[1. Roll Call]
[00:00:02]
WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 7TH MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD.
THAT CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL HERE? HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE.
[2. Approval of Minutes]
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.AS EVERYBODY HERE HAS A TIME TO REVIEW.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHANGES THAT ANYBODY WISHES TO ADDRESS? I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? YES.
[3. Hudson Carolina Colours Development, LLC on behalf of New Market HDS, LLC is requesting final subdivision plan approval for “Redivision of Plat H-1A, Parcel #4” a 3-lot multifamily residential and commercial development. This development is located on 34.85 +/- acres in the C-3 Commercial District. The site is located off Waterscape Way in the Carolina Colours community.]
THREE ON THE AGENDA IS THE HUDSON CAROLINA COLORS, UH, DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, UM, UH, FOR PARCEL H ONE EDIT, UH, SO ON, UM, WE HAVE A STAFF REVIEW OF THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA.THANK YOU, MR.
ANY MEMBERS OF THIS QUESTION HAVE, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF CONCERNING THIS DEVELOPMENT.
HAVING HEARD ONE IS, IS AN APPLICANT HERE THAT YOU WISH TO DO IT.
UM, AFRICAN, WAS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE? UM,
AND ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC NEED THE FLOOR AGAINST HAVING HEARD NONE THAT JEREMY WOULD LIKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AS OUTLINED WE HAVE, WE HAVE, UH, UH, UM, UH, MOVEMENT AND THIS MOTION ACCEPTED AND SECONDED.
UH, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A LOCAL, UM, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES.
[4. Highlands Village Apartments, LLC is requesting general subdivision plan approval for “Robert May Subdivision, Phase 2” a 2-lot multifamily and single-family residential development. This development is located on 7.81 +/- acres in the C-4 Commercial District. The site is located off Trent Road between Lowes Boulevard and Camden Square Drive.]
SITUATION WHERE IF TO BE DOING ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS A PLANT OF GOOGLE, I'LL BE FOLLOWED BY THE STAFF PLEASE ON THE HIGHLAND BUILD.NUMBER FOUR IS THE GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATION OF ROBERT
[00:06:03]
MY UNDERSTANDING IS, UM, THIS IS NOT BONDED, BUT INSTEAD OF A BOND IN LIEU OF A BOND, THERE HAS BEEN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT BRAID AND SATISFIED.UM, MAYBE WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, I ALMOST ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS DEVELOPMENT AT ALL, BUT YEAH.
SO SUBDIVISION PLANS TYPICALLY MORE INVOLVEMENT IN PROFILE, CORRECT? ONLY HERE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE, CAUSE I KNOW THAT THE FILES ARE HERE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, UH, SUBDIVISION
SHOULD WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T HAVING THE WORD, CREATING A PROCEDURAL PROBLEM FOR OURSELVES.
AND I UNDERSTAND AT THIS POINT, THE GENERAL ATTEMPT TO PAINT A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS, UH, APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PLAN EMOTION IS THAT MOTION.
THE MOTION IS MOVED AND SECONDED.
NOW THAT YOU TEXTED HIM, THAT IS BASICALLY
[5. Highlands Village Apartments, LLC is requesting final subdivision plan approval for “Robert May Subdivision, Phase 2” a 2-lot multifamily and single-family residential development. This development is located on 7.81 +/- acres in the C-4 Commercial District. The site is located off Trent Road between Lowes Boulevard and Camden Square Drive.]
THE FINAL APPROVAL OF WHAT WE JUST APPROVED.I CAN'T IMAGINE WE WOULDN'T APPROVE THAT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND ONE, THE SECOND ONE IS HEARD AND SECONDED ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[6. Michael Raines is requesting the rezoning of 44.77 +/- acres from R-20 Rural Residential district to A-5F Agricultural Forestry district. The property is located at 356 Rocky Run Road.]
NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS AN APPLICATION OR REZONING.SO WE ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE A PARCEL AND WE HAVE TO PRESENT THIS IN SUCH A WAY THAT A BREAKFAST RECOMMENDATION, FOUR WEEKS ONLY FOR THE APPLICANT
[00:10:18]
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTLOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS MOST OF THIS BOARD NOW THAT YOU'RE LIKE THEM TOO? UM, UH, IS THERE ANY THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE TONIGHT? YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS AT ALL.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT, THE TERRIBLE ENTERTAIN, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION BEFORE
THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF WAR.
WE HAVE A POST TO SAY, PLEASE
[7. Discussion Item: City Code Section 15-214 “Development Connectivity”.]
ARTICLE SEVEN, MS. MOSLEY WITH US, THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION AMONGST THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING BOARD.UH, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK BACK 27, PART OF THE DUTIES OF THIS BOARD IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHANGE OF THE LAND OF ORDINANCE.
UH, WE SEE THAT AT THIS POINT, THINGS WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR OVERALL APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
[00:15:01]
QUESTION, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE, YES, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ANY CHANGES TO THEWE WANT TO LIMIT, WE WANT TO ACTUALLY MAINTAIN CERTAIN NUMBER OF ENTRANCES AND EXITS FOR THE LARGER 150.
