[00:00:01]
RIGHT, EVERYBODY READY?[I. CALL TO ORDER]
UH, I CALL THE ORDER OF THE APRIL 17TH MEETING OF THE NEWBURN CITY PLANNING, UH, THE CITY OF NEW BERN PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.UM, UH, IF YOU CAN PLEASE, UH, JOIN ME FOR THE, UH, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF OUR COUNTRY.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
THANK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE.
UH, KENDRICK, CAN I GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES, SIR.
AND WE'RE GONNA START WITH BOARD MEMBER KYLE.
BOARD MEMBER DANIELLE PEOPLES HERE.
AND THEN, UH, CHAIRMAN BRAD JEFFERSON HERE.
JUST LET THE RECORD SHOW HE'S ABSENT.
LET THE RECORD SHOW SHE'S ABSENT.
AND LET THE RECORD SHOW HE'S ALSO ABSENT.
AND BOARD MEMBER MARSHALL? YES.
AND MR. UH, CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE A CALL.
[IV. APPROVE AGENDA]
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE AGENDA? MAKE A MOTION.WE APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.
ANY FURTHERED DISCUSSION? AND NONE.
[V. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS]
CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS.DO, IS THERE ANY UPDATE ON THE, UM, THAT WOULD THE, UH, THE ZONING, THE, OH, I HAD IT RIGHT.
ANY UPDATES ON ANY OF THAT STUFF OR THE, THE, UH, LAND USE ORDINANCE PLANNING OR ANYTHING? THERE ARE LOTS OF BILLS THAT ARE PERCOLATING OKAY.
THROUGH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT ARE LOOKING TO RESOLVE AND OR MITIGATE, UM, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE PREVIOUS SENATE BILL.
AND, UM, I'M SURE I'M HOPING THAT IN THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING MORE COMPREHENSIVE TO BE ABLE TO REPORT ABOUT IT.
YEAH, WE HAD GOT A BRIEFING LAST TIME.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT'S GOING ON? SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS.
[VI.A. Hwy 55 West New Bern Rezoning]
ITEM A, THE HIGHWAY 55 WEST NEWBURN REZONING.MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, I'LL BE PRESENTING ITEM MAY TONIGHT, WHICH IS REZ 0 0 3 0 3 4 20 25.
AND THAT IS THE HIGHWAY 55 WEST NEW BERN REZONING.
UH, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REQUEST SUMMARY.
SO THE APPLICANT, UH, IS JIMMY E DI DILLA HUNT, UM, AND THE OWNER IS TANYA L DILLA HUNT.
THE LOCATION IS AT SLASH NEAR SEVEN 60 AND 7 84 HIGHWAY 55 WEST NEW BERN.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS UNASSIGNED.
UH, THE PROPERTY WAS, OUR PROPERTIES WERE ANNEXED ON JANUARY 13TH, 2025.
UH, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SIX OR R SIX, AND THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS ARE GONNA BE EIGHT DASH 2 2 2 DASH 3 0 0 0 0 0 AND EIGHT DASH 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 1.
UH, AND THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF, UM, BOTH OF THE PROPERTIES ARE PLUS OR MINUS 1.24 TOTAL ACRES.
UH, SO THE RESIDENTIAL SIX OR R SIX ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS, UM, THE R SIX OR RESIDENTIAL SIX DISTRICT IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE SINGLE TWO AND MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH 6,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, MINIMUM LOT SIZES FOR ONE DWELLING UNIT.
UH, THE R SIX OR RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONING DISTRICT, UH, PROMOTES A TO ENCOURAGE CONTINUED LAND USE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
B, TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE OF THE LAND, OR TO PROHIBIT ANY OTHER USE THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OR CONTINUATION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN THE DISTRICT C.
TO ENCOURAGE THE DISCONTINUANCE OF EXISTING USES THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS NEW USES IN THE DISTRICT.
AND D TO DISCOURAGE ANY USE, WHICH BECAUSE OF ITS CHARACTER OR SIZE, WOULD GENERATE TRAFFIC OR REQUIRE MUNICIPAL SERVICES SUBSTANTIALLY IN EXCESS OF TRAFFIC AND SERVICES.
UM, SO THIS IS THE VICINITY MAP FOR THE TWO SUBJECT PARCELS.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE BOTH HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.
AND THIS IS THE BUFFER MAP, UH, WHICH OUTLINES THE, UH, 100 FOOT BUFFER, UM, OF ALL THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WERE NOTIFIED.
UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT BUFFER'S HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.
ALL THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WERE NOTIFIED ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
[00:05:03]
UM, THIS IS THE AERIAL FOR THE PROPERTY.UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, SEVEN 60 AND 7 84 ARE BOTH DIRECTLY BEHIND THOSE PROPERTIES.
AND THIS IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S, UH, PRIMARILY SOME AGRICULTURAL USE, BUT THERE'S ALSO, UH, PRESENCE OF, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL 20 OR R 20 ZONING DISTRICT AS WELL AS TO THE NORTHWEST.
UM, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF R SIX.
UH, SO THE ACTION NEEDED FOR THIS ITEM, UH, IS ADOPTION OF THE CONSISTENCY STATEMENT AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF HONORING.
