[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WHO? LIBERTY JUSTICE FOR ALL.
DO WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MR. CUNNINGHAM? MR. SIMMONS? MR. TUCKER? MR. PITUS? MR. LANGLEY? HERE, HAYES? HERE.
[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
YOU.WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
I'LL MOTION TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SHOWN.
AS LONG AS THERE'S NO CHANGES.
VOTING? HUH? WE'RE GONNA WAIVER OR WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE A FULL QUO FOR THE STEP FIVE APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
UM, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON DOWN TO CITIZEN'S COMMENTS.
MR. GOODY, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS? MR. CHAIR? NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS.
WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA MOVE PAST THAT.
UM, YOU GONNA OPEN AND CLOSE IT THOUGH, RIGHT, MR. CHAIR? OKAY.
I'M OPENING THE CITIZEN CON CON COMMENTS, AND THEN I, I'M GOING TO BE CLOSING AT THIS MOMENT.
[7. PUBLIC HEARING (Part 1 of 2)]
OPEN FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.UM, READY FOR OUR FIRST CASE WITH MR. BASSETT.
UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, UH, CASE C DASH 25 DASH THREE FOR THE NEWVILLE TOWER OFF OF MANSON CHURCH ROAD.
UM, THAT REQUEST HAS BEEN DEFERRED AGAIN AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, AND THEY'VE DEFERRED FOR TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
UM, THEY'RE WORKING WITH, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS, UM, OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA, UM, WORKING FURTHER THROUGH THE REQUEST, UM, ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, SO THEY'RE REQUESTED DEFERRAL, UH, THEY WEREN'T PREPARED, UH, TO PRESENT THE CASE BASED ON, UM, THEY'RE CONSIDERING MAKING CHANGES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED NEW BILL TOWER.
SO THAT MAY BE COMING BACK TO OUR JULY MEETING OR PERHAPS AUGUST MEETING.
UM, AGAIN, UH, WE'LL WAIT TO HEAR BACK FROM THE APPLICANT, UM, ON, ON THEIR PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR, UM, RE-ADVERTISING, FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR, FOR THAT CASE AT A LATER DATE.
I, I'D LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT.
SINCE WE GOTTA, WE GOTTA WAIT FOR MR. SIMMONS ANYWAY.
UM, SO I, I WAS TELLING, UH, MARK HERE, I THINK, UH, IN 21 YEARS, I'VE WORKED HARDER THIS MONTH THAN I HAVE ANY OTHER MONTH.
I'VE BEEN ON A COMMISSION FOR THE FIRST TIME.
BOTH OF THESE CASES HERE THAT ARE DEFERRED ARE RIGHT NEXT TO ME.
SO I'VE HAD A LOT OF PHONE CALLS, UM, IN, IN THE FIRST CASE THAT MARK ALREADY BRIEFED YOU ON.
UM, IN FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M AN ADJACENT LANDOWNER AS WELL.
AND, UH, I, I REACHED OUT TO THE LANDOWNER ONCE I KNEW ABOUT THE CASE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, I REACHED OUT TO THE, UM, APPLICANT AND JUST SAID, LOOK, COULD YOU, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED THIS THROUGH 'CAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE ADDITIONAL LANDOWNERS BESIDES MYSELF THAT ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THIS.
UM, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT, LET'S, LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.
AND THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY HAS BEEN VERY GOOD TO WORK WITH.
HE IS, UH, FROM OUTTA STATE, HE'S IN SOUTH CAROLINA, BUT HE CALLED ME TODAY TRYING TO SET UP A MEETING WITH ALL OF THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS SOMETIME IN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS.
UM, APPARENTLY THEY HAD SELECTED THIS SITE A YEAR AGO, BUT DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT IT.
AND, UM, QUITE FRANKLY, AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HEARD, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SAY ABOUT SOMETHING, THEN THE NEIGHBORS DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
SO THAT WAS THE MESSAGE I HAD BACK TO HIM.
I SAID, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR HERE, LET'S, LET'S TALK IT THROUGH.
