* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. YES, SIR. [I. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:03] I HEREBY CALL TO ORDER THE MARCH 20TH CITY OF NEWBURN PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING. UM, WILL YOU, EVERYONE THAT CAN AND IS ABLE, PLEASE STAND AND JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF OUR COUNTRY. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KENDRICK, CAN I GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'RE GONNA START WITH BOARD MEMBER KYLE HERE, BOARD MEMBER DANIELLE PEOPLES. JUST LET THE RECORD SHOW SHE'S ABSENT. BOARD MEMBER KIPP , LET THE RECORD SHOW HE'S ABSENT. CHAIRMAN BRAD JEFFERSON HERE, BOARD MEMBER RUSTY INGRAM. HERE. BOARD MEMBER KELLY KAISER. HERE. BOARD MEMBER THOMAS BROWNELL HERE. AND BOARD MEMBER MARSHALL BALLARD. YEAH, HERE. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU KENDRICK. UH, [IV. APPROVE AGENDA] WHAT IS THE BOARD'S, UM, PURVIEW ON THE, UH, AGENDA? I MOVE. WE APPROVE THE AGENDA AS WRITTEN. SECOND, THAT HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND APPROVE THE AGENDA. ANY OTHER, UH, CONVERSATION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. UM, [V. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS] CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS TONIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY. SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO ACTION ITEMS. I DO, UM, WANNA READ THIS LITTLE BLURB BEFORE WE JUMP INTO ACTION. ITEM A, UM, JUST SOME BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ON THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. UH, THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD THIS EVENING INCLUDE APPROVAL OF GENERAL AND SUBDIVISION PLOTS, UM, A REZONING AND SOME TEXT AMENDMENTS. UH, SEVEN MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF ALTO AND MUST RESIDE WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW BERN. ONE MEMBER IS APPOINTED BY THE CRAVEN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND RESIDES WITHIN THE CITY'S EXTRA TRADITIONAL, UH, TERRITORIAL EXTRATERRESTRIAL EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING AREA. UM, THE ETJ, THIS BOARD IS AN ADVISORY AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD OF ALMAN. THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN ACTS IN ITS LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY AND FOLLOWS VOTING PROCEDURES AS PART OF THEIR OFFICIAL MEETINGS. THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN IS NOT BOUND BY THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. WITH OUR FIVE ACTION ITEMS THIS EVENING, WE'LL HAVE THE A STAFF REPORT. WE WILL THEN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE APPLICANT REMARKS. THIS ORDER AND PUBLIC HEARING PROTOCOL REFLECTS THE BOARD'S RECENTLY ADOPTED RULES AND PROCEDURES. SO WITH [VI.A. Hutton Pointe, Phase Two At Bluewater Rise, (Final Plat - PUD)] THAT, KENDRICK, UH, YOU GIVE US A STAFF REPORT ON ITEM NUMBER A OR ITEM A. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, AND GOOD EVENING TO THE BOARD AS WELL. I'M GONNA START WITH THIS FIRST ITEM HERE FOR HUTTON POINT, PHASE TWO AT BLUE WATER RISE. THE, THIS IS A, UH, FINAL PUD FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION 0 0 3 0 1 9 20 25. AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY HERE. THE APPLICANT IS JOHN G. THOMAS, PE OWNER, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER THOMAS ENGINEERING, UH, PA, AND THE OWNER HERE IS A SIDE CONSTRUCTION INC. THE LOCATION IS BLUE WATER RISE. UH, AGAIN, IT'S A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S OFF OF COUNTY LINE ROAD. THE EXISTING ZONING CURRENTLY IS RESIDENTIAL EIGHT, AND THAT'S R EIGHT FOR ITS ABBREVIATION. AND THE SIZE HERE IS 76.77 APPROXIMATE TOTAL ACRES. THE OVERVIEW, UM, IS THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS TO ESTABLISH, UH, 94 LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS. UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY, AGAIN, IS ZONED AS R DASH EIGHT RESIDENTIAL EIGHT. UH, THIS IS ESTABLISHED AS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT JUST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USE ORDINANCE. AND THE PURPOSE OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS ESSENTIALLY TO PROVIDE COMFORTABILITY, HEALTH SAFETY, AND A PLEASANT ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH TO LIVE. FOR THE FIRST MAP HERE, WE'VE GOT THE VICINITY MAP AND, UM, I WORKED WITH OUR GIS PERSONNEL TO TRY TO HELP BETTER, UH, KIND OF SINGLE OUT WHERE THAT IS. AND YOU KNOW WHERE THAT FACTUAL PIECE IS. SO THE OUTLINE THAT YOU SEE THERE, LIKE THE GREENISH TEALISH COLOR, THAT ESSENTIALLY IS THE LOCATION AND HERE IS THE BUFFER MAP. AND JUST SHOWING, SHOWCASING OUR A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER THAT WE TAKE, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY LINES THERE AND ANY INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE WITHIN THIS BUFFER, UM, SHOULD RECEIVE NOTIFICATION JUST IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY AN AERIAL MAP HERE, UH, JUST TO SHOW YOU AND GIVE YOU AN UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT'S ON THE GROUND. AND THEN THIS ALSO, UH, LASTLY HERE IS THE, OR AT LEAST FOR THE ZONING MAP, UM, SHOWS THAT DISTINGUISHED DISTRICT AS FAR AS THE R DASH EIGHT, UM, IN THAT COLOR. I KNOW IT MIGHT BE SLIGHTLY HARD TO SEE WITH THE OVERLAY OR THE HATCHET. [00:05:03] AND MOVING ON, JUST SHOWING THE PLAT, UM, IT'S ESSENTIALLY, IT'S THE FIRST PAGE AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY THE SECOND PAGE THERE. AND FOR STAFF'S EVALUATION, UH, THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF NEW BRUNS LAND USE ORDINANCE. AND LASTLY, UH, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, AT THIS TIME? BOARD I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? NO, NO. THANK YOU, KENDRICK. UM, SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, BUT BEFORE THAT, I WANT TO JUST, UH, READ A LITTLE THING ON PUBLIC COMMENT. IT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER. COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE BOARD AND CITY STAFF AND BE RELEVANT TO THE ACTION ITEM BEING DISCUSSED. GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, NEIGHBORHOODS OF OTHER SIMILAR ASSOCIATIONS MAY APPOINT ONE SPOKESPERSON TO PRESENT THEIR POINTS OF VIEW TO THE BOARD. PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A COMMENT PERIOD, SO THE BOARD IS NOT TAKING OR RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS DURING THIS STEP. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ACTION ITEM A? AND THOSE COMMENTS WILL BE FOR ANY OTHER, UM, ACTION ITEM AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. UM, SO WE'LL MOVE TO APPLICANT'S REMARKS. DOES APPLICANT HAVE ANY REMARKS ON THIS ITEM? YES. JOHN THOMAS, UH, THOMAS ENGINEERING HERE IN NEWBURN. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO MAKE. IT'S PAVED. IT'S READY TO START BUILDING HOUSES OUT THERE, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THOSE. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. THOMAS? MR. CHAIR, IT MAY BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE, MR. THOMAS, MR. THOMAS, IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOUR FIRM SUBMITTED A LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THIS PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? FORM LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THIS PROPERTY? FOR THE BOND, THE, UH, LETTER OF CREDIT? YES. THERE BASICALLY ALL THAT AT THE TIME LETTER. AND THAT ? YES, SIR. AND ACCEPTED BY PUBLIC WORKS. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIN. UM, OKAY. SO HAVING SAID THAT, I KNOW WE SPILL, I'M GONNA READ. THE BOARD HAS THE, THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE ACTION. REFLECTING THE PLAN SATISFIES THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE BOARD'S CITY LAND USE ORDINANCE, OR DENY THIS ACTION INDICATING THE PLAN FAILS TO SATISFY THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S LAND USE ORDINANCE. IF THE BOARD FINDS THE PLAT FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ONE OR MORE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S LAND USE ORDINANCE, THE MOTION MUST STATE THE DEFICIENCY AND THE BIAS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION COULD BE APPROVED. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION HEARING ON, AND I'LL ENTERTAIN OUR MOTION ON THIS ITEM. I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR THE FINAL PLAT AS SUBMITTED. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES [Vi.B. 3530 Neuse Boulevard Rezoning] GOING TO ITEM B. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, MR. NOAH MILLS IS GONNA BE PRESENTING THAT ITEM. HE'S OUR PLANNER ONE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. COME ON UP, MR. MILLS. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'LL BE DISCUSSING, UM, ITEM B TONIGHT, WHICH IS REZ 0 0 3 0 2 0 20 25. AND THAT'S THE, UM, 35 30 NEWS BOULEVARD REZONING. UH, MOVING ON TO THE REQUEST SUMMARY. THE APPLICANT SLASH OWNER IS DAVID BAILEY. THE LOCATION IS 35 30 NEWS BOULEVARD. THE CURRENT ZONING IS COMMERCIAL FOR FOR C FOUR, AND THE REQUESTED CHANGE OF ZONING IS TO COMMERCIAL THREE FOR C3. THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS GOING TO BE EIGHT DASH 2 4 3 DASH 1 0 6, AND THE APPROXIMATE SIZE IS 13.54 ACRES. MOVING ON TO THE, UH, COMMERCIAL FOUR C FOUR ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS. THE C FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED AS A DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PRINCIPAL LAND USE IS TO PROVIDE, UH, RETAILING OF GOODS AND SERVICES TO THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. UH, THE REGULATIONS OF THIS DISTRICT ARE DESIGNED TO LIMIT THE BUSINESSES WHICH MAY BE ESTABLISHED, EXCUSE ME, BE ESTABLISHED IN ORDER [00:10:01] TO PROTECT THE OPERATING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. MOVING ON TO THE COMMERCIAL THREE OR C3 ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS, THE C3 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED, UH, AS A DISTRICT FOR OFFICES, PERSONAL SERVICES, AND THE RETAILING OF DURABLE AND CONVENIENCE GOODS. UM, THIS DISTRICT IS A, UM, HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC AREA, UH, AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE VIEW OF NOT ONLY LOCAL RESIDENTS, BUT TOURISTS AND NON OTHER, NON-LOCAL MOTORISTS. UH, AMPLE OFF STREET PARKING CONTROLLED TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AND AN APPROPRIATE APPEARANCE, INCLUDING SUITABLE PLANNING, SHALL BE PROVIDED. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE USES COMPARISON BETWEEN COMMERCIAL FOUR OR C FOUR AND COMMERCIAL THREE, OR C3. UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, IF IT'S LABELED S IT WILL BE, UM, PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE. Z IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT. IF IT'S LEFT LANE, THEN IT'S NOT PERMITTED, UH, IN THIS AREA. I'LL GIVE THE BOARD A FEW MOMENTS TO GO DO THAT. UH, THIS IS THE VICINITY MAP FOR THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. UH, THIS IS THE BUFFER MAP FOR THE PROPERTY. UM, SO ALL, UM, RESIDENCE WITHIN, UH, A HUNDRED FEET OF THIS BUFFER WERE NOTIFIED OF THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS IS THE AERIAL FOR THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. AND THIS IS THE ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY. UM, I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE WITH THE, UH, RED OVERLAY, BUT THE PINK IS GOING TO BE, UH, THE CURRENT C FOUR ZONING DISTRICT. UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S ADJACENT C3 USE. UM, AND THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. AND THERE'S ALSO A BIT AT THE TOP LEFT CORNER. SO THE ACTION NEEDED FOR THIS REQUEST, UH, WILL BE ADOPTION OF A CONSISTENCY STATEMENT AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF DERING. AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY, UH, QUESTIONS, I CAN TAKE THEM AT THIS TIME. BOARD, BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? YOU NOT FAIR? NO. THANK YOU. NO, GOOD JOB. UM, WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN UP FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM B. LET'S C NONE. UH, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? IT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT IF YOU DO SAY GOOD EVENING AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS, WELL, WOULD I HAVE QUESTIONS? DO, DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY AT THIS POINT? UM, THAT IS SOMETHING I HAVE, UH, CONTEMPLATED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND, BUT I HAVE DECIDED TO, UH, AT THIS TIME LIST THE PROPERTY FOR SALE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT. I, I WOULD SAY IT'D BE A GREAT PROPERTY FOR THE NEW BERN PARKS INTERNET DEPARTMENT. IT'S A FAIR ENOUGH. AND THEN THE CITY OF NEW BERN'S WORKING ON THAT PROJECT BACK THERE. I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF LAND. I, YOU KNOW IT, ANYWAYS. I, PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD PLACE FOR A PUBLIC DEPARTMENT. APPRECIATE THE PLUG . ALRIGHT, SO, UH, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE BOARD, UH, I GOT A, THE SPIEL HERE ON REZONING. THE BOARD HAS A DECISION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO FINDING A CONSISTENCY AND REASONABLENESS SANCTIFYING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY COMPREHENSIVE OR APPLICABLE LAND USE PLANS, OR DETERMINED TO BE REASONABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, RECOMMENDED DENIAL AND FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY OR UNREASONABLENESS, WHICH IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BASED ON FINDINGS THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY COMPREHENSIVE OR APPLICATION LAND USE PLANS AND DETERMINED TO BE UNREASONABLE AND NOT IN PUBLIC INTEREST. UH, THE EXISTING EXOTIC ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED ON MARCH 5TH, 1968, EFFECTIVE MARCH 15TH, 1968. I LIKE ADDING THAT LITTLE DETAIL. UM, WAS BOARD OR I'LL OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION TO THE BOARD. WELL, I, I WOULD SAY MY FEELING [00:15:01] IS, IS THAT IT'S IN A LARGE GROUPING OF C FOUR PROPERTIES. TYPICALLY WHAT I RECALL IS WHEN WE CONSIDER THESE TYPES OF THINGS, IT'S WHEN SOMEONE HAS A PARTICULAR USE READY FOR THE PROJECT AND THEY NEED TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO INCORPORATE A PARTICULAR USE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK THE APPLICANT IS OPENING UP TO MORE USES TO MAKE THE PROPERTY MORE DESIRABLE FOR FOLKS. UM, AND AT LEAST FOR ME PERSONALLY, I, I DON'T FEEL THAT THAT'S A REASON TO ALLOW OR ENABLE OR RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN UH, A REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, UM, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO CITE WHETHER THE REZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLANS AND ADJACENT USES. UM, AND ALSO YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO ADDRESS WHETHER IT'S REASONABLE AND OR UNREASONABLE GIVING THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU. SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING. UM, BASICALLY FOR THE REASON OF IT IS CLOSE TO A PUBLIC PARK AND WE'RE OPENING UP THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY TO MANY MORE, UH, COMMERCIAL TYPE USES. AND IN AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE, THERE'S A LOT LESS, YES, THERE IS C3 ACROSS THE STREET, BUT IT'S BASICALLY A OLD GAS STATION. UM, AND I FEEL IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE PROXIMITY TO THE PARK IN THE BACK. SO THAT'S, I I MOVE THAT WE, UH, RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN THAT THEY DENY THE REZONING REQUEST. YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE, IT'S INCONSISTENT. I'M SAYING IT'S INCONSISTENT. SO YOUR MOTIONS THAT THE, UH, ITEM IS INCONSISTENT. MY MOTION IS THAT THE ITEM IS INCONSISTENT. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM? I AM GONNA CALL FOR A ROLL CALL ON THIS ONE. YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GONNA START WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER KYLE DEERING. I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH, UH, RU'S STATEMENT THERE THAT IT'S INCONSISTENT. AND THEN, UH, BOARD MEMBER KELLY KAISER? YES. OKAY. CHAIRMAN BRAD JEFFERSON? UH, NO. AND, UH, BOARD MEMBER LESLIE ENGEL? YES. CORRECT. AND THEN BOARD MEMBER THOMAS BRONO? YES. AND BOARD MEMBER MARSHALL VAL HILL. OKAY. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT VOTE WAS, UH, FIVE TO ONE. OKAY. ROGER, THAT MOTION CARRIES, UH, WE HAVE TO DO A ONE ON RECOMMENDATION AS WELL, RIGHT? SINCE IT IS INCONSISTENT, ARE WE STILL DOING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD? THAT WAS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION. YOU RECOMMENDED THE DENIAL. ROGER THAT. OKAY, SO WE'RE DONE WITH ITEM D. OKAY. MOVING [VI.C. Tract B and Pt of Tract A, Derby Park, Pt of Common Area B, Athens Acres Ph 1, Rezoning] ON TO ITEM C. AND THE NEXT ITEM HERE FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW IS ANOTHER REZONING. THIS IS REZ 0 0 3 0 2 8 20 25. UH, THIS IS A BIT OF A, UM, THERE'S A LOT, A LOT OF MOVING PARTS, BUT IT'S PART OF TRACKS A AND B FOR DERBY PARK AND PART OF COMMON AREA B ATHENS ACRES FOR PHASE ONE, UH, THAT IS THE RESULT. AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY HERE, THE APPLICANT IS ERIC REMINGTON. UH, THE OWNERS ARE PAUL CREIGHTON JR. EASTERN LAND HOLDINGS, LLC AND PHOENIX DERBY PARK, LLC. AND THE LOCATION IS JUST DERBY PARK. UH, THE CURRENT ZONING AND OR EXCUSE ME, THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS, UH, IS INDUSTRIAL ONE OR I ONE RESIDENTIAL SIX OR R DASH SIX RESIDENTIAL 10 A OR R DASH 10 A AND AGRICULTURE FIVE F OR A DASH FIVE F. THE REQUESTED CHANGE FOR THE ZONING IS TO RESIDENTIAL SIX OR R DASH SIX AND RESIDENTIAL 10 A OR R DASH 10 A PARCEL IDENTIFICATION, UH, NUMBERS. I APOLOGIZE THAT I DO NOT HAVE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS LISTED. I THAT IS A MISTAKE. I CAN GET THE NUMBERS FOR THE RECORD. UH, DISREGARD THAT PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. THE SIZING AND THE TOTALITY, UM, IS 49.61 AS A TOTAL. SO MOVING ON TO THE INDUSTRIAL ONE, THE I ONE ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS. UM, IN THE SHORT GIST, THE ANALYSIS PROVIDES THAT THE INDUSTRIAL [00:20:01] DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PRINCIPAL USE OF LAND IS FOR INDUSTRIES WHICH CAN BE OPERATED IN A RELATIVELY CLEAN AND QUIET MANNER. UM, AND ESSENTIALLY AS TO WHICH FOR OR WITH THE, TO WORK WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC. UM, AND FOR CERTAIN OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT FACILITIES, WHICH GENERATE LARGE, UH, VOLUMES OF AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC. AND ANOTHER KEY POINT RESIDENTIAL USES IN THIS DISTRICT ARE PERMITTED ONLY UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO RESIDENTIAL SIX, THAT ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS. UM, SIMPLY PUT, THE R DASH SIX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR SINGLE TWO AND MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH 6,000 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOTS, UH, FOR ONE DWELLING UNIT AND 2000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL UNIT. UH, THIS IS ALSO TO ENCOURAGE CONTINUED USE OF LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND CERTAIN COMPATIBLE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. IT, UH, PROHIBITS COMMERCIAL AND AND INDUSTRIAL USE OF LAND, UM, OR USES OF LAND TO PROHIBIT ANY OTHER USE, WHICH WOULD ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OR CONTINUATION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. UH, IT ALSO IS TO ENCOURAGE THE DISCONTINUANCE OF EXISTING USES THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS NEW USES. AND THE RESIDENTIAL 10 A OR R DASH 10 A ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS, ESSENTIALLY IT FOLLOWS SUIT WITH R DASH 10. UM, THAT'S WHAT'S REFERENCED HERE BASICALLY IN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE, UH, IS TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE. THE GENERAL INTENT OF THIS DISTRICT IS THE SAME AS, AGAIN, THE R DASH 10 DISTRICT. SO I HAVE THAT SUPPORTED RIGHT BEHIND WITH THE RESIDENTIAL 10 OR R DASH 10, UH, ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS HERE. UH, THIS IS PARTICULARLY DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE FROM SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES WITH 10,000 SQUARE FEET LOTS REQUIRED FOR ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND, AND ADDITIONAL 5,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL UNIT FOR THE R DASH 10 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND PROMOTING THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE. SO THIS IS TO ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUED USE OF THE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES TO ENCOURAGE THE DISCONTINUANCE OF EXISTING USES, UM, THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS NEW USES. AND ESSENTIALLY TO DISCOURAGE, UM, ANY USE WHICH WOULD GENERATE TRAFFIC ON MINOR STREETS OTHER THAN NORMAL TRAFFIC TO SERVE RESIDENCES. THE AGRICULTURE FIVE F OR A DASH FIVE F SELLING DISTRICT ANALYSIS. THIS, UH, IS MORE GEARED TOWARD YOUR AGRICULTURE AND FOREST FORESTRY DISTRICT IS DESIGNED TO ALSO PROMOTE FORESTRY OPERATIONS. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES, RECREATIONAL USES AND CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL USES. UM, IT ENCOURAGES THE CONSERVATION OF THE AREA'S EXISTING AGRICULTURAL, UH, AND FORESTRY RESOURCES OR THE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY, UH, RESOURCE AND PROMOTE PROMOTES LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. IT IS TO PROHIBIT NON-AGRICULTURAL, UM, AND NON FORESTRY RELATED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES OF THE LAND, UH, AND PROHIBIT ANY OTHER INFLUX OF USES SUCH THERE AS. AND HERE YOU HAVE A USES COMPARISON CHART. UM, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TWO HERE. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE FOR AGRICULTURAL, UH, FIVE F AND THAT'S A DASH FIVE F FOR THE ABBREVIATION VERSUS INDUSTRIAL ONE OR I DASH ONE. AND ESSENTIALLY JUST AS MY, UH, COLLEAGUE HAD REFERENCED, THE S IS STANDING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT. THE Z IS FOR PERMITTED BY RIGHTS AND IF IT IS BLANK, UH, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT IN THAT DISTRICT. SO I'LL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO JUST VIEW THOSE COMPARISONS. AND THAT IS FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER COMPARISON CHART. 'CAUSE WE HAVE MULTIPLE DISTRICTS HERE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. SO THE RESIDENTIAL SIX OR R DASH SIX ZONING DISTRICT IS ALSO, UH, IN COMPARISON TO RESIDENTIAL 10 A AND R DASH 10 A. SO ONCE AGAIN, UH, I'M JUST GONNA GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO BRIEFLY VIEW THOSE. AND MOVING FORWARD, WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU THE VICINITY MAP. ONCE AGAIN. UM, THERE ARE THE PROPERTIES HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, AND THIS SHOWCASES ALL THREE PROPERTIES THAT'S FOLLOWED BY THE BUFFER MAP, WHICH WAS TAKEN, UM, FOR, FOR THE A HUNDRED FOOT RADIUS FOR THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE PROVIDED. ANYONE WITHIN THAT BUFFER SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A NOTICE. AND FOLLOWING THE BUFFER MAP THERE IS THE AERIAL MAP, WHICH JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU THE IDEA AGAIN AS TO WHAT'S ON THE GROUND. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ZONING MAP HERE. AND THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING LOOKS [00:25:01] LIKE, JUST TO KIND OF HELP THE BOARD GET A PICTURE BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS, UH, FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. SO WE'VE DONE, UM, WHAT'S, WHAT LOOKS TO BE THE CURRENT ZONING, AND THEN AFTER THAT, IMMEDIATELY THIS WOULD BE THE RESULT IF APPROVED. AND THAT'S TO REFLECT IT AS THE NEW, UM, HOW IT WOULD LOOK AT LEAST. AND THEN THE ACTION NEEDED FOR THE BOARD WOULD BE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSISTENCY STATEMENT, UH, AND THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN. BUT IF THE BOARD HAS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I'LL ACCEPT THOSE AT THIS TIME. KENDRICK, CAN YOU GO BACK TWO SLIDES PLEASE? YES, SIR. SO UP IN THE TOP BEFORE YOU GET TO THE RAILROAD, THAT'S, IS THAT I ONE, IS THAT THE GRADE DISTRICT UP AT THE TOP? I, YES, I BELIEVE IT IS. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO IT'S BASICALLY R SIX AT THE BOTTOM LEFT, OR R EIGHT AT THE BOTTOM LEFT. R SIX. YES. R SIX. OKAY. AND THEN R 10 A IN THE TRIANGLE IN THE MIDDLE. AND THEN I WANT AT THE TOP. YES SIR. I'M SORRY. IT'S A BIG, UH, NO, NO, IT'S OKAY. THE RED HATCHING, IT MAKES IT TOUGH TO READ. IT'S BLURRING AND I APOLOGIZE. MM-HMM . IT'S OKAY. WOULD I HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, THANK YOU KENDRICK. I'LL OPEN UP ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN IT UP IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS ERIC REMINGTON. I'M WITH THE LAW FIRM WITH WARDEN SMITH. I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT ON THIS MATTER MATTER. UH, ACTUALLY ALL THREE OF THEM. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS A, UM, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE, THE, UM, SLIDE THERE SHOWS THE PROPERTY AND IT SHOWS THAT THE INDUSTRIAL ONE AREA IS UP NEAR THE RAILROAD. UH, AND THEN IT'S GOT THE, UM, TRIANGULAR SHAPED AREA THAT'S RED CHECKED, UH, WHICH IS THE R TENT AREA, I BELIEVE. AND THEN THE, UH, BOTTOM AREA IS THE AGRICULTURAL AREA, WHICH IS GREEN THAT ACTUALLY OVEREXTENDS INTO THE PARCEL THAT IS OWNED BY THE HOA. AND SO PART OF THIS IS TO REALLY SORT OF CLEAN THIS AREA UP AND MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S OUT THERE. UM, SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO IS LIKE THE, UH, UM, MAP SHOWED, WE'RE ASKING THAT IT BASICALLY BE ALL R SIX FOR THE ONE BIGGER TRACT AND THE, AND THE LITTLE SMALL TRACT THAT'S AT THE END OF ELIZABETH AVENUE. UM, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE B UH, THE HOA TRACK, THE ALL R 10 A SO THAT IT ELIMINATES THAT LITTLE TRIANGULAR PIECE THERE. UM, WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, LAND USE PLAN AND WE PROVIDED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION ON THAT IN OUR APPLICATION TO TRY TO GIVE YOU ALL SOME INFORMATION TO, TO BASE YOUR DECISION ON. UM, AND AGAIN, THINK THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH THE AREAS AROUND IT IN THE LAND USE PLAN. SO WE'D ASK YOU TO APPROVE IT AND, UH, OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF IT TO THE, TO THE BOARD OF DERMAN AND PASS IT. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL HAVE. BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE IT. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR KENDRICK. UM, KENDRICK? YES, SIR. THESE YELLOW AREAS SEEM TO HAVE THE GREEN DOTS IN THEM, WHICH I THINK ON YOUR LEGEND WAS R EIGHT. IS IT R SIX OR R EIGHT? I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT HERE. ARE YOU TALKING, THESE ARE TOUGH TO READ WHEN WE GET THEM , IT, IT, IT'S A BIT CLEARER WHEN I'M LOOKING AT IT AS I'M MAKING IT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S HARDER TO READ ON THIS SIDE. UH, R SIX IS, WHICH AREA WERE YOU COMMENTING ON, MR. RUSTY? I APOLOGIZE. NO, YOU'RE FINE. UM, ANY OF THE YELLOW AREAS, LIKE UP AT THE TOP LEFT. SO THE TOP LEFT THAT HAS THE LITTLE GREEN DOTS IN IT? YES SIR. SO IS THAT R EIGHT? IT SHOULD BE R DASH EIGHT IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. IT'S EITHER R DASH A OR R DASH SIX. IT APPEARS THAT IT'S R DASH EIGHT AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT SIR, I BELIEVE THAT IS THE R DASH SIX. THAT'S R DASH SIX AT THE BOTTOM? YES, SIR. AND THEN OVER TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE WHERE THE YELLOW IS, RR DASH SIX. R DASH. SO IT'S ALL R DASH SIX UP TO THE, THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE TALKING SIR PARCELS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, SIR? YES SIR. 'CAUSE THE R DASH EIGHT IS ACTUALLY NOT INCLUDED AS A ZONING DISTRICT AS A PART OF THIS APPLICATION, SO, OKAY. THAT, THAT IS R DASH SIX? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH, THAT'S IN THE PACKET I THINK MR. TON? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IN THE PACKET. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. [00:30:04] I MAKE A MOTION THAT THAT, UM, TRACK B IN PART OF TRACK A DERBY PARK PORTION OF COMMON AREA B ATHENS ACRES, PHASE ONE REZONING, UH, THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN AND THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. ALRIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AT SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. MOVING [VI.D. Land Use Ordinance Text Amendment] ON TO ITEM NUMBER D KENDRICK, YOU HAVE STAFF REPORT FOR US? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND THE NEXT ITEM HERE IS TEXT AMENDMENT. UH, IT'S TXTA 0 0 3 0 2 9 20 25. PLAN, USE TEXT AMENDMENT. AND THE SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED HERE ARE 15 DASH 78 MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND SECTION 15 DASH 15 BASIC DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS. AND UNDERNEATH THAT ESSENTIALLY IS THE DEFINITION PERTAINING TO THE SUBDIVISION MINOR, WHICH IS, UH, SPECIFIED AS 1 29 IN THE DEFINITION SECTION. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT I HAVE SHOWN HERE, UM, JUST TO MAKE IT AS EASILY READABLE AS POSSIBLE, I'M GONNA JUST REALLY ALLOW THE BOARD TO, UH, VIEW THAT AT THEIR OWN LEISURE FOR A MOMENT. UM, I HAVE ESSENTIALLY JUST PASTED WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED AND THE APPLICANT CAN ELABORATE FURTHER, UH, FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO ENTERTAIN. UM, KENRICK, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE CHANGE IN APPLICANT? YES, I APOLOGIZE. UH, IN, IN REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION, IT IS GOING TO CHANGE HANDS AND BE PERFORMED AND SUBMITTED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. SO JUST FOR THE, I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. SO THIS IS BEING SUBMITTED FOR, OR EXCUSE ME, FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, NOT FROM THE NEW BERN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION. CORRECT? I APOLOGIZE. I DID NOT ACTUALLY BRING THAT UP. IS THAT I DO HAVE THE APPLICATION HERE. WHAT'S THAT? WHY IS THAT THE NEW SO THERE, OH, I'M SORRY. THE NEW BERN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION I THINK BROUGHT, UM, THIS REQUEST TO PLANNING STAFF AND PLANNING STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE, UM, THE CONCERNS OR THE PROPOSED CHANGES FROM THE PRESERVATION FOUNDATION. AND OUR ORDINANCE ALLOWS, UH, FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO INITIATE THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. ONE OF THOSE ENTITIES IS, UM, A CITY DEPARTMENT AND BASED ON THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN STAFF AND, UH, THE CITIZEN GROUP STAFF IS, UM, PROPOSING THE APPLICATION. OKAY. AND I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AT LEAST YOU CAN DO THAT AS WELL. AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONTINUED. ONCE AGAIN, IT'S JUST A, UH, SNIPPET FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AND STAFF'S EVALUATION STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS AND CAN SUPPORT THE PROPOSED CHANGES. SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? YES. UM, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS REALLY, THIS WAS PROPOSED BY THE NEWMAN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR A PARTICULAR LOT. AND WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE CURRENT ORDINANCES, UM, WHICH I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. UM, AND I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY TO ALLOWED THE NEWBURN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION TO DO WHAT THEY WANT? WHICH BASICALLY IN THE STAFF IN THE REPORT IS THEY BOUGHT A LOT WITH SIX HOUSES THAT ARE HISTORICALLY RELEVANT AND THEY WANT TO BREAK IT UP INTO SIX INDIVIDUAL LOTS WITH THOSE HOUSES SO THAT THEY CAN SELL THEM AND PE INDIVIDUALS CAN ACTUALLY OWN THEM, WHICH I THINK IS A GREAT THING. THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION. MM-HMM . UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE MINOR SUBDIVISION RULE SAYS THEY CAN ONLY DO FOUR. CORRECT. IS THERE ANY VARIANCE? ANY OTHER THING WE CAN DO? IS THERE A VOTE WE CAN TAKE? IS THERE, BECAUSE MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS NOT TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE JUST TO, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE BASICALLY ALLOWING IT FOREVER. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SIR. UM, SO STAFF HAS EVALUATED AND WORKED, UH, AS, AS MUCH AS WHAT WE COULD TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES. WE DID NOT FIND ANY. OKAY. UM, SO THIS WAS THE NEXT MEASURE TO TAKE ESSENTIALLY. SO YOU, YOU HAVE TO AFFORD THE PERSON, ESSENTIALLY, OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER, TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUBMIT A TEXT AMENDMENT, UH, IN THAT REFERENCE. BUT AS FAR AS FOR WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY, THAT THIS IS WHERE WE ARE, UM, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE TO CHANGE OR HELP. SO THERE'S NO WAIVER OR VARIANCE. THERE'S, THERE'S, IF THE ORDINANCE SAYS THIS, THAT MEANS NO ONE CAN DO IT, PERIOD. GENERAL STATUTE, CHAPTER ONE, SECTION ONE 60 D, SECTION EIGHT OR ARTICLE EIGHT STRICTLY REGULATES HOW MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES CAN REGULATE SUBDIVISIONS AND [00:35:01] PERFORM THOSE SUBDIVISIONS. ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS EXEMPT SUBDIVISIONS. AND THIS PARTICULAR PLAN DOES NOT MEET ANY FORM OF EXEMPTION THAT THEY COULD QUALIFY FOR. IT ALSO STRICTLY REGULATES WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. UH, SO IN, IN LIEU OF ANY SORT OF EXEMPTION, WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE, UH, THIS IS THE OPTION THAT WAS PRESENTED. SO BASICALLY THERE'S, IT'S, IT DOESN'T QUALIFY AS A MINOR SUBDIVISION, BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T QUALIFY AS A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. YEAH. AND ADDITIONALLY, UH, YOU CAN'T VARY A USE. SO IF WE DID VARY, UH, THE, THE SUBDIVISION, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY VARYING THOSE USES TO ALLOW IT AS, AS IT IS. I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. MAYBE I JUST DIDN'T FOLLOW YOU. YOU, YOU, YOU AREN'T ALLOWED BY GENERAL STATUTE TO VARY A USE. AND IF YOU'RE PERFORMING THIS VARIANCE TO SUBDIVIDE IT TO ALLOW THOSE USES, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY BURY THAT USE. OKAY. OKAY. UM, A FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS, I UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE IDEA OF MOVE, OF, OF STRIKING FOUR AND MAKING IT SIX. WHAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WAS WHY ARE YOU STRIKING THE FIVE ACRES OR LESS PART OF THE REGULATION? THE ORDINANCE? BECAUSE THIS LOT, UH, THAT THE BERN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION OWNS IS FIVE EIGHTHS OF AN ACRE. AND THE, THE ACREAGE HAS NO BEARING ON THIS. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD CHANGE THAT. THERE ARE SEVERAL SITUATIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO STAFF WHERE THERE WAS NO RELIEF FOR AN APPLICANT. UH, THE NEWBURN PRESERVATION SOCIETY WAS JUST THE FIRST ONE TO BRING UP THE IDEA OF DOING A TEXT AMENDMENT. AND WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US IS SOMETHING STAFF COULD SUPPORT. YEAH. BUT THIS IS A PRETTY COMMON PRACTICE IN MANY MUNICIPALITIES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCES OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS, LIKE OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES, UH, THEY GO ALL THE WAY UP TO 10 LOTS WITH NO RESTRICTIONS ON LOT SIZE. UH, THIS IS PRETTY MINOR AS FAR AS WHAT'S ALLOWED AS A MINOR SUBDIVISION. SO THEN WHY SIX? IF SOME, IF OTHER COUNTIES DO 10, WHY DID WE PICK SIX? THAT IS JUST WHAT THE PRESERVATION SOCIETY HAD RECOMMENDED, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF COULD SUPPORT. UH, SO THIS IS HOW IT WAS DRAFTED UP. OKAY. AND SO BASICALLY NOW BY, IF WE ADOPTED THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, WE'RE GOING TO ENABLE, UH, YOU'RE GOING TO ENABLE ANY LOT OF, ANY SIZE TO BECOME A MINOR SUBDIVISION IF IT HAS LESS THAN SIX HOUSES OR SIX LOTS ON IT, IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. ANY SIZE DOESN'T MATTER. NO. YOU STILL WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO D TO DEVELOP MULTIPLE RESIDENCES ON A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL ZONE PAR PARCEL. YOU WOULD HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE IT BEFORE YOU COULD PUT MULTIPLE, UH, HOUSES, ONE ON EACH LOT. RIGHT. NOW THIS IS CONSIDERED A NON-CONFORMING SITUATION. THIS TEXT AMENDMENT MAKES IT A CONFORMING SITUATION. NO, I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEWBURN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION WANTS TO DO AND I FULLY SUPPORT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. WHAT I DON'T SUPPORT IS CHANGING THE ORDINANCE FOREVER AND INCLUDING ELIMINATING THE RESTRICTION OF A LOT SIZE OF FIVE ACRES OR LESS. 6 4, 6 8. GOOD. WITH THAT, I DON'T AGREE WITH REMOVING THE LIMITATION OF LOT SIZE. AND IF THAT EVER CAME UP, YOU'D BRING IT BACK TO US AS A TEXT AMENDMENT AND WE CONSIDER IT THEN I JUST DON'T SEE THE REASON TO DO IT NOW. 'CAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS HELP THE NEWBURN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION GET DONE WHAT THEY NEED TO GET DONE. GREAT. I DON'T, I DON'T AGREE WITH REMOVING THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT I CAN'T MAKE THAT YOU GUYS PRESENTED IT TO US AND WE GET TO VOTE ON WHAT YOU PRESENTED TO US. YES. RIGHT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. KENDRICK, CAN YOU BACK UP A COUPLE OF SLIDES? I JUST WANNA REREAD THROUGH THAT ONE MORE, ONE MORE TIME TO MAKE SURE I GET IT. OKAY. YEAH, I, I, UH, I TEND TO AGREE WITH, UH, FIRST HERE ON THE ACREAGE, BUT, UM, WELL, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UM, PERHAPS THIS IS SOMETHING FOR YOU TO PONDER IT. IF THE TEXT, AS IT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT, UM, GIVES YOU PAUSE AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME REVISIONS TO THE TEXT BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT YOU'VE EXPRESSED, YOU CAN MOVE TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO YOUR NEXT MEETING, UM, WHICH WILL GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK, REFLECT UPON YOUR COMMENTS AND BRING SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO YOU FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER AT YOUR NEXT MEETING. OKAY. CAN WE, CAN WE ASK THE APPLICANT? THAT WOULD BE THE CITY THAT'S, THIS HAS ALSO BEEN COVERED IN OUR LAND USE ORDINANCE UPDATE, UH, FOR THE PAST [00:40:01] SEVERAL MONTHS AS WELL AS THE NEXT TEXT AMENDMENT. UH, IT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE STEERING COMMITTEE AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF ALL THE BOARDS, AND IT WAS SUPPORTED THEN. WELL. OKAY, GREAT. I DON'T AGREE. SO, UM, SO I CAN'T ASK THE QUESTION OF, OF THE NEWBURN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY. YOU, YOU CAN CERTAINLY ASK THE NEWBURN PRESERVATION SOCIETY AND THE REP OR THE REPRESENTATIVE, UH, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE APPLICANT. OKAY. IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE? YES, THERE IS. MR. PARSONS. WOULD THAT REPRESENTATIVE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MAP? PRESENT ITEM? UH, GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME'S ERIC REMINGTON, AGAIN WITH WARDEN SMITH. I'M REPRESENTING NEWBURN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION. UM, BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST TO ADDRESS, UH, YOU KNOW, BOARD MEMBER INGRAM'S, UH, QUESTIONS. OKAY. JUST, UH, REAL QUICK, JUST FOR YES. POINT OF OF CLARITY HERE. SO ACCORDING TO THE RULES, HE'S NOT THE APPLICANT. CAN WE JUST ASK ANYBODY TO COME UP AND MAKE COMMENTS AND ASK THEM QUESTIONS? IS THAT IF A MAJORITY OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM A SPEAKER, YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN. OKAY. SO I NEED A MOTION FOR THAT SINCE HE'S NOT THE APPLICANT OR IS THAT JUST WE CAN, IS EVERYBODY OKAY TO TALK AGAIN? OKAY, FINE. FINE. FAIR ENOUGH. JUST, UH, JUST MAKE SURE I'M FOLLOWING THE RULES. NO WORRIES. CHAIR. GO AHEAD, SIR. UM, APPRECIATE THE, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CON CONSIDERING THE RULES AND, AND TRYING TO FOLLOW THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE WERE WORKING IN COLLABORATION WITH THE STAFF ON THIS MM-HMM . AND, UH, AS YOU'VE SEEN FROM OUR APPLICATION, THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC, UH, PURPOSE TO THIS MM-HMM . UM, I WOULD JUST NOTE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD THAT, THAT THIS, UM, SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, IS, HAS BEEN IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCES FOR A LONG TIME AND WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR A PURPOSE LIKE THIS. IT'S JUST THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY THOUGHT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, COULD BE CARVED OUT OF IT, CONSIDERING THAT THE SIX SISTERS HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THIS CAME ABOUT. SO, YOU KNOW, WE JUST THOUGHT THAT IF WE COULD, UH, DO THIS BY TEXT AMENDMENT, UH, AND GET IT TO ALLOW THIS DIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY INTO SIX LOTS, THEN THAT WOULD HELP, YOU KNOW, THE NEWBURN PRESERVATION SOCIETY SELL THESE, UH, AND BASICALLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEM BE IN SINGLE FAMILY OWNERSHIP. SURE. UM, TO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THERE WERE OTHER, UH, AVENUES TO, UH, PROCEED WITH, WE DID LOOK AT THAT ALSO. AND, AND, UH, TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE WAS NOT GONNA WORK. AND ALSO THERE WAS NO WAY TO DO IT AS A PUT APPLICATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SURE. SO, SO WE DID LOOK AT OTHER AVENUES TO TRY TO DO IT AND TEXT A THEM, IT WAS THE ONLY WAY. OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. UM, IF Y'ALL HAVE PAUSE ABOUT THE FIVE ACRES, WE'D BE HAPPY FOR Y'ALL TO TABLE IT SO THAT IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, TALKED ABOUT. AND MY QUESTION WAS GONNA BE, DO YOU GUYS HAVE A TIME CONSTRAINT FOR THIS? WE DO NOT. UNDERSTOOD. RICHARD, THANK AND I'M SORRY, THIS IS, UH, RICHARD PARSON IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE F THE FOUNDATION, AND HE'S WITH ME TONIGHT. THANKS FOR BEING HERE. IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, JUST LEMME KNOW. BOARD, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THAT BOARD? HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, I, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE, UH, TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING AND ASK STAFF TO REVISIT THE LANGUAGE. UM, AT LEAST FOR MYSELF PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO INCREASE IT TO SIX, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO, TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PARTICULAR, HE'S NOT THE APPLICANT, THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION FINE. UH, BUT I THINK REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTION OF FIVE ACRES OR LESS IS NOT ONE THAT I WOULD SUPPORT. SO I'D ASK STAFF TO LOOK AT THAT AGAIN AND BRING IT BACK TO US AT THE NEXT MEETING. I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UM, I WOULD ADD THAT, UM, WE ARE AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE BOARD OF ALTMAN THAT THIS WOULD STILL HAS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ALTMAN TO GET APPROVAL FOR. SO, UH, JUST ADD THAT MOTION. UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. I. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, [VI.E. Land Use Ordinance Text Amendment] LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM E. OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS EVENING BOARD. UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE TEXT AMENDMENT 30 30 DASH 2025. IT'S THE LAND USE TEXT AMENDMENT AS WELL. SO THE SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED ARE LISTED HERE. UM, THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT SECTIONS, UH, THAT VARY FROM REGULATION OF SUBDIVISIONS, [00:45:01] MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS. UH, THE ENDORSEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED ON THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION PLATS PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES, AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION PLANS, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION PLANS. AND UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SECTION ONE 60 D DASH 8 0 1, THIS IS WHAT GIVES THE AUTHORITY, UH, TO APPROVE OR DENY SUBDIVISIONS. UH, AND IT ALSO EXPLICITLY STATES THAT IT'S MADE ON THE BASIS OF STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE SUBDIVISION OR, UH, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES SUCH AS OUR LAND USE ORDINANCE. OOPS. THERE WE GO. UH, THIS IS THE SECTION OF, UH, CHAPTER ONE 60 D THAT CONCERNS THE REVIEW PROCESS FILING AND RECORDATION OF SUBDIVISION PLATS, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN SECTION C SUBSECTION THREE. THE FINAL DECISION OF A SUBDIVISION PLAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE. THE DECISION MAY BE ASSIGNED A STAFF PERSONS OR COMMITTEE COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF STAFF PERSONS. AND NOTICE OF THE DECISION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS ACCORDING TO ANOTHER SECTION OF CHAPTER ONE 60 D THAT COVERS THAT. THERE ARE SEVERAL SLIDES THAT SHOW THE RED LINE VERSION. UH, SO ANYTHING THAT IS SHOWN IN RED IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. ANYTHING THAT IS STRICKEN THROUGH IS BEING REMOVED. AND I WILL ACTUALLY PAUSE ON THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF IT. UM, FEEDBACK RECEIVED, UH, FROM OTHER CITY STAFF AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE, UH, HOW THIS WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED BACK IN JUNE OF 2024. UH, THAT WAS EARLY, EARLY, EARLY, RECOMMENDED BY THIS BOARD FOR, UH, APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN, UH, THAT IT CHANGED FROM STAFF AS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAVING THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR THEIR DESIGNEE. SO THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE FROM WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THIS BOARD BACK IN 2024 IN THE STAFF EVALUATION OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT. UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. UH, TO GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. UH, INITIALLY THE TEXT DOES SAY THAT THE APPROVING AUTHORITY IS THE PLANNING BOARD IN OUR ORDINANCE, UH, AS A LAB BY GENERAL STATUTE. UH, THE CHANGE THAT IS HAPPENING IS, UH, THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY IS GIVEN TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR THE DESIGNEE. AND PART OF THAT, UH, WOULD BE CHANGING ALL OF THE THINGS RELATED TO THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS, UH, FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING THAT WE DO TAKE FOR SUBDIVISIONS. SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? LET'S START AT THE NOTICING SURE'S, JUST KIND OF TAKE, START WITH THAT AND LET'S TALK ABOUT THOSE CHANGES IN YEAH, SO THE CHANGES FOR NOTICING, UH, CURRENTLY WE NOTICE THE PUBLIC MEETING, UH, AND THAT INVOLVES ANY PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET. UH, THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS IN GENERAL STATUTE THAT ARE REQUIRED, UH, UNDER WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS, UH, JAMIE, I BELIEVE IT'S ACTUAL NOTICE OR IS IT POSTED NOTICE OF THE DECISION? OH, IT'S ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED NOTICE OF THE DECISION. YES. SO THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO POST A SIGN, MUCH LIKE WE POST A SIGN NOTICING THIS MEETING, UH, THAT A DECISION IS MADE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION. UH, THE APPEAL PROCESS, UH, ANYBODY WHO IS AGG AGREED BY THIS THAT HAS STANDING CAN FILE AN APPEAL. UH, AND THEY HAVE 30 DAYS WITHIN THAT DECISION TO FILE THAT APPEAL. IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD COME BACK, UH, FOR REVIEW, UH, FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, I THINK IT'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. YES. YES. AND THEY WOULD HEAR WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAS MERITS BASED OFF OF THE PROCEDURES THAT WERE FOLLOWED. OKAY. AND, AND MS. KAISER, IT WAS IMPORTANT, UM, FROM OUR OFFICE'S PERSPECTIVE AND THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE TO INCLUDE THAT BECAUSE NOW UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, UM, PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO THE MEETING AND EXPRESS THEMSELVES, UM, UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT YOU ALL HAVE ADOPTED. AND I THINK FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY STANDPOINT, THEY WANT TO KNOW WHEN THEIR APPEAL PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN, UM, AND WHEN THAT PERIOD CONCLUDES. SO THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED TONIGHT, UM, I THINK IS GONNA BENEFIT THE CITIZEN AT LARGE, UM, SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND BENEFIT OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SO THAT, UM, PEOPLE ARE IN THE KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING. SURE. OKAY. CORRECT. AND THAT, UH, THAT ALSO RAISES A ANOTHER POINT IN ADDITION TO OTHER CITY STAFF AS WELL AS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATION STAFF, UH, MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WERE ALSO, UH, CONSULTED AS TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT WERE BEING PROPOSED. UH, AND ACTUALLY I BELIEVE, UH, A FEW OF THE FOLKS WHO TYPICALLY OPERATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY OR REPRESENT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ARE [00:50:01] PRESENT IF YOU WANTED TO ASK THEIR, UH, PERSPECTIVES ON THIS AS WELL. SURE. WERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENRY PROPO OR ASKED ABOUT THE CHANGE OTHER THAN JUST THE DEVELOPERS? UH, ANYTIME WE HAD A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE LAND USE ORDINANCE, THIS WAS ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE PROPOSED OR INFORMED TO THE PUBLIC. UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE PUBLIC HAD NO CONCERNS OVER IT. UH, AND SEVERAL OF Y'ALL, I, I BELIEVE, HAVE ALSO HEARD THAT PRESENTATION. OKAY. JUST CURIOUS. I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS BECAUSE I THINK NOW YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY, WE'VE ALREADY MADE THE DECISION, WE'RE TAKING IT OUT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD'S HANDS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF MAKES THE DECISION. WE'RE JUST GONNA LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. UM, I I, I DON'T THINK THAT BENEFITS THE CITIZENRY. I REALLY DON'T. AND I DON'T THINK IT GIVES THE CITIZENRY AN OPPORTUNITY TO STAND UP IN FRONT OF A BOARD LIKE US WHO CONSIDERS THESE TYPES OF REQUESTS AND GIVES THEM A CHANCE TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES AS, AS JAMIE SAID, UH, AND, AND TALK ABOUT THINGS. SO, UM, AND I ALSO FEEL THAT YES, YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE GUIDELINES, BUT TO HAVE A SINGLE PERSON WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION MAKE A DECISION LIKE THIS WHEN IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PUT FORWARD AS SOMETHING FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TO HAVE INPUT ON AND, AND DISCUSS, I I DON'T THINK THAT BENEFITS THE CITIZEN. AND I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH THE CITIZENRY. I UNDERSTAND IT, THE DEVELOPMENT FOLKS WOULD LOVE THIS BECAUSE YOU GUYS JUST GET TO MAKE DECISIONS AND THEN THEY GET TO MOVE ON. BUT THAT DOESN'T, TO ME, BENEFIT THE CITIZENRY. IT ACTUALLY TAKES AWAY SOME OF THEIR ABILITIES. IN FACT, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CITIZENRY CAN ONLY SPEAK ON THIS SUBJECT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE CONDITIONS OR STANDARDS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE. AND THIS BOARD WAS PRESENTED THIS AMENDMENT SIX, WELL, IT WAS ACTUALLY NINE MONTHS AGO, AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY. RIGHT. AND YOU ONLY CHANGED FROM THAT. I CHANGED OPINION, OPINION FROM HIS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE DIRECTOR. I CHANGED MY OPINION. I'VE CHANGED MY OPINION, AND I HAVE THE ABILITY TO TALK ABOUT WHY I'VE CHANGED MY OPINION, WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A, WE AGREED TO THIS NINE MONTHS AGO OR NOT. I HAVE THAT ABILITY. SURE. OKAY. SO, SO IT ACTUALLY SAYS IN THE GENERAL STATUTE AS WELL AS THE CITY ORDINANCE, THAT THE WHOLE IDEA OF A PLANNING BOARD IS TO, OR NOT. THE WHOLE IDEA, ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A PLANNING BOARD IS TO FACILITATE AND COORDINATE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. WELL, YOU'RE BASICALLY TAKING THAT AWAY FROM THE CITIZENRY THROUGH THIS MAJOR PRO MAJOR PLAT PROCESS OR MAJOR, UH, SUBDIVISION PROCESS. IT DOESN'T GIVE THE THE PEOPLE AN ABILITY TO COMMENT OR FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE A PLACE THAT THEY CAN GO AND HAVE A DISCUSSION, WHETHER IT'S, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO APPLY TO THE PROJECT BEING APPROVED OR NOT. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME AND TALK ABOUT IT. UM, AND IN ADDITION, ANOTHER ONE OF THE DUTIES THAT'S GIVEN TO US BY THE CITY ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE GENERAL STATUTE, IS TO ADVISE THE GOVERNING BOARD CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON ALL ZONING, TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL STATUTE. SO THIS IS IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS. SO BY PUTTING THIS PLANNING BOARD IN PRO IN PLACE, THE, THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN, THE GOVERNING BOARD IS SAYING THEY'RE LOOKING TO US TO ADVISE THEM. AND SO I WANT TO, I, I THINK WE SHOULD STILL HOLD THAT ABILITY TO ADVISE THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN. THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD IS ALL ABOUT. AND, AND MR. INGRAM, I'M GLAD THAT YOU MADE A LOT OF THOSE POINTS BECAUSE THEY'RE RELEVANT FOR YOU ALL TO BAT AROUND AND HAVE THIS ROBUST DISCUSSION. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AS MR. INGRAM RECITED THAT THE, THE PUR THE PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GOVERNING BOARD ABOUT PLANS. THAT INCLUDES COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS, UM, THE OTHER TYPES OF PLANS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO YOU ALL IN PO PLANS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CITY'S GROWTH. UM, SO THAT YOU DON'T LOSE THAT ABILITY WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT STAFF IS BRINGING FORWARD TO YOU TONIGHT. THE OTHER PART ABOUT PLANNING BOARDS IN THE STATUTE IS PLANNING BOARDS CAN HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT FLAVORS AND SOME JURISDICTIONS PLANNING BOARDS MAKE QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS. SURE. SUCH THAT IF A PLAN COMES TO THEM, THEY HEAR EVIDENCE. UM, EVIDENCE IS GENERALLY PROFFERED BY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE STANDING AND THEY HAVE A ROBUST DIALOGUE WITH THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT THE RIGHT OUTCOME SHOULD BE BASED ON EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS. YOU ALL ARE NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY, RIGHT. YOU ALL ARE PURELY LEGISLATIVE. AND THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS IN THE CITY OF NEW BERN IS A TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS. THAT'S IT. UM, I THINK IN THE PAST THERE HAVE BEEN MEMBERS WHO HAVE COME TO THIS BODY, UM, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO'VE BEEN VERY FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND COMMENT. THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD, AND THEN YOU ALL HAVE TO RESPOND [00:55:01] TO THEM AND SAY, IF IT CHECKS THE BOXES OF THE ORDINANCE, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO MAKE THAT APPROVAL PROOF. SO IN ONE WAY, YOU COULD SEE THE INVITATION OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS THAT THEY CANNOT INFLUENCE, UM, AS A BIT OF A MISNOMER. UM, AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY PROPOSED BY STAFF TO MAKE THE PROCESS MORE EFFICIENT AND DO WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS, WHICH IS JUST THE TECHNICAL REVIEW. IF THERE IS AN ISSUE SUCH THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF STAFF MAKES SOME TYPE OF OVERSIGHT OR SOMEBODY IN THE COMMUNITY HAS INFORMATION THAT STAFF WASN'T NECESSARILY PROVIDED WITH, THERE IS A REMEDY FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENRY TO BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF A BOARD FOR SOME TYPE OF REVIEW. UM, SO I, I THINK IT'S FAIRLY PLACED TO BEAR IN THE FRONT OF YOUR MIND WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD'S MISSION IS. UM, BUT I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO READ THAT MISSION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSAL THIS POINT PROPOSED. THAT'S FAIR. AND, AND ONE OF THE STATEMENTS YOU MADE WAS THAT YOU, YOU DIDN'T SEE HOW THIS ELIMINATED THE CITIZENRY'S ABILITY TO COMMENT ON THE, AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT. 'CAUSE TO ME, BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WHEN THE APPLICATION IS MADE, THEN THE ADMINISTRATION MAKES THE DECISION. IT DOESN'T COME TO US. THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OF IT IN THE, IN THE OPEN, IN THE PUBLIC. YOU BASICALLY ARE NOTIFIED THAT IT'S DONE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO APPEAL. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THAT. YES, CITIZENRY CAN BE HEARD, BUT IT'S, IT, I WOULD IMAGINE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CITIZENRY THAT WOULD THINK THIS IS A DONE DEAL. IT'S ALREADY DONE. SO WHY AM I DOING THIS? UM, AND AND THAT'S THE PART AND I, I HEAR, I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID, AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS AS A BOARD, THAT PEOPLE COME HERE AND THEY THINK THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, WHEN IN FACT THEY REALLY DON'T. AND NEITHER DO WE. BUT I STILL FEEL LIKE THERE'S VALUE IN THE, AND THAT'S WHY WE MAKE THE, YOU MAKE THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU MAKE. I STILL THINK THERE'S VALUE IN THAT. THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. I STILL THINK THERE'S VALUE IN THAT QUITE WELL TAKEN. I, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT IT'S WRITTEN IN THE WAY THAT IT IS. THAT, UM, IF THEY WANNA DO A SUBDIVISION, BASICALLY IF IT CHECKS THE WICKEDS, THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. YOU KNOW, AND, AND SO THE CITIZENS CAN COMPLAIN, THEY CAN SHOUT, THEY CAN PROTEST, THEY CAN DO AS THEY WISH, AND THERE IS NO STOPPING IT. SO WHETHER IT COMES TO US OR THEY STAND OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND YELL AT THEM, I, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE RUB. I THINK IT, THE HEART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT COMES TO US IS MY OPINION. BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT. IF IT'S, IF IT'S A TECHNICAL REVIEW, IT'S A TECHNICAL REVIEW. I MEAN, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. IT SHOULDN'T MATTER. DID THEY MEET THE WICKEDS? RIGHT. IT SHOULD BE TO THIS BOARD. IT SHOULD BE XS AND OS. IS IT, DID IT MEET IT TECHNICALLY OR NOT? RIGHT. AND THAT'S THE UNFORTUNATE PART. AND THAT'S THE PART I DON'T LIKE, I DON'T KNOW A WAY OF CHANGING IT BECAUSE I THINK THE CITIZENS AREN'T HURT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT, LISTEN, IF I OWNED A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I WANT TO DEAL WITH IT AS I WILL, AS I WANTED TO, THIS PROCESS WORKS FOR ME. BUT IF I LIVE NEXT TO A PROPERTY AND I MAYBE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN, I HAVE NO SAY IN IT, AND YOU DON'T HAVE SAY IN IT NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE SAY IN IT WITH THIS TEXT PROPOSAL CHANGE. AND THAT'S, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. IT IS UNFORTUNATE. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW A WAY OF FIXING IT. I, I'M SURE CITY STAFF AND, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT THAT. ONE, ONE MORE THING I WOULD SAY IS I, IT'S MY PERSONAL BELIEF, AT LEAST THIS IS THE WAY I WOULD LOOK AT IT. IF I SAW THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING AND I WAS IN THE CITIZENRY, AND I'M LIKE, WHY DO WE HAVE A PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IF THIS STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO GO TO THEM AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOW IT'S JUST ALL GOING INSIDE THE CITY ADMINISTRATION. I'D BE A LITTLE SUSPECT OF THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST ME. IS THERE A WAY, NOT THAT IT MATTERS BECAUSE IT'S A TECHNICAL REVIEW, BUT IS THERE A WAY TO SUBMIT, FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS? WHETHER IT'S A, A MAILING OR A SIGN OR IT IT, DOES THE SIGN SAY, YOU KNOW, MAKE COMMENTS TO THE, UH, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR THEIR DESIGNEE. COULD, COULD THERE BE SOMETHING ON THE SIGN THAT THAT LANGUAGE SAYS, HEY, YOU DON'T LIKE THIS, THAT'S COOL. COME TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR THEIR DESIGNEE AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. IS THERE SOME, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHAT THE SIGN SHOULD SAY IS WHO, ANYBODY WHO SEES THIS SIGN THAT TAKES EXCEPTION TO IT, UM, CONTACTS US ESSENTIALLY. AND MORE TO YOUR POINT REAL QUICK, DOES SURE. IS THERE SOMETHING SPELLED OUT AS TO WHAT THE SIGN HAS TO SAY? YES, OUR PURPOSE DOES SAY WHAT THE SIGN HAS TO SAY ON THE BACK END, BUT I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS TO THE FRONT END. OKAY. THE APPLICATION IS FILED. HOW DOES THE WORLD KNOW? UM, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK [01:00:01] WHAT, UM, PRUDENT DEVELOPERS HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, ESPECIALLY WITH MAJOR PROJECTS, IS THEY HAVE DONE, OR AT LEAST MADE ATTEMPTS TO ENGAGE THE NEIGHBORING, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS SUCH THAT THEY'RE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING, WHETHER THEY AGREE OR NOT. IT'S AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE. RIGHT. UM, BUT HAVING COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS SO THAT IT'S NOT A SHOCK TO ANYONE THAT DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING. THAT'S ONE OF THE PRACTICAL NOTE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY BAKED INTO THIS ORDINANCE. THE OTHER THING THAT SHE SAID THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND IS THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS IS ONLY ONE PART OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JOB. OKAY. THERE STILL WOULD BE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR ANY TEXT AMENDMENTS, ANY ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, AND TO INITIATE, UH, INITIAL ZONINGS. SO I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK IF YOU WERE TO, UM, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS, THIS PROPOSED TEXT THAT YOU HAVE JUST SIGNED THE DEATH WARRANT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. 