UH, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS, UH, YOU CAN ASK 'EM AT THE STOP BOARD.
NOW, UM, AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
UH, REMINDER, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES IF YOU WANNA MAKE, MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS SIDE.
SEEING NONE, UM, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE SOME REMARKS IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE? IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN FOR THE BOARD.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING MY DAUGHTER TANYA DI HUNT.
AND THE LAND THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET ANNEXED, WE DON'T THINK IT COULD BE IN A BETTER PLACE THAN LOCATED IN THE CITY OF NEWBURN.
THAT'S THE REASON WE ARE PETITIONING THE BOARD TO ANNEX IT AS SUCH.
UM, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE AREA OF PLEASANT HILL.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE ANYBODY KNOWS WHERE THAT AREA IS, BUT IT'S GOING HOW WE 70, MAYBE TWO OR THREE MILES OUT FROM HIGHWAY 43 WITH BOARD APPROVAL.
WE PLAN TO BE SOME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THOSE PLOTS OF LAND.
AND, UH, I WOULD ASK YOU TO APPROVE THIS PETITION.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER WHAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR ME.
JIMMY, MR. BILL HUNT BEHIND, UH, THE LARGER OF THE TWO PARCELS.
THERE'S A, UH, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THERE, UH, THAT USED TO BE THIS ALL USED TO BE ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WHAT IS, WHAT IS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
NOW, BEHIND THIS PARCEL, THERE'S A 30, A PROPERTY, 30 FOOT RIGHT AWAY WHERE YOU ENTER THAT PROPERTY FROM HIGHWAY 55 AND WILL BE A FENCE DIVIDED THAT PROPERTY FROM THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, PER SE, A SIX FOOT, UH, WOOD FENCE.
AND THERE'S A REALLY, THERE'S ABOUT 13 ACRE PARTIAL IN THE WHOLE STRIP MM-HMM
SO WE JUST CAN USE THE FRONT OF PART OF THAT LINE.
THE REST OF THAT WE HOPE TO MAKE A TREE FARM OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT WHERE IT'D BE USEFUL.
AND ON, ON THE, UH, SMALLER PARTIAL, THERE'S ALREADY A, A SLAB FORMED UP FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THERE? YES.
THERE'S UH, I THINK IT'S 6 84, A SMALL LOT MM-HMM
AND WE WAIT TO GET APPROVAL SO WE CAN MOVE ON WITH THAT, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BOARD? ALRIGHT.
I, THE BOARD, UH, CV TO ANNEX THAT INTO THE CITY, IT'LL BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.
IT BE APPROVED FOR, UH, R SIX, RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE ASKED THE BOARD.
WITH THAT I'LL OPEN UP TO, UH, THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
I THINK JUST KI JUST CLARIFIED, BUT MAKING SURE THAT THIS IS ALREADY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
IT'S JUST UNASSIGNED, IT HAS NO ZONING ASSIGNMENT RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
AND THEN, UM, LOOKING AT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE
[00:10:01]
WERE A NUMBER OF R 20 MM-HMMUH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WE OUGHT TO HAVE ABOUT R 20 VERSUS R SIX WITH THIS IN PARTICULAR? THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WE HAD, YES.
WELL, I MEAN, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS THAT'S OUT THERE IS EITHER A, UH, AF FIVE OR A 20.
THE, THE LITTLE BIT OF R SIX THAT'S UP THERE IS OVER 500 FEET FROM THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.
AND, UH, I DON'T SEE R SIX ON A MAJOR ROAD LIKE THAT WHERE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS COMING OUT INTO ONE TO HIGHWAY 55.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE R SIX IS GONNA ALLOW SIGNIFICANT DENSITY IN THERE MEAN FIVE, SIX HOUSES PROBABLY.
UM, ALL THE OTHER HOUSES DO HAVE DRIVEWAYS.
UH, BUT YOU'RE ADDING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RISK AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PROBLEMS WITH A DENSE PROP PROPERTY, A DENSE ZONING OF R SIX.
UH, IT, IT, IT, TO ME IT IS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OUT THERE.
SO MAYBE IT'S A QUESTION FOR KENDRICK.
IS R 20 SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD ENTERTAIN WITH THIS PARCEL, THESE TWO PARCELS? YES, MA'AM.
SO IN RELATION TO THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S CHOSEN, WE ALWAYS EXPRESS TO THE APPLICANT THAT THAT IS UP TO THEM SOLELY.
UM, AS FAR AS FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE TRY TO EXPRESS REASONS THAT COULD PROMOTE IT AND ESSENTIALLY, OR PROMOTE FOR IT TO BE REASONABLE AND REASONS THAT ALSO WOULD MAKE IT UNREASONABLE, SUCH AS WHAT, UH, BOARD MEMBER KIPP HAS KIND OF EXPLAINED.
THOSE WOULD BE SOME, THEY WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH REASONS THAT WOULD NOT BE, UH, REASONABLE FOR IT TO ESSENTIALLY BE R DASH SIX.
BUT YOU COULD ALSO MAKE THE SAME DIFFERENCE OF ARGUMENT WITH RS SIX STILL BEING SOMEWHAT IN THE PROXIMITY.