AND IF IT WAS PUT BEFORE THE BOARD ONCE BEFORE, AND THE ONLY THING WE MIGHT DISCUSS IT WITH OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IS INSTEAD OF HAVING A, A SENTENCE DESCRIBING THE, UM, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THOSE ENTRANCES, WE WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN THERE THAT NIGHT.
THAT LAST SECTION WHERE WE'RE SPECIFYING THAT ANY OVER 150 UNITS HAS AT LEAST TWO WAYS IN AND OUT.
DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THE COPY SAID WITHOUT PACKETS
DOES ANYBODY ANY COPY A THOUSAND FEET APART? IT'S VERY FEW PARCELS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED TO IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE ALL THAT KIND OF BOLD PRODUCTS.
THEY TEND TO BE ON WHAT WE WOULD CALL FLIGHT LIMITED ACCESS POINTS.
AND BY ELIMINATED THROUGH A THOUSAND FEET APART, WHICH IS A FIFTH OF A MILE WOULD MAKE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND OF PARCEL POSSIBLE IT'S SECTION 15 TO 14.
THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE, UH, IN THE GROUP OF CHANGES THAT WE UP THAT WAS CONTROVERSIAL.
THE WHOLE PACKAGE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY VOTED.
AND AT WHAT WE'RE THINKING OF IS DISCUSSING WITH SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THIS, BUT IT'S BREAKING UP THE DIFFERENCE.
AND WE HAD A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT AT OUR LAST MEETING, IS THAT I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT.
I HAVE A PROBLEM IF WE WANT TO ELIMINATE THE LAST SENTENCE, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS WOULD HAVE A REASONABLE OBJECTION THAT A LOT OF PROPERTY, THAT IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DEVELOP AT ALL.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO THINK ABOUT IT LIKE THIS.
IF YOU TAKE 150 LOTS, AND AGAIN, THIS WAS LINEAR THINKING, BUT WHAT IF YOU TAKE 150 LOTS, IF YOU DID, THERE WERE 10 PEOPLE ALIVE THAT GETS YOU OVER A THOUSAND FEET.
SO I THINK THAT WAS THE FEET'S REASONABLE, BUT I ALSO, I DON'T FIND THAT TO BE A DEAL BREAKER.
I THINK I THOUGHT IT WAS A, B, I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS SLIGHTLY WRONG.
EACH LOT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN 10 FEET WIDE WITHIN THE DIVISION.
AND GETTING INTO A, INTO A ROAD A THOUSAND FEET IS A PROBLEM THOUGH.
THERE ARE MANY ROADS IN NEWPORT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL BE LONG.
I THINK TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AREA FOR TALKING, THEY HAD A PARCEL THAT WAS LESS THAN A THOUSAND FEET WIDE ON FRONT ROAD FURNISHED, BUT FOR SURE, THAT WOULD SAY ONE ENTRANCE THAT AQUEOUS, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD MORE THAN 150,
SO I, WHAT I'M SAYING IS I AGREE WITH YOU.
IF YOU, IF YOUR FRONTAGE IS ONLY A THOUSAND, IF THE ONLY 900 FEET YOU CAN'T DO IT, THEN YOU CAN'T MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, BUT YOU COULD MEET THE TWO, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO
[00:20:01]
I'M READING.AND THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME.
SO I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ELIMINATING THAT LAST PARAGRAPH.
AND THE OTHER THING TOO, IS HOPEFULLY THEY NEED THE STREETS ALTOGETHER.
I MEAN, THAT'S A, AND SOMETIMES THEY MIGHT NOT BE A THOUSAND.
THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE, UH, WE WON'T, WE BE IN CONTROL OF THAT.
AND, UH, FRANKLY THE DEVELOPER NOT, MIGHT NOT BE USER IF THEY'RE LANDLOCKED IN OTHER WORDS, BUT I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO ELIMINATE WHAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAPPEN TO US ALL THROUGH OUR DEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPLY IN THAT ACCESS POINT, FOR SURE.
I THINK ELIMINATING THE SENTENCES IS PROBABLY HELP SEE A PROBLEM WITH SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED THE, UH, THE EDITS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
UM, SO, UM, AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, TO THE BOARD OF ALL WOMEN, UH, FOR THINGS WITH THE LAND USE ORDINANCE INCORPORATE IN THIS LANGUAGE, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION, CERTAINLY I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS BOARD MAYBE TRIED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT FORUM OR IN WHAT MANNER DO YOU FORESEE MAKING SUCH A MOVING BOTH STAFF IS GOING TO DO AS IF ON A RIGHT THE LINE, WHICH, WHETHER JANE ORDINANCE, AS I DISCUSSED WITH CARE FOR YOU, AND, UH, THAT, THAT WILL BE INTRODUCED AS THE MOTION FROM MS.
SO IS IT, ARE YOU ENVISIONING AND ASKING FOR THIS MUCH AND THAT THE MATTER BE SENT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN THAT WE'RE TO THE CITY, THAT, THAT THAT'S THE WAY THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST? YES.
