 Just a couple of grammatical couple of grammatical errors that you have, but other than that, no changes. No changes to number six,

right? Okay. And then 222 was the table. So basically not not change the table, leave the FD in the planning board, which you did here in this blue one. And then of course the little sign offs at the end, I think, right? Yeah. Correct. And that was the intent, right? So I thought I did a pretty decent job capturing your capturing your conversation. So yeah. So what we in the townhouse one we had to do cuz there was Hold on. It was on reference

item two. Item two of article 37. We just had bad references there, right? Yeah. That was fixing all those. Okay. And we took off that group the de the definition of whatever a special sign district was a carryover from the previous code.

Right. And then we had the signatures at the end. Yeah. I think that does it. So So the biggest other change here is refixing the first part again. uh B powers and duties. So, anything else and then we'll decide how to handle them. Anything else that

can we just can we just reiterate how we left article 2 A and B? I just want to make sure that I understand it. Yeah, you're going to have to kind of look. So, article two, administration and procedures, planning board A will read kind of like the blue line copy, right?

Striking that second sentence. When you get the B powers and duties, it's basically going back to the red line copy of April 16th with the added clarifying what town council's requests are adding that as confirmed by majority vote of the town council in open session. Right. where it occurs in one, two, five, right? Yep. And six, removing the town council request and including that clarifier in seven. Got it.

So seven becomes six. Stuart, how do you feel about that?

I'm okay with that. Okay. Well, I'm okay with the text changes that we talked about. I still have a couple of issues. One is this public hearing that was scheduled before we ever made a um I mean, we still haven't made a decision. They've already advertised the public hearing. It was advertised last week. It went in the paper again today and it says get my phone to operate paraphrase unless you got it. Um, notice is hereby given. Town council, town of Sunset Beach will hold the public hearing on May 4th at 5:00 p.m. during a regular town council meeting later on. And it goes on to say what the changes were. Um, interested persons are invited to attend and present comments either in person or is otherwise permitted by the town. Written comments may also be submitted to the town clerk prior to the meeting. A copy of the proposed amendment is available for public inspection at town hall during normal business hours and may also be available on the town's website. So, how is that possible last week? How is it possible this week? We still haven't voted. I mean, how the public

What is up on the website right now? Nothing. Well, I just

So, the public hasn't been I mean, they're supposed to be given two weeks to make a comment, do a written comment, whatever. I mean, they're not even going to they're not going to have the two weeks. I I just having a real problem with this whole public hearing thing. It says in the UDO 2.16B2, before an item is placed on the consent agenda to schedule a public hearing, the planning board's recommendation on each proposed zoning amendment must be determined. So, how did the council schedule advertise a public hearing? They haven't even voted on it. So, who authorized spending the advertising money to advertise a public hearing when they haven't even voted on?

Well, I hear you on that, but it's like not in our lane. I guess I understand, but I feel like the public is being cut out of this process, Mr. Chair. Yeah. The public hearing is based on the original document that was sent to you to approve or deny, not what was marked up. Right. Well, that makes it to me even more imperative, which is why we decided to try to create one, right, that we could vote on and then make available to the public. I

I mean, this feels to me like kind of a an attempt to really outflank what the planning board is going to recommend as for public consideration. I mean, if the public is being provided the original text, we're trying to meet Power and duty number six to promote public participation in planning process and provide opportunities for community input regarded planning merits. We are a making a valent effort to achieve that duty and responsibility. So my concern I think if there's a complaint for the council

that's up to the citizens to do that. All we can, all we can do is do our job the best we can. Follow the proper laws and procedures, provide a text amendment that we can vote on, which we're getting close to, but not there yet. Uh, and then send that up to chain and then town staff can publish it on the website or do whatever they want with it. I mean, I I don't have any lane maneuvering to do there other than do our job, right? So, well, this is I mean, my my my concern is I mean, this is a violation of the UDO.