AND I'VE BEEN REALLY HAPPY THAT THEY WANT TO TALK IT THROUGH.
SO IF ANY OF YOU AND I, I, I, NOW THAT I KNOW SEVERAL FOLKS AREN'T HERE TONIGHT, I'LL PROBABLY SEND Y'ALL A LITTLE LETTER, BUT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, I I COULD TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT AND, AND THEN SOME BECAUSE OF, UH, OF JUST HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS THE
[00:05:01]
PAST TWO OR THREE WEEKS.AND I GUESS MARCUS IS GONNA TELL YOU ABOUT THE NEXT CASE.
I COULD, I COULD SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT THAT.
I'VE HAD MORE CALLS ABOUT THAT IN, IN TWO WEEKS THAN I'VE HAD IN THE PAST 20 YEARS.
AND SO, UH, I, I'M, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT LOCATION AND ADJACENT LANDOWNERS AND CONCERNS AND WHATNOT.
I'LL BE GLAD TO, I'LL BE GLAD TO SHARE WITH YOU ANYTHING YOU WISH THAT I'VE LEARNED MYSELF IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS.
AND MR. CHAIR RELATED TO, UH, THE CURRENT CASE, C DASH 25 DASH THREE, UM, IF WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC, WE CERTAINLY COULD OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME FOR THAT CASE AND RECEIVE ANY COMMENT RELATED TO THAT.
AND THEN OF COURSE, WHEN IT'S RE-ADVERTISED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT A FUTURE DATE, UM, WE'LL CERTAINLY HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT, AT THAT MEETING AS WELL.
SO YOU, YOU WANNA DEFER PUBLIC HEARING NOW? UM, NO, I WAS SAYING, UM, WE COULD OPEN UP OKAY.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT CASE, IF ANYONE'S HERE TO SPEAK TO THE, UH, PROPOSED, UH, NEW I CELL TOWER.
SO WE, WE WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE C 25 DASH THREE.
IF THERE'S ANYONE, MR. GIRDER, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP? NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP.
MR. CHAIR IS, IS THERE ANYONE BY CHANCE? NO ONE.
SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT CASE? YES.
AND THEN WE'RE GONNA OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE NEXT CASE.
YES, MR. CHAIR, THAT'S, UH, P DASH 25 DASH SIX.
UH, THE APPLICANT, AGAIN, UM, REQUESTED DEFERRAL OF THAT CASE TO OUR JUNE 11TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND, UM, IT WAS ADVERTISED FOR PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING.
SO AGAIN, IF ANYONE HAS ANY, UM, COMMENTS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO MAKE, UH, DURING PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO, UH, THE PROPOSED, UH, REZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM A TWO TO RESIDENTIAL RURAL RR ONE WITH PROFFERS, UM, WE CAN CERTAINLY, UM, OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN CERTAINLY OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND RECEIVE ANY COMMENT AT THIS MEETING.
AND, UM, THEN AGAIN, UM, IF, IF IT'S ADVERTISED AND NOTICED FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THE JUNE 11TH MEETING, UM, WE'LL CERTAINLY HAVE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN AS PART OF THAT REZONING CASE, P DASH 25 DASH SIX.
SO I OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE P DASH 25 DASH SIX.
MR. GURLEY, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP? NO.
MR. CHAIR, THERE'S NO ONE SIGNED UP.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? I I'M GONNA CHASE THE LANDOWNER AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
YOU, YOU CAN COME ON UP TO MIKE, SIR.
PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE, SIR.
PARDON ME? GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
MARVIN JOHNSON, UH, 1 7 3 7 5 BOYNTON PLANK ROAD, BUT I OWN 23 ACRES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE 85 ACRES.
WHETHER YOU WANT TO PUT IN, I THINK IT'S A SUBDIVISION.
'CAUSE WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON OVER THERE AND, UH, AND I, I'M AGAINST IT IF IT'S GONNA BE A SUBDIVISION, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S, THERE'S ENOUGH.