WHICH WAY IS THAT? THAT IS A LETTER FROM, FROM THIS BOARD APPROVING THE REQUEST TO, UH, FOR THEM TO REVIEW A CHANGE TO THE LAND USE ORDINANCE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS CHANGE OR GROUP OF CHANGES IN THIS CASE, WE WANT TO REVISIT OF THE PARTS OF THIS FOR SAFETY ASPECT.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, DAWN, WHAT WE ARE INTENDING TO SIM TO THE BOARD OF A WOMAN FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIS POINT IS EVERYTHING THAT'S BEFORE US, OR JUST, JUST 15, 2 14, JUST 15 TO 14.
AND THE LAST SENTENCE IS FINE.
SO NOT THE EDITS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING POSED FOR NUMBER FOUR, FOR INSTANCE, CHANGING FROM A THOUSAND FEET TO 750 FEET.
NO, I WOULD JUST KEEP IT AS PARAGRAPH FIVE AND STUMBLE.
WELL, I THINK IF I MAY, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE DEAL WITH THE EDITS THAT WE'D LIKE TO PROPOSE BY SECTION AND EXTEND AN ENTIRE SECTION WITH OUR EDITS AT A TIME.
WE TRIED THAT ONCE BEFORE YOU SIT ON BUDGET SECTION.
SO, I MEAN, IT WAS EIGHT OR 10 SECTIONS.
I WOULD ACTUALLY TEND TO AGREE WITH RAYMOND.
I THINK IF YOU TAKE THIS WHOLE DOCUMENT, RIGHT, AND THEN BREAK IT DOWN INTO SECTIONS AND, AND SEND A COUPLE THAT PERTAIN TO ONE SECTION AT A TIME THAT WAY, UH, I THINK YOU'RE GETTING MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK WHEN YOU SEND THEM UP BY SENDING SNIPPETS, THERE WERE FOUR SENDING A WHOLE PACKET UP THERE BECAUSE FOR WHATEVER REASON, I, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT SPOOK ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WAS THE, UM, TURNAROUND SIZES, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS A BIT OF A PROBLEM.
AND THAT WAS PART OF THE WHOLE THING.
AND IF WE DO THESE, IT'S MORE TIME TO DO THEM IN SECTIONS AS TIME GOES ON.
BUT I THINK WE JUST HAD A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT IN FAIRFIELD FARMS, NO WAY IN AND OUT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY, IT'S GOING TO BE 700 REQUESTS FOR THE ACCESS TO A FAIR DOP STUDY.
IT'S A BEGINNING, IT'S SOMETHING LIKE A BALFOUR DECLARATION, BUT 20 YEARS AFTER THE BALFOUR DECLARATION WAS MADE 30 YEARS OUT WITHOUT
SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS A STAR LITTLE BITS AT A TIME, IT GETS A LITTLE BIT PAST AND WE CAN BUILD ON IT.
AND IF WE GIVE THEM A SIMPLE ISSUE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE'S, DON'T WORRY FOR THIS FOR DISAPPROVE, A LARGE DEVELOPMENT, ONE ENTRANCE AND ONE EXIT.
[00:25:02]
NOW I WILL LIKE TO SEE THEM A VOTE ON THAT.THE MORE WE PUT ON THE MORE COMPLICATED, WELL, I'M NOT, I'M NOT TRYING TO COMPLICATE IT.
IT, AND I AGREE WITH YOU TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
I'M JUST THINKING THAT KNOW, I KIND OF, AGAIN, I KIND OF AGREE WITH RAYMOND, LIKE INSTEAD OF SENDING THEM, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, A 20 PAGE, I SIT IN THOSE ARGUMENTS BEING CITED, TELL YOU, YOU SEND THEM 20 PAGES OF ANYTHING.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS IS THAT YES, WE TAKE PARTS OF IT, BUT THE PARTS THAT IF WE CAN LOVE TWO OR THREE OF THEM TOGETHER THAT PERTAIN TO EACH OTHER, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET A BETTER, A BETTER OUTCOME.
I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO SAY THE SAME THING, MAYBE A BETTER WAY TO SAY THIS IS OUR TIME IS VALUABLE.
AND WE NEED TO ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ALDERMAN'S TIME IS THERE.
AND RATHER THAN SENDING PIECES, PARTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SECTION, I WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH AN ENTIRE SECTION AT A TIME.
SO I THINK IF WE DEAL WITH ALL 15 TO 14 POINTS, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH IN HERE.
I DO WANT THAT SECTION AT A TIME.
I THINK THE OLD ONE WOULD APPRECIATE, UM, THOUGHTFULNESS AND, UH, AND CONSIDER WHAT WE ARE ASKING THEM TO.
WHAT IF WE DO THIS, THEN RAYMOND IS WHAT ARE WE FORMING THAT HOC COMMITTEE, JUST A GENERAL COMMITTEE FOR THE CHANGES.
OR WE COULD SET UP A MEETING TO ADDRESS SECTION, UH, 15 TO 14 AND DISCUSS IT RIGHT NOW.