Yeah. But, but I I don't have uh what's the recourse? I don't have recourse. the recourse is to complain remind the council that this doesn't meet the standard of the UDO and we need to reschedu. All right. So, as the administrator just mentioned, council what's out there is is what was originally moved forward to the planning board by council at their what was it April 7th meeting? What was

the two sections? So the two sections. So when I got it and I saw in there that the directive or the what council wanted to consider was to when they modified your powers and duties and they created the limitations of the planning board and in that document it also included UDO administrator as major site planner authority appro approval authority as well as major site sub excuse me subdivisions. 2.3 and 2.4 for didn't do everything that needed to be done. Right?

So when I saw that document to take you out of the process because that's what that document said when I say process process being the major site plan approval and the with all due respect that's all I think moot well we are where we are right now we're very close to providing a text amendment that that I believe achieves what I think should be desired or not. So, I I think we just need to figure out how to get this finalized, which I think we're going to need another short recess uh so that it can be printed

printed out and we can look at it even though it's begrudgingly boring for everybody watching this. But I think we should just take a short recess, give the staff time to sort out technical difficulties, make a final review of their thoughts when they're retyping all this stuff, reprint it for us. We can make one final review and then we'll make a motion to vote either a or nay on it. And then if it happens to be no, then we don't send any recommendation to the council. But my hope is we can come to a yes to say this is what we recommend as the text amendment and I appreciate you saying it was moved.

Can he go ahead and finish? Yeah. So So what I was going to say is that because I didn't want I did not want code conflicts, right? So because of what they moved forward to you and it takes you out that directive if I'm going to use the der directive take it whether it was directive or not but it was moved to you to consider because it said to remove plan UD administrator is going to be the the approval authority for major site plans and sub employee subdivision plats. There were other parts of the code that needed to be changed as a result to do that. Otherwise, I've got powers and duties, etc. that contradict what the actual process says, right? I could have limited just to 2.3 and 2.4,

but then that created problems later. So, I took it upon myself in conversation with administrator, but I took it upon myself to make to where the project group went from 2.3 2.4 for to for additional changes, but that was to incorporate what I felt was necessary to accomplish what I what I believe council was asking you to look at. Right. And that was that was wrong. That was on that's on me. It was not on council. Right. But we've worked through correct un undo sort of undoing that to get it to what we thought think is reasonable, legal,

smart. So I guess my question is in terms of the viewing public, what are they seeing? They see we're going to supposed to have a meeting. Is there a document for their review that reflects the text that was originally created by the council? Is that's is that what is available to the public? that was available on the April 7th planning oh excuse me April 7th um council meeting was available in your packet from April 16th right

um the April 16th package also included staff's initial direction and staff or board we believe is what you looked at your April 16th meeting and then um so all that they not they don't I don't know if they have access to the blue they do not so but that so all of that is the organic function of the council and the planning board in terms of what it makes available based upon its process. Right? My question is more the public's being asked to consider something. What is it that they're being shown to consider? Because right now the public has no idea. Well, that we

the point of what we're trying to do here today is to create a new document for everyone to look at. Uh my correct me if I'm wrong, Ron, if we say vote, get a finalized text, say we say we vote on it, make a motion, vote to recommend to the council, the new document will be published on the website for the for the for the public hearing. Correct. What I imagine what's going to happen is council will have their what they had on April 7th. They're going to have your recommendation, right?

And I believe in this case because your recommendation is different from what that April 7th document has, they're likely also going to see what the initial amendment language was from your April 16th meeting. In other words, council, here's what your directive was. This accomplishes your directive. here's what the planning board took and here's what they recommend and that's what is would be in terms of what's available now it's only A and B the first two that you outline they haven't seen your final document yet but they will have to I mean it's got to be published by Friday right is that what your goal is

the agenda has not been published yet right so we finish it today correct then they can publish whatever we recommend on Friday and then to be available for public discussion I believe on their meeting. So they will see correct what will be available to the public is all three the initial correct summary document from the town council the staff report and then the recommendation from the planning board and they can vote on anything they want. Now I I haven't seen the ad in the Brunswick Beacon. How is the that reader directed towards the material to be reviewed? I haven't seen