UM, BUT IN TERMS OF THESE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES WITH THEIR CURRENT SIZING, UH, R DASH 20 MAY BE POTENTIALLY INCONSISTENT WITH ONE OF THE PARCELS.
I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN.
WE'D HAVE TO SEE DEPENDING ON THE SIZING FOR THE SMALLER PARCEL.
BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD, BASICALLY WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE'S REASONS FOR IT AND THERE'S REASONS AGAINST IT.
AND WE LEFT THAT, UH, DESIGNATION OF CHOICE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, IF I MAY ASK, DID YOU CONSIDER R 20 AS AN OPTION? I DIDN'T GIVE YOU MA'AM.
DID YOU CONSIDER BETWEEN R SIX AND R 20, UM, WITH WHAT YOUR, YOUR NEEDS AND DESIRES ARE? IS THERE ANY PREFERENCE THAT YOU'D LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER BETWEEN THOSE TWO? WELL, WE DEFINITELY WANT IT TO BE RESIDENTIAL FOR THE SIMPLE REASON.
IF YOU GO IN THAT AREA, THERE'S NO HOUSING BETWEEN, WELL, IT IS LIKE, IT IS LIKE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ITSELF TO IMPROVE THE CITY AND IMPROVE THAT RESIDENT OUT THERE, WHICH IS PLEASANT HILL.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE GOING WITH THE, UH, R SIX RESIDENTIAL.
AND WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE R 20 RESIDENTIAL? I, I, I HAVE NO, UH, NO REASON, UH, TO, I HAVE SO
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU ASKED ME.
I'M JUST TRYING TO APPRECIATE IF THERE WAS, UM, SOME REASON FOR YOUR PREFERENCE FOR R SIX VERSUS R 20 AND BOTH OF THOSE WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL? YES MA'AM.
THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THAT FOR R DASH SIX IS A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM MOD SIZE, AND THEN FOR R DASH 20 YOU HAVE A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM MOD SIZE.
THE ONLY THING I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN OF IS A SMALLER PARCEL.
IT MAY BE RIGHT AT THAT 20,000 SQUARE FOOT THRESHOLD.
WE WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT TO BE HONEST.
UM, THAT, THAT WOULD BE WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO THEY'RE BOTH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION, I MEAN, YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION YOU WOULD LIKE.
I JUST, I HAD TO HAVE A HARD TIME WITH R SIX IN THIS, IN THIS AREA, BUT I FIND IT VERY INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE CITY, UH, ARE R 20 OR AGRICULTURAL AND ADDING AN R SIX INTO THAT, IT JUST DOESN'T, DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.
WOULD WE BE ABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN FOR R 20?
[00:15:01]
OR DO WE, WOULD THIS HAVE TO GO BACK FOR A REVISION TO THE APPLICATION? I'LL DEFER TO MS. JAMIE, BUT I BELIEVE YOU CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE TO THE R 20 DESIGNATION IF IT'S GONNA PLEASE THE BOARD, UM, BETTER THAN R DASH SIX BEING THE CHOICE.UM, BUT HE COULD STILL GO TO THE BOARD REGARDLESS OF WHAT MM-HMM
TO THE BOARD, WHAT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO.
WE'RE JUST ING WE'RE STRICTLY RECOMMENDATION.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THIS.
THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION PROCESS.
MY, MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS, UM, REZONING WAS NOTICED FOR R SIX, NOT R 20.
SO IF SOMEONE OF THE PUBLIC WANTED TO COME AND COMMENT ABOUT, UM, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE HAD NOTICE ABOUT THE R 20 CONSIDERATION, WHICH MAY HAVE MOVED THE NEEDLE FOR THEM.
SO I'M A LITTLE HESITANT, UM, TO OFFER ANY ADVICE ABOUT THIS BOARD UNILATERALLY RECOMMENDING ANOTHER ZONING CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT SATISFYING THAT NOTICE PIECE.
BUT IF WE GO AHEAD AND, AND WORK TO SAY THAT DENY THIS R SIX BECAUSE OF INCONSISTENCY, UM, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD BE FREE TO REAPPLY, REFER A DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
SO THE OPTIONS BEFORE YOU AS YOU COULD, IF YOU FIND THAT THE APPLICATION AS IT'S PRESENTED TODAY IS UNREASONABLE AND CONSISTENT, YOU COULD VOTE TO DENY, YOU COULD ALSO VOTE TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THIS APPLICATION.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT WILL REFLECT ON WHAT YOU SAY AND PERHAPS, UH, MAKE SOME REVISIONS, UM, AND COME BACK BEFORE YOU.
THOSE ARE, OR IF YOU FIND THAT IT'S REASONABLE AND CONSISTENT, YOU CAN RECOMMEND, UM, APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF BALTIMORE.
YOU'RE SAYING YOU PREFER IT BEING SOME R 20, WHICH MEANS THERE'S, YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE SPACE PER RESIDENT, AND YOU SAID IT WASN'T CONSISTENT.
I MEAN, I THINK THE LAND I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOU MAY HAVE THREE HOUSES IN THAT AREA.
IT'S A NON, IT JUST, IT WAS A FILLED, SO THAT'S THE REASON WE BROKE IT UP LIKE WE DID.
THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, I THINK IT WILL BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU GO, I GUESS TWO MILES UP ON YOUR LEFT, ON YOUR RIGHT, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU HAVE UP THERE, THE BEST PROPERTY THERE, A FEW MORE PROPERTIES.
IT WAS A PLEASURE BOARD ON THIS ITEM.
WELL, SINCE I'VE BEEN DOING MOST OF THE COMPLAINING, UH, I'D MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE DENY THE, UH, R SIX ZONING REQUEST, UH, DUE TO INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO FIND INCONSISTENT, UM, WITH A, OKAY.
UM, IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION NEEDED WITH THE INCONSISTENT TO THE BOARD? I THINK THAT WAS MR. PARA'S, UM, THAT'S IN THE MOTION.
MOTION THAT HE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN THAT THIS MATTER IS INCONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT LAND USE USES AND NOT REASONABLE.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION? CAN WE SUGGEST THAT WE FEEL LIKE R 20 IS MORE CONSISTENT? I, OR IS THAT WHERE WE NEED TO GO BACK TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM? YEAH, I, I DON'T, WELL, WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
SO THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH AT THIS JUNCTURE.
UM, BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S A RECORDING OF THIS MEETING, SO IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE CONSISTENT OR MIGHT BE REASONABLE, YOU CAN EXPRESS THEM IN THIS FORUM.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? WELL, I'LL JUST SAY THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IT COME BACK AS A R 20.
YEAH, WOULD THAT MAKE SENSE TO RATHER CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT ONE? AND WOULD HE STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE BEFORE WE JUST SEND IT UP IN SAY THAT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT? OR WOULD IT HAVE TO GO UP SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR? SO PROCEDURALLY WE WOULD NEED TO VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
IF THAT MOTION IS UNSUCCESSFUL, THEN THE BOARD COULD ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, BE THOUGHTFUL OF THE APPLICANT HERE AND WHAT'S MOST EFFICIENT WITH OUR DISCUSSION OF
[00:20:01]
R 20.WELL, UM, IF YOU WANNA CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION, COULD SHE RESCIND HER SECOND AND WE GO BACK TO A DISCUSSION ON, ON THAT BECAUSE WE'RE DEBATING THE MOTION AT THIS POINT.
SO IF, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THAT AND THEN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, I THINK WE NEED TO EITHER PULL THE MOTION OR PULL THE, THE SECOND.
SO WOULD EITHER YOU LIKE TO DO THAT? NOT THAT I RESCIND MY SECOND.
YOUR SECOND RESCIND THIS CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM AT HAND, UM, ABOUT WHAT THE OP APPLICANT'S A OPTIONS ARE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO, TO TALK THROUGH? YEAH, AND I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE APPLICANT CONSIDER R 20 AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT THEIR NEEDS DESIRES ARE, AND TO SEE IT COME BACK TO US TO REVIEW OUR 20 REQUEST THAT WE CONVINCE INTO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP IT EFFICIENT FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.
KENDRICK, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE PROCESS, UM, UP OR DOWN FOR THE APPLICANT? SO LET'S SAY WE FIND IT INCONSISTENT, WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE FOR THE APPLICANT, AND IF WE WERE TO FIND IT CONSISTENT, WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE, PLEASE.
SO IF YOU WERE TO ESSENTIALLY, I GUESS, TABLE THE MATTER OR TRY TO CONTINUE IT AND REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT AMENDS HIS APPLICATION, HE HAS THAT RIGHT TO DO SO, AND HE CAN SWITCH FROM THE R DASH SIX ZONING DISTRICT TO R DASH 20, THE ITEM WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE RESUBMITTED.
UM, AND WE WOULD GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS WHAT WE NORMALLY DO, WHICH IS TO NOTICE.
AND, UH, WE ALSO PLACE OUT A SIGN FOR THE POSTING OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY AND ESSENTIALLY WE, IT WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE YOU, MOST LIKELY AT THE NEXT MEETING.
UM, SO THAT'S ONE WAY, IF YOU WERE TO FIND THAT IT WANTS TO MOVE OR SHIP TO R DASH 20, IF YOU WERE TO FIND IT CONSISTENT, THEN IT WOULD JUST PROCEED TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN, UM, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY.
AND JUST TO ELABORATE A BIT FURTHER, IF YOU FIND IT CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT, EITHER WAY IT GOES TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN.
THAT WAS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
IF YOU ALL ARE INCLINED TO TABLE THIS MATTER, THAT WOULD GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REFLECT UPON YOUR COMMENTS AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER THEY WANT TO AMEND THEIR APPLICATION.
THE APPLICANT CAN CHOOSE NOT TO AMEND THE APPLICATION THAT IS WITHIN HIS RIGHT.
THE APPLICANT COULD CHOOSE TO WITHDRAW IT OR RESUBMIT WITH AN AMENDED APPLICATION THAT'S ENTIRELY WITHIN HIS PURVIEW.
UM, THIS BOARD CAN'T FIND HIM TO ANY OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.
SO IF YOU TABLE IT, UM, THE APPLICANT MAY COME BACK WITH THE SAME APPLICATION, WE DON'T KNOW, BUT THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU OKAY.