SO IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT, UH, CHANGES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE FOR 15, 14, LET'S GO THROUGH THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE OUTLINED BEFORE US RIGHT NOW, AND THEN DECIDE AS A GROUP, IF IT'S THAT WE WANT TO TWEAK SOMETHING LIKE WE HAVE JUST DONE WITH THE LAST SENTENCE, A PARAGRAPH FIVE, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY VOTED ON THAT YET.
BUT, UM, WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS WE LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SECTION, YOU MAKE A MOTION WITH ANY CHANGES THAT WE, UH, SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION WITH ANY CHANGES THAT WE AGREE ARE NECESSARY, LIKE DELETING LESSONS OF, UH, UH, UH, ARTICLE FIVE AND THEN, OR, OR SUBSECTION FIVE, AND THEN DEAL WITH THAT ENTIRE SECTION AND SEND IT OFF.
I THINK WE HAVE BETTER SUCCESS LIKE THAT.
SO LET'S MOVE YOU WITH, UH, SECTION 15 TO 14 STARTS ON MY PAGE, FIVE OF 11, THREE OF THREE, THREE OF THEM.
UM, SO, SO THE FIRST, THE FIRST CHANGE THAT I SEE, UH, THE CHAIRMAN IS IN, UH, SUBSECTION FOUR, WHICH IS, UH, NO TEMPORARY DEAD END STREET IN EXCESS OF 1000 FEET IS WHAT IS CURRENT IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND OUR PROPOSED CHANGE WAS TO 750 FEET AND THEN ADDED, UH, AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UH, WERE THERE, UH, DESIGNATE.
AND, AND DO YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN THOSE CHANGES? I SEEN A REASON TO, TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THEM NOW.
WE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA WHEN IT CAME IN FOR THE FIRST TIME.
AND I, I TEND TO THINK THAT I WATCH IT WAS SALMON.
SO NOW WE GO TO SUBSECTION B, IS THERE ANYTHING THERE THAT YOU WOULDN'T RECOMMEND? NO CHANGES PROPOSED THAT I WOULD NOT PROPOSE A CHANGE AT THIS POINT.
EVEN AS WRITTEN, LEAVE THAT AS WRITTEN WITH THE ONLY EXCEPTION BEING ESSENTIALLY THE ARTICLE FIVE, DROPPING THAT SENTENCE ABOUT THE THOUSAND FEET.
THERE'S SOME OTHER CHANGES FARTHER DOWN ON SECTION FOUR, CORRECT.
WHICH IS ALL UNDER THE SAME SECTION OF 15 TO 14.
SO, UM, AND THAT UNDER FOUR IS DESIGN IN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND THAT IS, UH, ALL CROSS ACCESS, UH, FEATURES BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 24 FEET.
UM, AND I THINK THAT WAS CHANGING THE, UH, WRITTEN NUMBER TO A MIRACLE NUMBER.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHY WE DID THAT, BUT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHEN YOU SEE THAT.
AND I THINK THAT MAY HAVE BEEN, WE WERE, THAT WAS OCCURRING THROUGHOUT THE, UH,
[00:30:01]
UH, ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT THE SAME STOCK.AND SO I SEE NO REASON NOT TO GO AHEAD AND DEAL WITH THAT NOW.
SO THAT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE.
UM, IT'S JUST, UH, IT'S WHAT I CALL HOUSEKEEPING.
AND I THINK, UH, THE, THE SAME THING OCCURS WITH THE, UH, THE FIVE BELOW THAT IS MORE OF A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER.
AND SO I THINK, AND AGAIN, THIS IS MY LOGIC.
HUMAN WOULD APPRECIATE SEEING THIS ENTIRE SECTION.
THEY COULD SEE EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE SEEN, THAT THIS IS HOUSEKEEPING AND, UH, AND YOU KNOW, THEY CAN MAKE A CAT AND THEN THEY CAN DISCUSS, UH, THE LAST SENTENCE OF FIVE.
IN FACT, WHAT WE, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT HERE, IF WE DECIDED TO ELIMINATE IT, THEY WOULDN'T EVEN SEE THAT NECESSARILY OTHER THAN IN THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING.
IT'S NOT REALLY A GOOD PROPOSAL AT THIS POINT TO HEAR A MOTION, TO PREPARE A DRAFT LETTER FOR THE, AND FOR THE BORDER WALL.
AND THEN BASED ON THE CHANGES THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, WHICH IS MOST IMPORTANTLY, A FIXED FUNDING, THAT LAST SENTENCE IN FIVE THERE CONCERNING THE THOUSAND FEET SEPARATION BETWEEN.
DO YOU WANT ME TO INCLUDE IN THAT LETTER, OUR RATIONALE BEHIND THE CHANGE? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
MIGHT BE IN ADDITION, I WAS PAYING ATTENTION.
RIGHT? YOU MADE IT, YOU MADE MY MIND GO.
I WAS LIKE, OH, WE'RE HOUSEKEEPING.
I GOT A FEW MORE HOUSEKEEPING THINGS.
BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS EVIDENCE OF THE BACKGROUND OF WHY THIS COURT IS MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE FOUR TO FOUR.
AND FOR THESE CHALLENGES, I THINK SOME OF THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT IF WE'RE JUST CHANGING THE AMERICAN
SO WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD ALL OF, UH, SUBSECTION FIVE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT.
ALL RESIDENTS WITH ELEMENTS CONTAINING 150 WATTS OR MORE SHOWING YOU SURVIVE.
SECOND POINT OF THE STREET ACCESS, UH, FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE PUBLIC STREET AND WHAT, WE'RE, WHAT WE HAVE MORE OR LESS AGREED HERE.
I WOULD HAVE THE BUDGET ON IT YET, BUT IS THAT THE LAST SENTENCE? A SECOND POINT, THE SECOND SECOND POINT, UH, STREET ACCESS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1000 FEET FROM THE FIRST.
AND SO THE LOGIC THAT WAS PRESENTED, AND I THINK IT SOUNDED AS IF YOU HAVE, UH, THE SCENARIO OF LESS THAN A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OR A THOUSAND LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A, UH, STREET FROM A SINGLE DEVELOPED, FROM A DEVELOPMENT THAT ONLY ACCESS AS A SINGLE TRUTH.
YOU CAN'T MEET THAT PART, BUT WE'D STILL LIKE TO KEEP YOUR APARTMENT UP TO, UH, UH, MEET THE DRAFTS AND ADDRESS TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
SO I THINK WE'RE PROMOTING MORE THAN JUST HEALTHY HOUSEKEEPING IN SUBSECTION, WE CHANGE 1000 FEET TO 750 FEET AND ADD THE LAST SENTENCE, ADD ALL A PARAGRAPH, ALL OF US, SUBSECTION FILE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LAST SENTENCE, AND THEN THE HOUSEKEEPING OF THE NUMBERS.
AND THAT'S BASICALLY THE CHANGE, THE LINE OF THE LANGUAGE, OR, AND IT'S AN ANDA SUGGESTING, OR ONE THE LETTER SENT TO THE BOARD WALL, WHY WE WERE PROPOSING THAT ESSENTIALLY THE REASONING FOR, FOR A SUBSECTION FIVE.
I'M NOT SURE IT'S NECESSARY, BUT, UM, BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING THEM LIKE A DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS, I THINK YOU COULD GIVE THEM REASONING THAT CAN WORK WITH, WE STAND A BETTER CHANCE OF HAVING IT PASSED.
NOW, WHAT WE CAN DO MAYBE IS HAVING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE REVIEW THIS MATTER, GOING FORWARD, AS WE REPEAT WHAT THE PARTS OF THE AGENDA, THE LANDIS' ORDINANCE FOR IMPROVED SAFETY AND ACCESS.
JEFF, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS HERE IN DEEP THOUGHT RIGHT NOW? UM, YEAH.
I THINK THE WORKING GROUP IS A GOOD IDEA.
I THINK IT TAKES UP OUR CHALLENGE AS A WHOLE BOARD OTHERWISE, AND THEN WE CAN WORK LANGUAGE TELLING ME THE TIME WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS PROPOSING THAT THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMES UP WITH A LETTER.
I MEAN, WITH THE APPLE CHANGES PROPOSED, WHICH IS THE BIGGEST DROP IN THAT SENTENCE IN THIS SECTION AND THAT, UH, THE AD HOC AND
[00:35:01]
THAT HE WOULD BE WORKING WITH THE MOTHERS WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ROLE AS TO WHAT, WHAT THE CHANGES ARE, WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE THAT EXACT LANGUAGE.AND, AND, UH, THIS COMMITTEE WILL WORK ON DRAFTING.
THE PART OF
AND THEN YOU MAKE THE LANGUAGE, YOU UNDERSTAND THE REASONING AND YOU FORMULATE THAT LADDER AND WE'VE DONE CREATE THE LETTER WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THEN THERE'S NO NEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO SEND THIS TO THE BOARD, ALL CORRECT.
THE MOTION TO CREATE THE AD HOC AND IS A POINT OF CLARITY.
THIS IS A PUBLIC BODY AND ALL OF THE OPEN MEETING LAWS APPLY.
ANY COMMITTEE THAT YOU CREATE ON SUB COMMITTEE ALSO IS, UM, THE OPEN MEETING RULES WILL APPLY TO THAT SUBCOMMITTEE.
SO MINUTES RECORD KEEPING ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT OF A CONVENIENCE MAKING IN WORKING GROUPS OF LESS THAN A FORUM.
AND THAT MAY BE A MORE EFFICIENT USE OF.
AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS OFTEN THE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE FOR A WORKING GROUP, NOT AN AD HOC COMMITTEE, SO THAT'S ALL THE MINUTES MORE OR LESS, MORE OR LESS.
SO AT THIS POINT, THE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A MOTION TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP, TO PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE ORDINANCE WITH SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS THAT PROMOTION DOES THAT MOVE FROM SATURDAY? YOU HAVE A MOMENT, PLEASE.