they're not I read it. It all it says that it's available on the website. Typically, people look on the website or they will call or email and ask and we see what being considered. But it will end up if we make a recommendation, it will be on the town council agenda package. Correct. So given that they click on the little PDF link on the agenda. If we pass something they will be there. Correct. The other two they have to look back to previous agendas to get correct. Unless you give them another staff report. I'm going to when all three in there

staff report will be updated and something the chief and I need to talk about after this meeting about moving forward. But in my mind, they see the first document, the one that they they'll have that as this was kind of the the again the directive marching orders the planning board was asked to look at. So they would have that they're what they voted on on April 7th. Um and again, this is something Chief and I need to work out for what you know, how do you see it happening? But they would also get the initial amendment language that you reviewed on the 16th because that accomplished what council asked. Yeah. According to staff. Yes. And then according to staff and then they would also get this recommendation and it'll be clearly marked.

Make sure it's clear. And when and they're also going to get an ordinance. I got to get two ordinances because we've got to show one with your changes and one without your changes. Right. And so in terms of this schedule, when would this document go up? Right. Is that what you'll typically do? Fridays. Friday. typically Friday because there and the meeting would be May 4th a week from that following Monday. So May 4th so people would have nine nine 10 days nine days which is no different than if we were going through a resoning process and we post a sign on the site within you know 10 days before the meeting.

Yeah. So, but part of my issue is, you know, last week we reviewed the other um text amendment for the privacy fencing and all that. That wasn't posted as a public hearing notice. So, that's not going to go to a public hearing until June. Why can't this be on that same schedule? I mean, do people need that much more time to talk about privacy fences than they do to this major change to the plan? I mean, it could come to the point that the council decides whatever they decide not to take it up at May 4th, right? They could push the whole thing to June if they want.

It's my understanding when they vote on April 7th, and I could be wrong that they asked for it to be on their agenda May their May 4th agenda. So, they're pushing it. Um, I do have one strange different recommendation is that because this affects us specifically as a planning board, what if the planning board made the presentation at town council? We've never done that. Uh, well, we could obviously show up as citizens, which I' we've done, right? Uh, yeah. I don't know. We we generally rely on sta well the way I understand it works.

I guess we have to check our new rules maybe. I don't know if we put that in there is the staff speaks for the planning board. Right. Right. But I don't think there's a formal way for the planning board to speak for the planning board to the council. Now maybe I'm wrong on that and I don't understand all the codes and once is I I see where you're going and I thought that would in some cases there was other place I would have liked to do that right but I don't know is there an official or legal way other words I like to be called as a witness sort of before the plan council that and I like to actually as a citizen if I come up here I'm not supposed to deliberate with the council right

I'm not representing the planning board I'm just Ron citizen Okay. And we don't go back and forth. We're not just like we do when our people here, we're not supposed to do a Q&A, right? But I would have rather like they do when uh other staff people, the uh uh well either when the chief himself or the stormwater guy comes up and they basically have a two and fro, right?

I'd rather do that. Well, in their preliminary meetings, the ones they have prior to the formal meetings, there there's dialogue. I mean, they have conversations. They don't limit individuals to the 3 minutes. Um, you know, I don't know, are they having a preliminary? What I'm saying is I don't believe and maybe I'm wrong that there is a way for the planning board to be put on the agenda as a speaker or whatever you guys call it uh where all the department heads come up and talk and and do question and answers with the

I mean it's going to be up to Ron to do the presentation and I guess my hesitation is that this is going to get kind of complicated now they have three things to look at and Ron's going to be forced to interpret our reasoning on why we chose not to agree with this and why we chose not to agree with that. And I think it puts Ron in a difficult position. I've been doing that for 30 years. So, 30 plus years. So,

well, how do you feel? Have you ever seen a planning board make a a presentation? in my time not on an amendment or anything that's moved from your board to their board in my I mean it doesn't mean other doesn't mean communities don't do it but the communities I've worked in haven't as a as in a in my career capacities planning not not what I do now I haven't seen it happen can we be called during it by the council themselves saying hey because I think there's we see the planning board is here can one of you step up and answer are we allowed to do that generally Certainly, I say I'm only talking as a citizen, not as a planning board member.