GIVEN THAT, UH, WHAT IS THE BOARD'S PLEASURE ON THIS ITEM? IF, IF THE BOARD WANTS TO TABLE THIS, SO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
YOU KNOW, I, I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION FOR THIS TIME.
IS THAT, WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE THAT MO A MOTION TO CONTINUE OR ARE WE READY TO GO WITH CONSISTENCY? IF THERE'S GONNA BE A MOTION TO CONTINUE? UM, THE MOTION SHOULD INCLUDE THE TIME, DATE, AND PLACE FOR THE NEXT CONSIDERATION MOTION.
WHAT DETERMINATION MAY BY YEAR? SO WE'RE, WE'RE DEBATING IT NOW AGAIN, WE'RE DEBATING IT RIGHT NOW.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE FOR OUR MAY STANDING MAY MEETING.
AND THAT, THAT DATE, UH, JUST TO PROVIDE THAT IS MAY 15TH AND THAT'S MAY 15TH, 2025.
I HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE MAY 15TH MEETING.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? HEARING NONE.
ITEM NUMBER A'S MOVED TO, UH, MAY 15TH.
[VI.B. Land Use Ordinance Text Amendment]
DO YOU HAVE A, UH, A BRIEF ON ITEM NUMBER B? YES, SIR.GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND TO THE BOARD.
UH, HERE I'M GONNA BE PRESENTING ITEM B HERE, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TEXT AMENDMENT, UH, TEXT AMENDMENT 0 0 3 0 2 9 20 25.
AND THIS IS FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION.
AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY, UH, THIS, THE APPLICANT IS US, UH, THE CITY OF NEW BERN.
AND THE SYNOPSIS FOR THIS, UH, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASED THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT MAY BE SUBDIVIDED TO THE MAXIMUM
[00:25:01]
OF SIX LOTS, TOTALING SIX ACRES.AND THIS IS TO BE ONE ACRE PER LOT.
UH, ADDITIONAL UPDATES TO JUST TEXT STANDARDS SUCH AS REFERENCES WERE ALSO INCLUDED.
AND THE SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED WILL BE 15 DASH 15.
UH, THIS IS BASIC DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS AND THIS IS NUMBER 1 29 SUBDIVISION MINOR.
UH, THE SECOND SECTION HERE IS 15 DASH 78 MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
AND REALLY, UM, THE NEXT SLIDE JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED PERTAINING TO THE RED LINE VERSIONS.
SO IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC SPOTS THAT WE NEED TO HIGHLIGHT OR SPEAK ABOUT, I JUST HAVE THOSE HERE, IMPLEMENTED IT TO THE ACTUAL POWERPOINT SO THAT WE CAN USE IT AS REFERENCE.
UM, BUT AT THIS TIME I'M ABSOLUTELY WELCOMING.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? IF THERE IS A BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE ABOUT IT IS HOW THERE'S NO, OR MAYBE I'M NOT READING IT CORRECTLY.
WHERE IS THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT IT'S IN? UM, THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC RELATION.
LAST TIME, AND I APOLOGIZE, MAYBE I I DON'T, YOU WEREN'T, I WEREN'T HERE, I WASN'T HERE AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
BUT BASICALLY WHAT TRANSPIRED WAS, UM, THERE WAS A PROBLEM SPECIFIC TO THAT THERE WAS NO ACREAGE LIMITATION THAT WAS BEING SET.
UH, THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BASED ON NOW APPLYING THE SIX ACRES, UH, FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, IT'S NOT REALLY PERTAINING TO A ZONING DISTRICT, IT IS JUST THE SITUATION PRESENTED UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR AN INDIVIDUAL.
UM, AND THEN THEY ELECTED TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION SUBS, CITY OF NEW BERN, UH, NOT WITHDRAW, EXCUSE ME, BUT WE CHANGED THE APPLICANT TO THE CITY OF NEW VERNON TO PUT THIS FORTH AND THEN ESSENTIALLY BRING IT BACK TO YOU ALL WITH THAT RESPECTIVE LANGUAGE FROM, FOR THE ACREAGE TO BE INCLUDED.
THAT WAS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WAS PRESENTED FROM THE PREVIOUS AND THAT'S WHY THIS MATTER WAS TABLED TO THIS MEETING.
BUT ONCE, ONCE IT'S IN PLACE, THAT'S FOR EVERYBODY? YES.
ANYWHERE IN THE CITY? YES, SIR.
IF, IF WE LOOK AT, IF LOOK AT MR. DI HUNT'S PROPOSAL THAT THIS CAME BEFORE US.
IF WE ZONE THAT R 20, CAN HE CREATE A MINOR SUBDIVISION OUT OF THAT THAT WITH LOTS THAT ARE 25 FEET WIDE? SO AS FAR AS FOR WHAT THIS SPECIFIED, IT WAS PERTAINING TO SIX TOTAL LOTS FOR SIX ACRES EACH, EACH LOT BEING AN ACRE.
UM, DEPENDENT ON THE SIZING OF THE ACTUAL LOT, THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S REQUIRED.
THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT YES, HE COULD CREATE AN ADDITIONAL LOT, BUT IT WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON WHAT SIZE HIS INDIVIDUAL LOT IS.