AT THIS POINT IN THE SHOW, THAT'S EXPRESSED A SIGNIFICANT INTEREST IN SHARING, UH, ARE THERE SO GOOD, BUT SO I TURNED AROUND, HE SAID, YOU COULD BE THE CHAIR.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS BEING THE CHAIR, ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD THAT MEMBER IS LIMITED TO, UM, UM, FOUR ALL INCLUDING THE CHAIR? UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SERVE WITH YOU WITH, I'M SURE A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES WITH LIKE THE THIRD, I THINK HE WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT ADDITION FOR YOUR MEMBERS THEN, AND IT'S GOING TO REFER TO YOUR WORK CALENDAR AND, UM, ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE NOW AT THIS WORKING WILL, IF WE ARE ALLOWED THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OBVIOUSLY COME TO AND THE OUTPUT LIFE IS SENDING INVITATIONS TO SOME BOARDS OF THE OLDER MEN, SO ARE FULLY AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS HEAR THE ALDERMAN COME UP AND SAY, WE HAVE NO IDEA THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE TO FEEL LIKE THEY'VE BEEN GOBSMACKED.
I WANT THEM TO BE ROLLING ALONG AND OFF THE COPS MAX OUT THAT COMES FROM SOMETIMES NEAR ENOUGH.
IT'S ENGLISH AND FUCK THE OLDER, OH, IT'S, IT'S VERY MUCH COLLOQUIUM EMOTION.
JEFF, GO AHEAD AND LOOK LIKE, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA FOR THE GROUP TO MEET AND UNDERSTAND ALL THE ISSUES FIRST, BEFORE INVITING OTHERS INTO THE GROUP.
UM, HAVING DONE THIS A THOUSAND TIMES IN MY CAREER, I THINK AT BEST THAT ALL CORE AND YOU GET A GREAT SOLID FIRM SENSE OF WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, UM, WHAT THE LANGUAGE SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND THEN TAKE THAT NEXT STEP.
THAT'S WHAT THE WORKING GROUP IS, FOR MY OPINION, JUST SHARING IT.
JEFF DEVELOPERS FROM BULKING AT WHAT WE PROPOSE, WHAT IT BEHOOVES US TO THE LONG ONE TO INCLUDE OUR DEVELOPER SAID THAT HE CAN LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE THINKING BEHIND IT.
I'LL I'LL JUST SHARE WITH YOU THAT WHAT YOU'RE HOLDING IN YOUR HAND, WE'LL DO 18
[00:40:01]
MONTHS OF DEVELOPER INPUT, RIGHT? YEAH.I MEAN, THAT WAS A COUPLE OF DEVELOPERS.
UM, AND, UH, UH, I WORKED IN GROUP, UH, BOTH WITH STAFF AND, UH, AND BOARD MEMBERS.
AND IT'S STILL, IT'S STILL THAT SAME PROBLEM.
YOU CAN'T PREVENT THAT ALL WE CAN DO IS BASE OUR RECOMMENDATION ON SOUND LOGIC AND, UH, AND YOU KNOW, BOARD OF ALDERMAN, UH, UH, FOLLOW THROUGH ON OUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO BE SECOND.
ARE WE ALLOWED TO POLITIC THE WORD INVOLVEMENT? THAT'S A BAD IDEA.
BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE GROUP TO HAVE ONE VOICE OF ONE DOCUMENT AND ALL THE ISSUES.
AND WE CAN SIT AND TALK ABOUT ALL THE OTHER ISSUES, THINGS THAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT.
UM, WELL, I THINK WE ALSO HAVE SOME OF US SAY TO KNOW THE HISTORY ON WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED WHEN IT DID WELL, WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE WAS MUCH MORE COMPETENCY, YOU KNOW, BUT, WELL, SO I THINK THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF, UH, EDITS OR CHANGES PER FUNDED.
AND ONE OF THE HANDFUL WAS CONTROVERSIAL THAT IS TO SAY, AND DEVELOPER BALL, AS YOU SAY.
AND SO SINCE IT WAS ALL PRESENTED AS A PACKAGE, IT WAS EITHER YOU'D GET ALL THE PACKAGES PASS ALL OF THE, UH, UH, PROPOSED THAT IT'S PASSED OR YOU GET TO KNOW HIM.
AND SO THE CHOICE THAT WAS ULTIMATELY MADE BY THE BOARD OF ALL OF THEM WAS THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE, WHICH WAS NONE.
AND SO ALL OF THEM THAT HAD COME BEFORE GOING THROUGH THE WORK GROUP AND DEVELOPERS THAT WERE INCLUDED, UH, AGREED WITH AND, UH, CAME BEFORE THE, UH, PLANNING, ZONING BOARD WE SENT TO THE BOARD OFF.
AND, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK A SECTION AT A TIME, IF YOU FIND THE SECTION IT'S NOT CONTROVERSIAL, I THINK, UH, 15 TO 14, ONE IN PARTICULAR THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE ON.
AND I THINK BOARD OF ALDERMAN WOULD PROBABLY AGREE WITH THIS AS WELL.