Right? So, I guess, you know, Richard last time talked about, you know, there's no interface between us and the council. If we're the presenters, then there's a way for them to ask us questions and we can respond. Why did we feel this? Why did we do that? and then there's a way to have more of a a responsive presentation instead of us just getting up and speaking as a citizen. The other concern that I have what I've heard kind of is that a lot of this has been generated by the new council. I mean the new legal council. Well,

and a lot of what I see here reflects the fact that I I think their expertise in the area is we're out of our lane again. They're out of they're out of their depth. That may be true, but it's not our lane. We need to stay in our lane. So, well, I I would st I know. What does staff need to get this text amendment something that we can uh make a motion on to get to a vote on? I'm sending it to How much time do you need? A half an hour, 15 minutes? Just long enough for me to I'm actually trying to attach the document to an email to someone right now to print for me. Well, but you need time to look at it, too, before you print

so we don't have to fix it again. I'd like to give you 15 20 minutes to take a look at it. It's fine with me. So, the plan is is to have a short recess, generate the the final draft. Yes. of our and then we come back, read it, approve it, send it to the council. Correct. Okay. So, I will make a motion that we will have a 15minute recess to 10:50 in order staff to update the text amendment uh for our final review and consideration for vote. Do I have a second? Second. I second. I second.

All in favor? I I recess the meeting for 15 minutes.

Okay, seeing as it's now 10:50 a.m., call the planning board meeting back in session today to recess is ended. Uh we now have a new document with the final revisions incorporated for us to look at which we'll try to do a expedited basis here. Uh article two planning board B. Well, A is fine. I guess that second sentence that the strikeout didn't get put in there, huh? You see that Ron? It's like the lines didn't line up or something. So that struck that sentence powers and duties where we kind of went back. The planning board shall have the following duties. Starting with number one, prepare to prepare, review, and recommend to the town council. We need an or in there or at town council's request as confirmed by majority vote a comprehensive

in open session in open session. A comprehensive plan or land use plan amendments thereto pursuant to 160D. Fine. probably or needs to be in before the A to prepare recommend to the county council or at town council's request probably just need an or the at or at

to prepare a review and recommend to the town council or at the town council's request as confirmed by majority vote in open session comma a comprehensive plan or land use plan and amendments thereto pursuant to North Carolina General SEC statute 160D-501. Yes. Okay.

Number two, to conduct periodic review of the comprehensive plan or land use plan and recommend updated as needed at count councsil's request at confirmed by majority vote in open session. Three, two, review and make recommendations to the town council regarding UDO text amendments. Should be a comma then, comma, zoning text amendment, comma, zoning map amendments, comma, subdivision regulation amendments, comma, and other development regulation amendments. Four to advise the count council on land use comma growth management comma and development of policy development policy matters period. Okay. Uh number five, we need the two to stay in the to conduct studies and prepare advisory reports at county council's request as confirmed by majority vote in open comma related to land use infrastructure and planning comma growth trends comma and community community development needs.

Period. Period. Six, to promote public participation and planning processes and provide opportunities for community input regarding policy matters. Period. Fine. And seven to proving functions as made directed by the town council consistent with chapter 160. I thought we agreed they were also going to add the qualifier as majority vote. confirmed by majority vote in an open session. Yeah.

Could be done at the end either as directed by town council, at majority vote in open session, comma, consistent with chapter 1D. You got that round two. Okay. Limitations, final decisions that we want. That's good. Okay. B, members vacancy. So C is basically the same final plat same as where assignment. Okay.

I think section B1 is fine in my quick reading here. Okay. Can we just go back to C for a minute? Okay. This this language is consistent with what existed previously. It is the existing language, correct? Wait, C2. Yeah, something's wrong. C is wrong. Yeah. I mean, this should be final plat decisions regarding side plan. Apparently, I deleted the wrong thing. What you want see to read is the planning board shall not conduct quasi judicial hearings. Correct. Issue variances, the side appeals of administrative decisions, issue special use permits, enforce development regulations, or administer development permits. That was

So, we need to revert that one back. Huh? Yeah, I just deleted the wrong thing. You have the copy and pasted that back in.