SO HE CAN STILL EXECUTE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT THIS CURRENT POINT, DEPENDING ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE LOT.
IF HE MEETS IT, HE COULD EXECUTE UP TO THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT BEING ALLOWED, BUT HE CAN'T CREATE A LOT.
IT'S NONCONFORMING, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
NON-CONFORMING TO THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S ON THE LAND.
SO IT'S STILL RESPECTIVE TO THAT POINT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO GIVE FREE REIGN, IF YOU WILL.
I MEAN I COULDN'T, I COULDN'T READ ANYTHING ABOUT THE ZONING DISTRICT IN, IN THIS ORDINANCE, IN THIS TEXT AND HOW, HOW THEY RELATED.
AND I KNOW THIS, I, YOU KNOW, I WATCHED THE MEETING AND AND SAW THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC ISSUE YES SIR.
THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS DONE FOR, BUT I, ONCE YOU DO SOMETHING FOR ONE SPECIFIC THING, IT'S FOR EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE.
AND THAT HAS SOMETIMES HAS RAMIFICATIONS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM KENDRICK? AND I APOLOGIZE, I IF I FAILED TO MENTION, BUT STAFF DIDN'T HAVE ANY, UM, CONCERNS OR ISSUES AND WE COULD SUPPORT THE PROPOSED EXCHANGES, UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER FOR THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE WAS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD ON THIS ITEM.
BRAD, I WILL JUST SAY THAT I, UM, I APPRECIATE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AND IT DOES SEEM RATHER NUANCED, BUT IF STAFF'S EVALUATED IT AND CONSIDERED, UM, THE BROAD APPLICABILITY OF IT, I PERSONALLY AM COMFORTABLE WITH FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION.
SO A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT.
AS REQUESTED WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF ALL TO APPROVE TO YES.
AND TO APPROVE TO THE BOARD OF, WELL THIS IS JUST A TEXT AMENDMENT, SO I'M SAYING HERE,
[00:30:01]
I GOTTA HAVE AN AMENDMENT, UH, CONSISTENCY STATEMENT AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF ALL.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANY, NONE.
[VI.C. Land Use Ordinance Text Amendment]
SIX C, RIGHT IN THE SECOND TEXT AMENDMENT HERE, THIS IS GOING TO BE PERTAINING TO THE MOBILE FOOD VENDOR AND I APOLOGIZE AGAIN TO THE BOARD FOR KIND OF GETTING THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT LATER.UH, IN TERMS OF THE RED LINE INFORMATION, HOPEFULLY YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, BUT IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS FOR AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY.
ONCE AGAIN, THE APPLICANT HERE IS, UH, THE CITY OF NEWBURN AND THE SYNOPSIS SIMPLY, UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR BROADER AUTHORIZATION AND TEMPORARY USE WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
THE SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED HERE ARE 15 DASH 1 36 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED, AND, UH, 15 DASH 1 46 TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES.
AND THE LAST SECTION HERE, 15 DASH 1 63 PARTICULAR USES.
AND AGAIN, WE HAVE, UH, THE REFERENCE INFORMATION FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IF THERE IS ANY, UM, PARTICULAR TALKING POINTS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK OVER.
I HAVE THIS HERE JUST FOR PRIMARILY REFERENCE POINTS.
UM, STAFF ALSO DID NOT, UH, FIND ANY ISSUES AND CAN SUPPORT THE CHANGES THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS LAND USE, UH, TEXT AMENDMENT.
AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE AMENDMENT, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS.
IS THERE A DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY? UM, SO I CAN'T SPEAK VERBATIM TO A DEFINITION, BUT IDEALLY, UM, TEMPORARY IS MEANT TO PRIMARILY SUGGEST JUST THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS LONGER THAN A SPECIFIC PERIOD.
I WANT TO SAY I JUST DON'T WANT TO SIT THERE AND GIVE YOU, UH, MISINFORMATION.
BUT I BELIEVE IT IS TO THE EFFECT OF TWO WEEKS IS WHAT THEY ESSENTIALLY CAN HAVE UP TO THEREOF, BUT TYPICALLY IT NEVER GOES TO THAT EXTENT.
IT'S USUALLY NORMALLY A DAY OR TWO DAYS AT, AT MAXIMUMS FOR EVENTS THAT REALLY HAPPEN OR TAKE PLACE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW A SPECIFIC DEFINITION OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THOUGH.
DOES BOARD HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? KENDRICK? JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING, WOULD THIS STILL REQUIRE A SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST PROCESS? IT WOULDN'T BE A SPECIAL EVENT PROCESS.
UM, WE ALREADY ACTUALLY AUTHORIZED THEM TO GO FORWARD INTO PRIVATE EVENTS AND TO CONDUCT, UH, YOU KNOW, THEIR, I GUESS, UH, WHAT THEY DO NECESSARILY ON THE PROPERTY, SELLING FOOD AND DIFFERENT THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT'S ALREADY IN, BUT IT'S MORE SPECIFIC TO COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
THIS IS JUST OPENING THAT TO A PLETHORA OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS, THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, UM, GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO CONDUCT OPERATIONS THERE IF IN FACT THAT THIS MAY BE, UM, A POINT THAT COMES UP.