UM, BUT THAT'S THE SORT OF THING WE CAN DISCUSS IN THE WORK GROUP.
UH, YOU KNOW, AND I KIND OF, I TEND TO AGREE WITH JEFF STOP.
WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE A MEETING WITH, UH, WITH THE, JUST THE MEMBERS OF THE PLAN.
IS THERE BOARD AND STAFF INITIALLY, AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE IF WE WANT TO INVITE, UH, MEMBERS.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS TO GET THE FOUR OF US UP TO SPEED AND ON THE SAME PAGE.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE AND HOW WE WANT TO DO IT.
THEN WE START BRINGING PEOPLE IN AFTER GUYS, BEFORE THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN.
I PERSONALLY THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ALDERMAN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM EFFECT KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON AND THE REASONING BEHIND IT SO THAT MAYBE WE CAN DISPEL ANY, UM, OPPOSITION.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE MEETINGS.
IT'S THE OBLIGATION TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
UM, BUT WE KNOW THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.
I CAME IN SECOND BY SECOND AND WE WANT TO KEEP THE CHANGES MORE CONFINED AND SIMPLE AND WELL FOCUSED.
I WOULD USE THE WORD AND, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGES EACH SECTION SHOULD INVOLVE THAT MANY MEETINGS.
I WOULD AGREE JUST FOR MY OWN KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
AGAIN, I WASN'T, I WASN'T PART OF THIS OR DO WE, DO WE KNOW WHAT SPECIFICALLY CAUSED THE WHOLE PACKET TO GET KICKED BACK? YEAH.
I THINK, I THINK WE THINK THAT WE NOTICED, I THINK IT WAS THE, UM, UH, COL-DE-SAC DIMENSION WAS WASN'T THE FREE THING.
AND IT WAS TIED TO AN APPENDIX IN THE, UM, IN ONE OF THE BUILDING CODES.
SO THE APPENDIX, THE APPENDIX HAS TO BE SECTIONS OF THE DEPENDENCIES, UH, OF THE BUILDING CODES ARE NOT TECHNICAL CODE UNLESS ACCEPTED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE.
AND THAT'S WHAT GOT ALL TANGLED UP.
AND SO UNFORTUNATELY WE HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF, UH, MEANINGFUL HEADS THAT THEY GOT TANGLED UP IN WITH THAT AND BECAME, UH, YOU KNOW, COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
AND, UM, AND THAT WAS THE MOTION I MADE LAST MEETING WAS THAT LET'S LOOK AT THESE ON A SECTION BY SECTION BASIS OR, OR A PIECEMEAL BASIS AND SEND THEM BACK TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN FOR CONSIDERATION, UM, AND MAYBE EXTRACT THEM FROM THE, UH, MORE CONTROVERSIAL WISE, NO PROBLEM WITH THE WORK GROUP.
I MEAN, I JUST VOTED THAT WE, THAT WE FORMED ONE, UM, WHAT I, WHAT I'D LIKE FOR US NOT TO DO
[00:45:01]
IS TO GET TANGLED UP AND DRAGGED THIS OUT FOR A LONG TIME WHEN UNDERSTANDABLY SOME OF US WERE NOT ON THE BOARD WHEN WE DID THIS LAST TIME, BUT THERE WERE SOME PRETTY SOUND LOGIC AND SOME PRETTY GOOD THOUGHTS THAT WENT INTO THIS LAST TIME, ALONG WITH MEETING WITH STAFF AND, UH, WITH DEVELOPERS.AND SO I WOULD GIVE SOME CREDENCE TO THE WORK THAT WAS DONE BY THE PREVIOUS BOARD.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT AT WORK.
I THINK THAT YOU GUYS DID THAT MUCH DUE DILIGENCE AND SPEND THAT MUCH TIME.
I'M NOT TRYING TO REINVENT THE WHEEL EITHER BECAUSE IF THAT MUCH TIME WAS INVESTED.
WELL, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOT A MEANINGFUL CHANGE TO BE MADE.
I MEAN, WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT ONE SHOT, ELIMINATE MIX.
THAT SOUND LOGIC MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THAT WAS PERFECT WORK.
THERE'S SUCH A THING AS A PERFECT ORDINANCE 10, SO WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF WORK TO GO FOR IT.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE POINT WE'LL TAKE THIS AND WORK FROM THERE.
THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE FOR US TO DO.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE STAFF IS GOING TO SUPPORT US.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS, UH, TO THE BUILDING FOR MEETINGS, UM, AND HIS CHAIR IT, SO SHE'S GOING TO SET UP SCHEDULE A FIRST MEETING FOR US.
UM, WE HAVEN'T GOT THOSE EMAILS.
SO I THINK THIS PART WE CAN MOVE ON, UM, ON THIS SECTION, OUR NEXT PART IS A MOTION TO IT.
SO THE ONLY THING IF I MAY ADD IS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR SCHEDULE IS CONDUCIVE.