Um, you have to rewrite it. Okay. Better go this direction. Sorry about that. So C limitations of authority should revert back to the planning board. The planning board shall not conduct quasi judicial hearings, issue variances, comm uh decide appeals of administrative decision, comma, issue special use permits, comma enforce development regulation, comma, or administrative development permits. We'll revert back to that language. Correct.

Correct. Apologize for deleting the wrong thing. So what is here is number two remains is stricken stricken and replaced with the language that you just shared with us. Correct. Right. Right. And there's no numbers because it's just one. Yeah. Yeah. So this essentially codifies the UDO administrator's role to approve final plats and restricts a planning board from being in that business. Is that how I meant to understand it? No. No. It's a no. We're striking that out of here. Okay. So we still have site plan approval in our

right view. We're not allowed to do quasi judicial right. That's all it's really saying is we Okay. But in terms of final plat approval, which now has historically resided with the UDO administrator, still does. It still does. Still does. Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. B1. So B is should be D, right? Yes. Yes. So D membership vacancies and meetings. So D1 excuse me

I think back correct. Yes. Yeah. So true now becomes his terms of service. Yes sir. Two is good. Yep. Three is vacancies. Three is good.

Yep. Number four is the faithful attendance. That's the two consecutive meetings. Unexcused absences. We're in a public meeting. Okay. Five meetings and procedures. That's all good too. Okay. Oh no. Not good, right? Oh, the end is wrong. Majority of the members.

It should be reverted back to there shall be a quorum of three members for the purpose stays in. and the last sentence is struck. A majority of members shall constitute a quorum. That's how our our new rules of conduct also reflect that. You see that round two? Yeah, there should be a quorum of three, right? And six. That's fine. That was equal rights for ETJ. Good. Section C is probably not C anymore, right? No. Is that E now?

That's E. E gathering background information, special studies and records. We just basically reverted back to existing language, right? Yeah. Yeah. With no changes. So D makes is now F. Yeah. Comprehensive plan. We got the maze in there, right? Yes. And the R

or Right. Or similar titles. Okay. Okay. Board of adjustment two section 2.4 we had there changes in there which is on one C1 at the end. Right. It should read all areas within the corporate limits of the town. Okay. We got that. We changed the to remove the any time with cause. Okay, that's okay. And then

uh can did we let's look at the board point maybe removing it with caused by majority vote in an open meeting. Yeah. To be consistent. Yeah. in open session. So the language is consistent there. So the five members of the board of adjustment appointed by county council shall serve at the pleasure of town council and may be removed at any time with cause by majority vote of town council in open session. Correct. Correct. Correct.

Okay. And we fixed which number is that's no six right where the unexcused absences is two meetings just like the planning board unless they have an excused ab absence vacancies was correct. Where was the other change they made E in oats? Right. Yeah. E1 E1. The chairperson or a clerk of the board. Okay. is authorized to administer the oath. Okay, that's correct. I believe Yeah, I think so. Technical review committee. I don't think we we reverted back, right?

Yeah. And we got nothing going on there. And should it be Where we at? Wait. Oh, the section is wrong probably now, right? That's section 2.5. So, do we need to should it be read and marked through and noted because you had Yeah. 2.4. No, you had No, I accept basically I rejected the change,

right? But in the red line that they're going to see, you know, from our original agenda, planning board was struck correct out. So should it show is well being changed? What I'm again from a from a presentation perspective, things that you're not changing for your recommendations like if there's no changes in this powers and duties of technical review committee as an example, I I will just cut that out. Okay. But I kept it in your document because I wanted you to see that I made the change. Okay. All right. Does that make sense? Yep. I understand.