'CAUSE YOU HAVE NOT, UM, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SPECIFIC AUTHORITY IN ONE 60 D TO REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO, UM, MAKE THAT INITIAL PUBLICATION, BUT I THINK THAT GOOD DEVELOPERS WOULD, WASN'T THERE SOME TYPE OF LANGUAGE IN THE NEW LAND USE ORDINANCE ABOUT HAVING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY MEETINGS OR SOMETHING? DIDN'T WE? THAT WOULD BE FOR CONDITIONAL ZONING. THAT'S IT, IT'S NOT CORRECT FOR THIS POINT. YEAH. SO CONDITIONAL ZONING IS KIND OF THAT HYBRID PROCESS THAT EVERYBODY REALLY ASKS ABOUT. THAT'S, YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING, WE WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING. UH, SO YOU BOTH KNOW WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AS FAR AS ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT, WHAT THEY'RE WANTING FOR THE ZONING, AND THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING. OKAY. BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO PERHAPS ENFORCE NOTICE OTHER THAN ON THE SIGN THAT'S BEING, THAT THE SIGN IS BEING PUT UP. THAT'S, THAT'S IT. GIVING, GIVING CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE ABOUT THE DECISION IS THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY LANGUAGE THAT WE EXTRAPOLATED FROM THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. NOT ORDINANCE, BUT THE STATUTE IN ONE 60 D. FAIR ENOUGH. THE, THE MAJOR CRUX TO HOW THESE ARE EVALUATED DOES LIE WITHIN GENERAL STATUTE BECAUSE GENERAL STATUTE DOES STRICTLY LIMIT WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR SUBDIVISIONS. RIGHT. UH, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY KIND OF FURTHER COMPLICATED WITH THE RECENT PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL 3 82. UM, THAT'S MOVING THE GOALPOST EVEN FURTHER. MM-HMM . AS TO WHAT WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO. MM-HMM . ROGER. YEAH. ARE YOU GONNA ELABORATE ON THAT LATER IN THE MEETING OR, UM, I, I BELIEVE THAT I HAVEN'T HAD MUCH EXPERIENCE WITH IT. I KNOW THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PARTICULARLY, UH, SCOTT HAS HAD MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE SESSIONS ABOUT HOW THIS AFFECTS US. UH, AND FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, WE'RE KIND OF IN A HOLDING PATTERN FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE. RIGHT. OKAY. I'LL, UM, I'LL JUST, I'LL ASK JAMIE AND STAFF COMMENTS MAYBE TO BRIEF US A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. UM, ALRIGHT. UH, THANKS. MY APOLOGIES FOR THIS. THIS IS NOT RESPONDING . YEAH. UH, TECHNOLOGY IN THE CITY OF NEWBURN SOMETIMES FAILS US. IT'S OKAY. WAS THERE ANOTHER FORM? SO I WANT TALK ABOUT TIMEFRAME, A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, IT'S BEEN KIND OF ONGOING WHERE A NUMBER OF DEVELOPERS ARE, ARE HAVING AN ISSUE WITH TIMING. MM-HMM . AND I, AND I, I LOOK AT THIS AMENDMENT AS BEING ABLE TO SPEED THAT TRAIN UP, YOU KNOW, TO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES MM-HMM . AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE, THE COST OF HOLDING PRODUCT AND IT'S, AND IT BECOMES A, A STIGMA AGAINST THE CITY WHERE OTHER DEVELOPERS DON'T WANNA COME INTO THE CITY LIMITS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS A PROBLEM WHERE IT'S GONNA GET DELAYED OR IT'S GONNA COST MORE MONEY AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE MORE HOLDING TIME. AND SO I'M VERY EXCITED TO SEE HOW THIS WILL MOVE A LITTLE QUICKER. UM, WHEN, WHEN THOSE GENERAL PLANS ARE SUBMITTED, DO THEY, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE GO, GO, YOU, THE STAFF MOVES FORWARD HAVING A STAFF MEETING, UH, OF ALL THE MAJOR HEADS TO REVIEW THAT GENERAL PLAN AND TO DELIVER THOSE COMMENTS BACK TO THAT DEVELOPER ENGINEER. CORRECT. YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S FROM THE GENERAL PLAN OR THE FINAL PLAT, WHEN ALL THINGS ARE BOILED DOWN, THE PROCESS IS THE SAME AND YOU'RE SAVING APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH PER PLAN. SO THE GENERAL PLAN SAVES A MONTH, UH, IN THE FINAL PLAT SAVES A MONTH. AND THAT'S IN A PERFECT WORLD. UH, IT ALL STARTS WITH AN APPLICATION. IT GOES TO THE DRC, ALL THE MAJOR, UM, DEVELOPER, UH, ORGANIZATIONS AND CITY STAFF, ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS, UH, EVEN THE MPO WHO MOSTLY DEALS WITH TRANSPORTATION, UH, THEY ALL HAVE EITHER COMMENTS OR STANDARDS THAT NEED TO BE MET. UH, AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE COMPILED AND GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER. AND IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A REVISION THAT IS THEN KICKED OUT AGAIN. SO, QUESTION IN A PERFECT WORLD, RIGHT? SO MY QUESTION IS, IS HOW LONG [01:05:01] DOES, UM, EACH DEPARTMENT HEAD HAVE TO GET THEIR COMMENTS BACK? THREE DAYS? BECAUSE I SEE THE 60 DAY LIMIT ON 30 DAYS, THE ADMINISTRATOR THAT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AS TO, UM, HOW LONG IS IT REALLY GONNA TAKE AND WHAT'S THAT CHECK AND BALANCE THERE TO ENSURE THAT IT, THE DEPARTMENTAL STAFF IS LOOKING AT THE PLAN, THEY ARE REACTING IN A, IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME THAT GIVES THE, THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THE TIME TO EITHER SAY YES OR NO AND GIVE THOSE COMMENTS BACK. YEAH. SO WHEN, WHENEVER AN APPLICATION COMES IN, UM, THEY BASICALLY HAVE TWO WEEKS TO REVIEW THOSE PLANS. ALL, ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT GO ONTO DRC, UH, AND AT DRC IS WHEN IT'S REVIEWED, WE HAVE AS STAFF THREE DAYS TO COMPILE THOSE COMMENTS TO GET BACK TO THE DEVELOPER WHO THEN HAS 30 DAYS TO PROVIDE A REVISED PLAN IF NECESSARY. OKAY. AND THEN THE PROCESS RINSES AND REPEATS IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES FOUND WITH ANY REVISION. SO WHEN, SO LET'S SAY THAT YOU GET THE INITIAL COMMENTS BACK AND IT GO AND IT GOES BACK, UM, WHEN THEY RESUBMIT, DOES THAT, THAT CLOCK START AGAIN ANOTHER 60 DAYS? TYPICALLY? YES. UM, SO WHEN IT'S RESUBMITTED, IT'S GENERALLY RESUBMITTED IN ELECTRONIC FORM AND WE KICK IT OUT AS ME IMMEDIATELY AFTER WE GET IT. UH, THEY TECHNICALLY HAVE 30 DAYS AGAIN, IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES FOUND TO MAKE THOSE REVISIONS AND THEN THE PROCESS RINSES AND REPEATS. OKAY. BOARD, HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ALL? HEARING NONE, I WILL OPEN UP A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THIS. ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO OH, WE DO APOLOGIZE. GOOD EVENING. CHAIRMAN SNUCK UP ON AND MEMBERS OF BOARD ERIC TON WITH THE LAW FIRM ON BOARD OF STAFF. AGAIN, I I, I WAS ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT STAFF ASKED TO LOOK AT THIS AND, AND HELP THEM, UM, PUT THIS TOGETHER. I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, AMENDMENT BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT, UM, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT TONIGHT'S AGENDA, IT GIVES YOU A GREAT EXAMPLE OF, OF HOW THIS SPEEDS UP THE PROCESS. YOU KNOW, THE FIRST ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT WAS A SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL, AND THE DEVELOPER HAD TO WAIT UNTIL THEY COULD GET ON THIS HEARING IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT APPROVED. THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ON IT. IT IS A CHECK THE BOX KIND OF SYSTEM AS, AS JAMIE SAID TO YOU ALL, AND BASICALLY YOU ALL VOTED ON IT AND PROVE IT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY THE STAFF BECAUSE THE ALDERMAN HAVE SAID IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THIS IS A TECHNICAL APPROVAL PROCESS. THAT'S ALL I WOULD SAY TO YOU ALL IS I JUST THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE. UM, AND SO I WOULD SUPPORT. THANK YOU. FAIR ENOUGH. ANYONE ELSE? MR. THOMAS? JOHN THOMAS, THOMAS ENGINEERING, UM, BEEN AT THIS SORT OF THING SINCE 1978 AND CURRENTLY WE'RE WORKING IN ABOUT EIGHT OR 10 COUNTIES AND MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS IN THOSE COUNTIES. AND WE SEE EVERYTHING ACROSS THE BOARD THAT DIFFERENT BOARDS DO. UH, WE'RE SEEING A TREND FOR WE HEADED IN THE DIRECTION THAT STAFF WANTS TO GO IN. UM, AND WE SUPPORT THAT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD ME OBJECT TO COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC MULTIPLE TIMES BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE WHEN WE COME IN FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OR WE COME IN FOR A, UH, FINAL PLAT OR WHATEVER WE DOING THE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IS, AT THE TIME THAT THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY IS RESIGNED, THAT'S WHEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT COMES IN. YOUR ORDINANCE IS SET THE FRAMEWORK FOR WHAT CAN BE DONE ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR THAT PARTICULAR ZONE. AND IN SOME CASES THERE IS A SPECIAL USE FOR A CONDITION USE PERMIT, WHICH WOULD BE PROBABLY A PUBLIC HEARING. MY OPINION IS THERE'S AN ENTITLEMENT TO THAT LANDOWNER TO STAY WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK OF OFTEN BEING IN MEETINGS WHERE THE PUBLIC IS PERMITTED TO SPEAK IN CITY OF UBER MEETINGS WHERE THEY START ASKING FOR STUFF, CAN YOU DO THIS? CAN YOU DO THAT? THAT REALLY COMPROMISES OUR ABILITY TO GET AN APPROVAL FROM A BOARD. AND SO WE'RE, YEAH, WE'LL DO THAT OR MAYBE WE'LL CONSIDER THAT. I'LL SPEAK WITH MY CLIENT ABOUT IT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE, BUT THOSE THINGS ARE TYPICALLY OUTSIDE OF THE FRAMEWORK OF THE ORDINANCE THAT IT REQUIRES FOR ME TO DEVELOP THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. [01:10:01] OKAY. I THINK, UM, WHETHER YOU SEND IT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD OR, OR NOT, UM, THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU APPROVE THIS TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT IN A LOT OF AREAS THAT WE'VE WORKED IN, WE SEE WHEN THE STAFF OR EVEN, UH, A, A PLANNING BOARD IS APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANS, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHECKLIST THAT'S ON THERE, IT'S A LOT TO DO. BASICALLY IF YOU GO RIGHT BY THE LETTER OF THAT CHECKLIST, WE'RE SUBMITTING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND PERMIT DOCUMENTS TO YOU. A LOT OF THE JURISDICTIONS SEPARATE THAT OUT. WE GO THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S WITH A BOARD OR OR WITH STAFF. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE DO WITH Y'ALL. AND ONCE THAT'S APPROVED, THEN WE GET INTO WHAT'S THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE WHERE ALL THE, THE MONEY IS SPENT TO PRODUCE ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. AND THAT GOES BACK A SECOND TIME TO, TO GENERALLY STAFF FOR THEM TO DISTRIBUTE THE WATER AND PUBLIC WORKS AND ALL THAT TO GET THOSE APPROVED. THAT'S THE WAY WE WORK HERE IN THE CITY OF VER TOO, THOUGH. IT'S NOT BY THE LETTER OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE DO IT. IF YOU'VE SEEN, I DON'T COME IN WITH A 50 SHEET SET OF PLANS TO YOU ALL FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. ONE REASON FOR THAT IS IF THERE'S A HICCUP OR SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, RIP WAS THROUGH THAT WHOLE SET OF PLANS AND IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE TO GO BACK AND REDO ALL THAT. BUT WE SUPPORT THE MOVE FOR STAFF TO DO, WE FEEL LIKE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE FINAL PLAT IS ALL AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR THE BOXES ARE CHECKED ACCORDING TO THE, IT SHOULD BE APPROVED. I KNOW SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO GIVE UP CONTROL. I'VE GOT SOME JURISDICTIONS WHERE IT STILL GOES TO A PLANNING BOARD FOR A FINAL PLAT AND A PRELIMINARY AND TO A COUNCIL OR A COMMISSIONER'S. AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I, I'LL SHOW UP AT A, AT A MEETING FOR A FINAL PLAT TO A COMM COMMISSIONER MEETING AND I'LL GET A NO VOTE EVEN THOUGH IT MEETS IT. I'LL GET A NO VOTE. THAT'S REALLY UNCALLED FOR. BUT ANYWAY, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF I CAN HEAR THOSE QUESTIONS. , WHICH HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT THING FOR ME TONIGHT, BUT I SUPPORT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. TO, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION. ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE TAX AMENDMENT. I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION. SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY OH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NO. MOTION CARRIES. UH, [VII. NEW BUSINESS] NEW BUSINESS. UM, ITEM A CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN VOTE. UM, I THINKING OUR RULES, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE ON CHAIRMAN SINCE I AM CHAIRMAN. UM, BUT I WOULD, IF IT'S THE BOARD'S PRIORITY, WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE AS CHAIR. UH, BUT UH, HAVING SAID THAT, I'LL OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION. I MAKE A MOTION. WE, UH, HAVE BRAD JEFFERSON AS OUR CHAIRMAN FOR THE NEXT YEAR, SECOND, WELL UNTIL JANUARY OF 26TH. WHEN IS, YEAH. UM, DECEMBER, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT. KENDRICK, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT CHANGING THAT TO JANUARY. IS THAT WHAT WE SAID? I BELIEVE IT WAS JANUARY. JANUARY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. I WASN'T SURE. 'CAUSE IT'S MARCH ALREADY, SO I DO, I DO BELIEVE IT WAS JANUARY. YEAH. ROGER THAT. SO THAT'S MY MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, I'LL KEEP DOING THIS GIG. UM, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, UM, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A VICE CHAIR FOR, UM, DECISION OR WHAT I LAID OUT BEFORE THE MEETING. UM, I'LL OPEN THAT PART OF THIS OPEN AS WELL TO ANY DISCUSSION OR HOWEVER YOU GUYS WANNA HANDLE IT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE VICE CHAIR? WE CAN LEAVE IT OPEN. WE CAN TABLE IT. WE CANNOT HAVE A VICE CHAIR. WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO. AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE ROLE OF THE VICE CHAIR IS MERELY TO RUN THE MEETING AND THE ABSENCE OF THE CHAIRMAN. SO, SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IF HE'S WILLING TO DO IT. UM, RUSTY INGRAM TO BE VICE CHAIR. [01:15:02] I HAVE, HAVE A MOTION. HE HAS TO, IF HE WANTS TO , I I WOULD TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY. OKAY. ALL I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND AND I CAN VOTE ON THIS ITEM OR NOT. OKAY. UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OR ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? NO. ANY, NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. CONGRATULATIONS. TRUSTEE VICE CHAIR. MR. ANDREWS TERM WILL RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE CHAIR, CORRECT? APOLOGIES. YES, ABSOLUTELY. UM, IS THAT, SO YOUR, UH, UH, UH, MOTION THERE, MR. THOMAS? YES. THAT WORKS FOR YOU? YES. ALRIGHT. UM, OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM B, LAND USE ORDINANCE UPDATE DISCUSSION. SURE. UM, SO AS I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, WE'RE KIND OF IN A HOLDING PATTERN. UH, WE HAVE STARTED DRAFTING, UH, OR OUR CONSULTANT RATHER, HAS STARTED DRAFTING THE ITEMS THAT AREN'T AFFECTED BY SENATE BILL THREE 80 TWO'S APPROVAL. UM, AND AS I KIND OF ALLUDED TO IT, IT DOES MOVE THE GOALPOST AS TO WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT REGULATE. UM, ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS IN RELATION TO DOWN ZONING, UH, AND THE DEFINITION OF DOWN ZONING. AND SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION OR NOT ALLOWING A PARTICULAR USE. ANYTHING THAT COULD HINDER THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN THE TEXT COULD BE SEEN AS A DOWN ZONING AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT BE LEGAL. UH, SO A AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE OUR CREATION OF THE NEW CONSOLIDATED ZONING DISTRICTS WITH USES THAT ARE OR ARE NOT, OR ARE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE OR CONDITIONAL. UM, THAT HAS KIND OF STOPPED OUR PROGRESS ON. SO IT'S, IT'S IN A BIT OF A WEIRD STATE. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UM, OUTREACH FROM MUNICIPALITIES, UH, SUCH AS COUNTIES AND CITIES TO THEIR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES. THERE ARE SEVERAL PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT ARE AT THE STATE LEVEL RIGHT NOW WAITING TO BE HEARD. UM, JAMIE, DO YOU RECALL EXACTLY HOW MANY, IT MIGHT EVEN BE EASIER TO RECALL WHO HASN'T SUBMITTED SOMETHING THAT'S OFFENDED BY THIS? YEAH, THAT, THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE A BETTER METRIC. I CAN SAY THAT THE NEWPORT BOARD OF ALDERMEN, UM, ADOPTED A RESOLUTION IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR EXPRESSING, UM, TO OUR LOCAL DELEGATION DESIRE TO BE EXEMPTED, UM, FROM THE NOW LEGISLATION THAT WAS SB 3 82. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERY JURISDICTION IN CRAVEN COUNTY, PANCO COUNTY, PERHAPS ETTE AND MAYBE BEFOR, UM, HAVE TAKEN SIMILAR ACTIONS AND THAT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO OUR LOCAL DELEGATION. I HAVE NOT CHECKED, UM, THE PENDING BILLS THIS WEEK. THE LAST TIME I CHECKED IT IS A LARGE OUTCRY ACROSS THE STATE OF MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE ASKING TO EITHER BE EXEMPTED OR FOR, UM, SB 3 82 TO BE REPEALED. SO WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT, UM, OUR LOCAL DE DELEGATION IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIVE, UM, IN WORKING WITH OUR LEGISLATORS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN RALEIGH TO REMEDY THIS ISSUE. BUT UNTIL THAT, UM, MR. GOFF IS RIGHT, THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IN OUR ABILITY TO, UM, MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR LAND USE ORDINANCE AND OUR OFFICE HAS BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSULTANTS THAT ARE WORKING ON THE UPDATE, UM, AND ACTUALLY SHARING THOSE RESOLUTIONS SO THAT, UM, HIS COUNTERPARTS ACROSS THE STATE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF OUR BEST THINKING AS WELL. SO HOW WOULD THIS WORK? I MEAN, YOU GUYS ARE STILL DEVELOPING PORTIONS OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE THAT ARE NOT RESTRICTED BY SENATE BILL 3 82. SO YOU BASICALLY WOULD REPLACE THOSE SECTIONS AND NOT REPLACE OTHER SECTIONS. IS IS THAT WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A RESOLUTION TO SENATE BILL 3 82 BEFORE WE GET TOO MUCH FURTHER DOWN THE FOOTBALL FIELD ON THAT PROJECT. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AS OF MARCH 7TH, THERE APPEARS TO BE 23 DIFFERENT PIECES OF LEGISLATION INVOLVING SEVERAL COUNTIES AND ALL OF THE CITIES THAT ARE WITHIN THOSE COUNTIES, ONE OF WHICH ALSO INCLUDES EVERYBODY. UH, THAT WAS KIND OF A BLANKET PIECE OF LEGISLATION, I BELIEVE. SO WILL THIS, AND THIS IS JUST AN OPINION I'M NOT ASKING FOR DEFINITE. SO THIS IS GONNA EXTEND THE LAND USE ORDINANCE OR DO WE THINK WE'LL BE RIGHT AROUND THE SAME TIMEFRAME AS WE HAD THOUGHT BEFORE? I THINK IT'S TOO EARLY TO KNOW. TOO EARLY TO KNOW. OKAY. HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN GET AN EXEMPTION AND WE'RE SLOWLY PROCEEDING, UM, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THIS COULD EXTEND THE TIMELINE AND CAUSE OKAY. UM, HAVING SAID THAT, A SELFISH DISCUSS OR QUESTION, IS THERE A, UM, ANOTHER, UM, STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING ON THE HORIZON OR, UM, OR ARE WE NOW JUST KIND OF SITTING AND WAITING AND HOPING? [01:20:01] WE ARE WAITING AND HOPING ROGER. OKAY. UM, I, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A CALENDAR, UH, THAT HAD A PLAN FOR THEIR NEXT VISIT, UH, WHICH INCLUDED WORK SESSIONS WITH THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND, AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. UH, BUT THERE, THERE'S NOT REALLY ANYTHING NEW TO DISCUSS AT THAT POINT BECAUSE OF 3 82. OKAY. IT DID GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO JANUARY, SO. RIGHT. OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT, HOW ABOUT, UH, ITEM C, FINAL PLA TIMELINE DISCUSSION? YEAH, I WAS GONNA MAKE THE COMMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, MR. OUR BOARD MEMBER KIP, HE WAS THE ONE THAT ESSENTIALLY WAS TRYING TO INITIATE THAT CONVERSATION PREVIOUSLY. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE BOARD MAY FEEL ABOUT EITHER CARRYING THAT TO THE NEXT MINUTE OR IF IN FACT, I MEAN WE COULD POSSIBLY DISMISS IT JUST BASED ON WHAT WE PUT FORTH TONIGHT. UM, THAT WOULD BE UP TO YOU ALL. BUT I'M, I CAN WORK IT EITHER. WHICH WAY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO GO TO THE NEXT AGENDA. OKAY. I THINK IF, IF KI PROPOSED THIS AS NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION THAT, UH, SINCE HE'S NOT PRESENT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE APPROPRIATE TO PUSH IT TO THE NEXT MEETING JUST TO OFFER TO HIM IN LIEU OF WHAT HAPPENED TONIGHT. YES. YEAH. AND I, I THINK THE TEXT AMENDMENT TONIGHT IS GOING TO, UM, HELP THE SITUATION CONSIDERABLY AND YEAH, I'M FINE WITH THAT. I CAN PUT IT ON FOR THE NEXT MEETING AS WELL TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT MY THOUGHT WAS. OKAY. MM-HMM . DO WE NEED A MOTION TO TABLE OR IS THAT STAT DIRECTION GOOD ENOUGH? UH, MRS. CITY ATTORNEY, CAN WE, LET'S, LET'S ENTERTAIN A, UM, A MOTION TO TABLE THAT. OKAY. I, I MOVE, WE MOVE. UM, NEW BUSINESS ITEM C TO OUR NEXT MEETING TO THE AGENDA OF OUR NEXT MEETING. SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION. CARRIE. [VIII. STAFF COMMENTS] UM, ANY STAFF COMMENTS TONIGHT? UH, THE ONLY, UH, COMMENT I WOULD, I GUESS HAVE TO SAY IS THAT WE DO HAVE ONE REZONING THAT'S COMING UP ON OR FOR THE NEXT MEETING. I BELIEVE THAT IS APRIL 17TH, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. SO THERE'LL BE ESSENTIALLY THUS FAR AS IT SITS AS ONE ONE REZONING ON THAT AGENDA. THAT'S THE EXPECTATION. I JUST WANTED TO REALLY UPDATE THE BOARD. UH, BUT THAT'S IT. THAT IS THE ONLY STAFF COMMENT. UH, IF THAT TEXT AMENDMENT PASSES, THAT'LL BE MORE THAN NORMAL. YES. YOU'RE ACTUALLY CORRECT. YES. YES. THAT WILL BE ON THERE AS WELL. I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. UM, WE'LL BE BACK TO MEETINGS OF 11 MINUTES. YES. . THAT'S RIGHT, ROGER. OKAY. UM, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I MOVE WE ADJOURN. SECOND AND FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE, UH, HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE, UH, IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.