SO AGAIN, IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT'S PERMANENT.
UM, IT IS JUST TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO STILL, UH, COME IN OR GO TO THE RECOMMENDED AUTHORIZATION PARTY AND GET THEIR ACTUAL, UH, PERMIT ISSUED SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY BE STILL ON THE PREMISES.
SO THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN, UM, BEGIN TO GO FORWARD WITH APPEARING AND BEGINNING TO SELL FOOD AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW LIKE IF A NEIGHBORHOOD HOA WANTED TO HAVE A FOOD TRUCK AT THEIR ANNUAL MEETING YES.
THAT OPENS THIS UP AS A POSSIBILITY WHERE THAT WASN'T ALLOWED BEFORE IT ACTUALLY YES MA'AM.
UM, AGAIN, WITH THAT TEMPORARY LANGUAGE THOUGH, IT WOULD NOT, UH, PUSH THEM INTO A PERMANENT, UM, GROUNDS, IF YOU WILL.
IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS PROBABLY MORE SPECIFIC TO, AND I SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED MORE SPECIFIC TO AN EVENT THAT THEY MAY BE HOSTING, LIKE A GRAND OPENING TYPE DEAL.
OR, UH, COME SEE US TYPE OF DEAL.
HOWEVER, THEY MAY BE ADVERTISING FOR THAT WEEK.
UM, BUT YES, IT TECHNICALLY WOULD OPEN THAT DOOR SO LONG AS THE MOBILE FOOD VENDOR IS ON A SUBJECT PARCEL.
SEEMS LIKE A NICE WAY TO SUPPORT FOOD VENDORS LOCALLY.
UH, THIS, IT'S BEEN A, IT'S BEEN QUITE A TALK, UH, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND AND THERE'S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN REFERENCE TO IT.
SO A LOT OF FOLKS ARE, UM, EXCITED IF YOU'LL, IF IN FACT IT GOES FORWARD.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? IF NOT, I'LL OPEN UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.
[00:35:04]
HEARING NONE WAS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD ON ITEM NUMBER C OR ITEM ITEM CI MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UH, IF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT AND WE APPROVE IT TO THE BOARD AMENDMENT.DO I HAVE I DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
[VI.D. Land Use Ordinance Text Amendment]
ITEM.AND HERE IS THE, UH, LAST TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSAL, AND THIS IS TEXT AMENDMENT 0 0 3 0 7 7 20 25.
AND THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL USE.
UH, JUST STARTING OUT AGAIN, THE CITY OF NEWLAND IS THE APPLICANT AND THE SYNOPSIS IS VERY SIMPLE.
UM, PRETTY MUCH TO THE POINT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD REMOVE LANGUAGE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH CURRENT INVOLVE.
UM, AND JUST TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, FOR THE BOARD'S KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS A CASE, UH, REFERENCING I BELIEVE THE CITY OF WILMINGTON VERSUS SCHROEDER OR SCHROEDER VERSUS THE CITY OF WILMINGTON.
AND ESSENTIALLY THAT JUDGE HAD MADE A LOT OF DIFFERENCES OF RULINGS THAT EXPRESSED, UH, CERTAIN INCONSIST INCONSISTENCIES THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY WITH OUR ORDINANCE IN COMPARISON TO WHAT'S CURRENT AND WHAT COULD BE REQUIRED AND WHAT CAN NOT BE REQUIRED FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, SPECIFICALLY THE REGISTRY.
UM, AND SECOND TO THAT POINT, UH, THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONABLE INTERPRETATION PERTAINING TO THE PROXIMITY DISTANCES OF WHICH THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS CAN BE ESTABLISHED.
SO IN ESSENCE, WE'RE NOT, UH, LOOKING TO ENFORCE THE PROXIMITY DISTANCE BASED ON THAT RULING.
SO JUST TO SHARE SOME HISTORY FOR THAT POINT.
AND THIS HAS ONE SECTION TO BE AMENDED, WHICH IS 15 DASH 1 63.
AND AGAIN, WE HAVE REFERENCE INFORMATION FOR THE RED LINE, UM, JUST HERE AS A MAIN TALKING POINT.
IF WE NEEDED TO PINPOINT AN AREA, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.
UM, STAFF HAS NO ISSUES PERTAINING TO WHAT HAS BEEN, EXCUSE ME, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS FAR AS FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT AND CAN SUPPORT THE CLOSE CHANGES.
UM, AND JUST TO REITERATE, THIS IS SPECIFIC TO TAKING OUT LANGUAGE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH CURRENT LAW.
AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL ABSOLUTELY ENTERTAIN THOSE.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR KENDRA? JUST A COMMENT OF THIS SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM HEARING NOW? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
AND THIS IS, UH, CONSISTENT, UH, WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND WE RECOMMEND THIS BOARD.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? UH, MR. CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY THE MOTION CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING LAW, EXISTING LAW AND, UM, ADJACENT LAND USES AND CITY PLANS WITH THAT MOTION? CORRECT.
I HAVE, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
DO I, UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
[VII. NEW BUSINESS]
TO, UH, NEW BUSINESS AND THERE'S AN ITEM IN THERE, FINAL PLA TIMELINE DISCUSSION.AND I'LL KIND OF JUST OPEN UP BRIEFLY REAL QUICK.