IF WE, IF WE AGREE AS A WORK GROUP THAT WE WANT TO SEND SOMETHING TO THIS BOARD, WE HAVE TO HAVE TIME FOR IT TO BE PREPARED AND PUT ON THE AGENDA AND POSTED SAID, DO YOU WANT ME TO MAKE SURE OUR MEETINGS ARE FAR ENOUGH IN ADVANCE OF THESE MEETINGS TO, TO MEET ALL OF THE PUBLIC POSTING.
EVERYBODY REALIZED THAT THERE WILL BE AN ELECTION OF WORLD IN MARCH.
SO WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO GO WITH THE NEW GROUP OF ALL THE ROOM WITH EVERYTHING OR NO, WE DON'T WALK OVER WITH EVERYTHING THAT DIDN'T WORK.
I ALWAYS FIND THAT BE IRRELEVANT.
I WORK IS, I MEAN, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THE WORK, THE WORK WE'RE DOING AS A PART OF THIS BOARD IS I'M, I'M, I'M GONNA LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF IT.
AND I REALIZED THAT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS GONNA ALWAYS HAPPEN THAT WAY, BUT, UM, HERE'S ENOUGH DISCORD ABOUT WHO'S ON THE BOARD, RIGHT? THAT YOU MAY NOT SEE SOME OF THEM REELECTED.
YOU'VE GOT TO START WITH SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.
I'M OKAY WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S NOT,
THEY UNDERSTAND ANYTHING I'M SAYING WE DON'T NOT LET OUR PROCESS GET TANGLED UP IN THE LECTURE.
AND TO GET THESE SIMPLE CHANGES THAT I SHOULDN'T TAKE THAT MUCH LONGER WITH THE DRAFT.
WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME? JUST SO WE'LL KNOW AHEAD OF TIME.
FROM THE TIME WE DECIDE ON A SECTION CHANGE.
WELL, SO STAFF HAS TIME IF YOU HAD THAT TIME TO PREPARE IT AND IT HAS TO BE MEETING.
SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN SIX WEEKS? WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY NEXT, NEXT MONDAY IS OUR DEADLINE FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
AND WE PUT EVERYTHING IN MOTION.
SO THAT'D BE THE FOURTH TUESDAY MEETING OF THE MONTH NEXT MONDAY'S DEADLINE, OR IS IT FOR THE NEXT DAY'S MEETING WITH THREE WEEKS AHEAD.
SO THIS MEETING TODAY, OUR DEADLINE WAS THREE WEEKS AGO.
SO IT'LL BE THE END OF SEPTEMBER MEETING.
WELL, I WAS NOT EVEN SPEAKING OF THAT, THAT'LL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT, NO, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT OUR TIMEFRAME IS FOR THE WEEK.
WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S A LITTLE LIFT ADD TO IT.
SO THAT'S TWO MEETINGS A MONTH.
UM, BUT THESE ARE MEETINGS TAKE CARE OF THAT STUFF.
SO WHEN WE, WHEN OUR WORK GROUP DECIDES TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO THIS BOARD, THAT'S, THAT'S THE TIMEFRAME.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE TOM FOR STAFF TO PREPARE THE MATERIAL PRESENTED THIS WEEK.
IF WE START RIGHT NOW, COULD WE GET SOMETHING READY FOR NEXT MONTH? OR IS THAT PUSHING STAY? I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WORKS SO THE WAY OR NOT.
I DON'T HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY OF CALENDARS FOR TUESDAYS, TUESDAY NIGHT, TUESDAY, SECOND AND FOURTH, TUESDAY FIRST, OR WHAT, WHAT ARE WE ANSWERING? DAN'S QUESTION.
SO WHEN WE HAVE AN UPLOAD OF ALL THE MEETING ON A TUESDAY, ALL OUR AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING TWO WEEKS FROM THEN ARE DUE ON THAT FRIDAY.
SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BUT I MEAN, WE SEND THINGS TO THE BOARD ON ALL THE TIME FROM THIS BOARD, RIGHT? SO THAT JUST FALLS IN.
WE USUALLY DOVETAIL IT PRETTY WELL.
WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THAT OUR WORK GROUP,
[00:50:01]
WHEN WE SAY, OKAY, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WHEN WE'RE READY TO SEND IT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME FOR STAFF TO PREPARE THE ISLAND TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND THAT IT GETS ON THE AGENDA IN THE TIMEFRAME OR THE DOWN TWO DAYS.HONESTLY, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO HAVE A GOOD PRODUCT.
YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A FIVE DAY, WE'RE NOT TALKING AMONGST DIFFERENCE HERE, WE'RE TALKING AT THE MOST 10 DAYS,
AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, THE ALDERMAN FOR KIND OF TAKES CARE OF ITSELF.
ONCE YOU PREP IT,
MS. MOSLEY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I NEED TO SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER.
MY TOPIC AT THE END, THERE IS SUBJECT TO THE BOARD ROLE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO HEAR CORRECT.
SO SENDING THE LETTER, YOU'RE GOING TO DESCEND THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE AGENDA PACKET TO BE PUT TOGETHER FOR THE BOARD IS NOT GUARANTEED TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE, BUT CERTAINLY CONSIDERING THE TIMEFRAME IS PROVEN