So to kind of keep the number of changes in front of council, anything that's not being changed, proposed recommended change by you, I will cut out of the document. Right. But they'll see if they I likely see the other. So they won't see 2.5 or 2 or 2 14. Yeah. Unless there's a typo or something or 215 or 222 or right mean we're making no changes, right? And that's how I would that's how I would envision it from your recommendation. You aren't recommending any changes. So that would not be included ultimately what council sees as your recommendation.

Right. So the original council recommendation was two sections of code. Then your revision to make it to incorporate that to incorporate that was 10 sections of code. And then based on planning board's review, you're going to have what? Three three or four sections. three or four sections cuz a couple of them would still be a cleanup item like a code reference or okay taking that definition out special sign district or whatever cuz yeah there's one word in 2.14

yeah 2.14 I'm looking at there was two changes made in C line 4 yeah major site plan it was going to shell review the major site plans Yeah, I think current code said plans, right? So, I can put major back if you want. Yeah, it was supposed to be show review to major site plans. Y know, we had an all in there otherwise meets all the standards. Yeah, that's in D and that's there.

Yeah. Okay. Some and it's also on D is it's there. Okay. Okay. So that was just two little technical fixes there that in C it's major site plans and in D the all standards right which we got now. the major site plan at that all was there and there's some his or hers fixed on 215 right

right that's not a must do but as I was cleaning through the document I decided to do it but we don't have to include that required information on a 5A got Y

the table is back to where it was. Now just just maybe where you at picking it hairs here in showing the formatting change. There's a red line that crosses out in the major subdivision primary. That's not our intent to cross those out. It's just uh Oh, you're talking Are you in 2.22 section right here? Yeah, two through the FD. No, that's you were just changing the font. Yeah, that's that's just a changing the font formatted or whatever where it that's just the line going all the way across. Okay.

Well, I'm assuming in the final version you get the table as Right. It's just complete on one page, right? Yeah. Yes. And Okay. I mean the key thing is major site plan and major subdivision plinary path the FD is in the planning board. Right. Right. Correct. And nothing else should be changed. Nothing has changed. Okay. So that's just a formatting issue. Yeah. Okay. Well that's the way micro notes changes it. Yeah. I probably changed the format or something and that's Yeah. No created a line and tried to clean that up in this particular document. I know sometimes it creates more problems than it fixes.

All right. Do we have the fixes here for this townhouse? Right. In two section 13. Section forgot that section two. Uh the first one has to be changed too. Right. Yeah. And that's going to be 2.15, I believe. Section 2.15, right? Correct. E 2.15E.

Yes. and also following a final plat approval by the planning board has to be replaced with UDO administrator in accordance with section 2.15F right yes including right that so the the change has to be made in line two section 2.15E E in line four, planning board replace with UDO administrator. Correct.

And then it's correct. Agreed. Where are we again? We're on section. And we're 2.1 right before right before article seven. The number two right above article 7 concerning townhouse projects. Oh, okay. All right. Do I need to reread it? Everybody, you're good. Yeah.

Good. Then article seven, definitions. We're get a reading and we agreed to get rid of special signing district. that the changes in the table for required certificates bring us back where we were. Right. What's that? Certification of planning board approval of the major preliminary subdivision plant. Right. That's correct. Right.

Yeah. Really, you wouldn't have to submit appendix A, right, to the council, right? Okay. Richard, anything?

Well, it's Oh, I had one question. Uh, in the last page, attachment two. Oh, wait a minute. Um, okay.

Just a sec. So, We are not an exempt division plat. You need to bring me to the section. Yeah, I'm sorry. We're on appendix A. Certificates required. The first half of the table on the next to last page certific and it's certification of planning board approval for major preliminary plot. Got it. Yeah. Understand about we don't have to approve a minor preliminary plot. What is an exempt division plat that we're not required to approve?

There are five exemptions in the subdivision definition and in state law that says those things are not a subdivision. So it could be what you look at sometimes you might think it's subdivision. It could be recombination of plats. It could be um a plaque created through a will probate process. could be a division of properties of more than 10 where all the properties result in more than 10 acres. That's an exemption by state statute. Okay.