MR. KIPP, I KNOW YOU HAD EXPRESSED AND EXPLAINED THAT YOU WANTED TO HAVE THIS AS A TALKING POINT.
IT WAS INCLUDED ON THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
HOWEVER, SINCE YOU WEREN'T HERE, WE FELT IT WAS FAIR TO KEEP IT, UH, CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING TO MAKE SURE, IF YOU WANT TO VOICE ANYTHING, I CAN GIVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
WE HAD A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY WAS, UH, RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN.
AND WHAT WOULD TAKE PLACE IF SET AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY APPROVED THROUGH THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN IS, UH, THE PROCESS WOULD THEN MOVE TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE.
SO IT WOULD LESSEN THAT FINAL PLAT, UH, TIMELINE BY QUITE A BIT.
UH, I'M NOT GONNA PUT A SPECIFIC NUMBER, BUT AT LEAST AN ESTIMATE IS ANYWHERE FROM TWO TO THREE WEEKS.
UM, TO WHERE IT WOULD BE MUCH FASTER TO GET THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, BUT FEEL FREE.
NO, I MEAN, THAT, THAT WAS IN JANUARY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
AND, UM, I, I, AS YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THAT PROCESS FOR A LONG TIME.
UH, AND SO I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT, THAT WE'VE MADE THAT MOVE TO, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE AND I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU MADE THE, UH, GENERAL PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE AS WELL.
UH, I, I THINK THAT LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, UH, THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD, WOULD I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IS, IS
[00:40:01]
YOU GET APPROVAL FROM YOU GUYS AND THEN THERE'S AN APPEAL PROCESS AVAILABLE OUT THERE.THERE IS, THAT WILL AGAIN, CREATE UNCERTAINTY FOR THE DEVELOPER, UH, BECAUSE EVERYTHING HADN'T BEEN HASHED OUT IN PUBLIC.
I'LL PROBABLY DEFER TO MS. JAMIE ON THAT SIDE.
SO, MR. PARAGO, THAT RAISES A GREAT QUESTION.
SO IN THE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT, UM, WAS RECOMMENDED FROM THIS BODY TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN, THERE IS A PROVISION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE THAT WILL START THE TIME CLOCK FOR, UM, ANY ADMINISTRATIVE OR ANY APPELLATE RIGHTS.
SO IF A DEVELOPER GETS, UM, GENERAL OR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL, THERE'S A, A, UM, PROVISION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO POST THE PROPERTY FOR 10 DAYS.
SAYING THAT THERE'S A DECISION.
YOU KNOW, CONTACT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IF YOU GOT ANY QUESTIONS, UM, PROVIDE PROOF OF THAT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
AND THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT DAY THE START, UH, WHAT DAY THE CLOCK STARTS, AND THEN WHEN THAT PERIOD APPEAL PERIOD WOULD TERMINATE.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT GIVES SOME REASSURANCE, UM, ABOUT WHEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY BEGIN DEVELOPING SO THAT THERE'S NO APPEALS IN THE INTERIM.
SO HOW, HOW LONG IS THE APPEAL? I MEAN, YOU GOT 10 DAYS TO MAKE THE APPEAL, BUT THEN HOW LONG IS THAT PROCESS TO HEAR THE APPEAL AND A DECISION COMING FROM WHOEVER'S LISTENING TO THE APPEAL? OOH, I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION AT THE TOP OF MY MIND, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN GET TO YOU.
I MEAN, THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN THAT THAT BRINGING EV ALL THOSE DECISIONS IN IN HOUSE, I THINK IS A, IS A GOOD MOVE.
AND SO THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.
WHO EVALUATES THE APPEAL? APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
AND I THINK OUR, OUR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CODE SECTION GIVES ANY PARTY OR AN OWNER 30 DAYS FROM NOTICE TO FILE AN APPEAL.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I BELIEVE IT IS 30 DAYS.
SO THE SIGN IS POSTED FOR 10 DAYS AND THEN 30 DAYS IS WHEN THE APPEAL TIME WOULD'VE GONE.
TH FOR FOR THEM TO FILE THE APPEAL.
AND THEN, THEN THERE'S GONNA BE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR HEARING THE APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
WHO MEETS ONCE A MONTH? UH, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE.
I, I, I'VE REALLY APPROVED PROOF OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE'VE SHORTENED THE TIME AND THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE SITUATION FOR DEVELOPERS.
SOME WILL GO THROUGH SMOOTHLY AND SOME WILL NOT, BUT YEAH.
ALRIGHT, THE DISCUSSION ON, UH, FINAL PLA TIMELINE, BUT THANK YOU FOR ASKING KENDRICK.
[VIII. STAFF COMMENTS]
ARE THERE ANY STAFF COMMENTS TONIGHT? THERE IS REALLY NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.UM, I CAN SAY SO FAR WE HAVE ONE SUBDIVISION, UH, COMING THROUGH A GENERAL PLAN THAT'S UPCOMING FOR THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS THAT MAY 15TH MEETING.
UM, AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE CURRENTLY.
AND WITH THAT I'M GONNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.