Also a code. Another one would be um just just throwing it out there. Another one would be um and this in your mind you may think is a subdivision, but state statute points it out as a as an exemption where you have a small lot that's less than two acres and you create no more than three total lots that compile with the rules. That is an exempt plat by state law. Okay. All state yes enforced exemptions that are very narrow and it's none of our business. 10 acre lot 10 acre lots 10 acre 10 acre lot subdivisions are also exempt. So if you 21 lot 21 acre lot somebody wants to split it into 10 two 10 and a half acre pieces of property that's an exempt from so which means we can't require any subdivision requirements

right okay they're exempt by state law so all right learn something every day so there's exemptions in state law as well as we have the same definitions in our code all right great

okay seeing that we're good to go I'm going to make a motion that The planning board vote on action A being the following. The planning hereby planning board hereby recommends approval of the proposed amendment with the discussed final changes and modifications to the unified development ordinance and finds that is neither one consistent nor inconsistent with the town's comprehensive plan 2017 town of Sunset Beach land use plan and there are no specific policies pertaining to appointed boards and their roles. polls and two that there is that it is in the public interest. Do I have a second?

Second. Do we need to more clearly define what this document is with language such as as adopted by the planning board on April 22nd at 11:15? I wouldn't get that specific, but if you wanted to say as amended by the planning board recommend. Yes. And I said hereby recommends approval of the pro proposed amendment as modified. Okay. Did you say that? Sorry. Right. I'll make sure I put that in the information as it goes to council. Right. As you can put the date in there as modified on today's date, which is Yeah, I'd put today's date. Yeah. I don't think we need to put time in.

Let's say as as as final version as modified on April 23rd, 2026. My motion is adjusted as that. Is there a second? I so second. Any further discussion? Stuart. I'll take I'm still not happy about all all of this, but we we got that, you know. Okay, I'll take a role. Uh Richard, you name I. Michael I I uh the chair is I so the eyes have it. Uh and can we put in the notes this has been adopted unanimously.

Yes. Four zero guess. Thank god zero absent. So I would say the request of the chair is that the final version gets distributed to the planning board. Sure. Me. I thought you said request. You said of the chair. I thought you said to the chair. Sorry. the final version so we can see the final version would be appreciated and then they can go to the council for their deliberation. Uh couple of small things for consideration at the public

right couple of small things from the last meeting before we give the public a chance to weigh in on our rules. We had an issue on rule 29, the duty to vote. Oh yeah. Whether uh abstension is a negative vote or not, we're trying. I just want to see has staff had a chance to decide. I have not. Okay. I have not looked at it further. You recall that that was if someone estains that it was still left as an option, affirmative vote or a negative vote. It follows the motion. So if the motion is to approve, an abstain vote approves. If the motion is to deny, an abstain vote denies.

So that should be then we need to have that final adjustment to that rule shall be recorded as a vote as the motion with the motion. With the motion what happens on a tie? To me it's tied. The tie motion fails. It's a tie. The motion fails. So the motion fails as a tie. So then it's considered a no. Okay. So we just need before distributing those final rules. Is that clarified that rule 29? Sure. That it's recorded with the motion or a negative in ties then. Right. Okay. I just had my little purple tag here which meant there was still something going on

which I believe that's I believe I had that was my thought process. Well I thought we left it take a final you guys were going to take a final look at it. So that that is where we left it but I think in my mind I think that's what I Okay. So, we're good on that. And that goes to council for approval. They will be fine. Yes. But I don't think it's going to be on April on the May or is it again? We'll need a final distributed copy then to that. Lastly, does the public wish to make any comments?

I don't know if the mic's on. Allen name and address. Obviously, Candace Seban, 611 Lakes Shore Drive in Sunset Beach. And I just wanted to be here to thank you guys. Um I think you have a largely thankless job, but thank you for preserving the integrity and transparency of this board. I think it's so important. Thanks. Thank you. Amen. Any other public comments? None. Does staff or administration want any other things to tell us? Yeah. I didn't think so. Need a motion to adjourn the meeting. Finally, I make that motion. Second. All in favor? I meetings hereby adjourned. Thank guys for your hard work.