UH, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT IN 42 HOUSES, THAT'S 42 WELLS AND 42 SEPTIC SYSTEMS, AND I KNOW A LOT OF THAT LANDFILL PERK, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PUT IN SOME, UH, ENGINEERED SYSTEMS. I'VE HAD ONE OF THOSE BEFORE TOO.
UH, BUT IF, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT, ON WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON DOING, I'D LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THAT.
AND NOBODY'S NOTIFIED ME ABOUT A MEETING EITHER WITH THE ADJACENT LAND OWNERS, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE DONE THAT YET OR IF THEY'RE GETTING READY TO.
YOU SAID YOUR NAME WAS JOHNSON? YES, SIR.
MARVIN, I GUESS I CAN ADD TO THAT.
I, WHEN I WAS SPEAKING EARLIER ABOUT A MEETING WITH THE LANDOWNERS, I WAS REFERRING TO THE FIRST CASE OF THE ONE ABOUT THE CELL PHONE TOWER.
BUT I, I WILL SAY I'VE HEARD A RUMOR AND I, THAT'S ALL IT IS AT THIS POINT IS
[00:10:01]
THAT THE APPLICANT FOR THIS CASE WANTS TO HAVE A MEETING FRIDAY DAY AFTER TOMORROW AT FIVE O'CLOCK IN MCKINNEY AT THE RAGSDALE CENTER.AT WHAT? AT THE RAGSDALE CENTER.
YOU, YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS? YEAH, I DO KNOW WHERE THAT IS.
AND, UM, BUT I, I HONESTLY, I WAS ASKING ABOUT IT EARLIER 'CAUSE I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO LOOK ONLINE TO SEE IF ANYTHING'S BOOKED THERE.
SO, UM, UM, IF YOU WANT, I'LL BE HAPPY SINCE I REPRESENT THE AREA.
IF, IF I FIND OUT THERE IS A MEETING AND I CAN GIVE YOU THE SPECIFICS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
YEAH, JUST IF YOU COULD JUST LEAVE ME YOUR PHONE NUMBER OR SOMETHING AND I, I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
BUT, UM, I HEARD ABOUT THAT JUST A FEW DAYS AGO, BUT I HAVE NOT CONFIRMED IT.
ALL ALL, ALL WE HEAR IS JUST RUMORS.
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S TRUE AND WHAT'S NOT TRUE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? SO WE'RE GONNA CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE NEXT CASE.
MR. CHAIR BEFORE, IF, IF, IF YOU, IF IT'S OKAY, BEFORE YOU MOVE TO THE NEXT UH, CASE, UM, JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS, UM, WHAT MR. JOHNSON, UH, WAS ASKING.
UH, THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, UM, AS A PLANNING STAFF ON THE PROPOSED APPLICATION IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS CNN INVESTMENTS AND THE OWNER IS JUSTIN NOLIN OF CNN INVESTMENTS, AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, OF COURSE, FROM AGRICULTURAL GENERAL, A TWO TO, UH, RESIDENTIAL RURAL RR ONE.
UM, CURRENTLY IN THE A TWO AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, YOU'RE ALLOWED, UM, THREE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZES WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT.
UM, SO WITH THE CURRENT, UH, LOT SIZE, UM, OF 85 ACRES UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING, A TWO AGRICULTURAL GENERAL, THE INDIVIDUAL COULD, UM, DIVIDE THE PROPERTY, UM, INTO, UM, FOUR FOUR LOTS.
UM, CURRENTLY, UH, UNDER, UNDER THAT, THAT ZONING, THE REQUESTED ZONING, THE RR ONE RESIDENTIAL RURAL ZONING ALLOWS MIN TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZES AND EACH LOT HAS TO HAVE 200 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD.
UM, AS PART OF HIS APPLICATION, HE INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION, UM, THAT HE WOULD BE DEVELOPING 22 LOTS ON THE 85 ACRE PARCEL AND HE ALSO INDICATED THAT THE LOTS, SOME OF THE LOTS WOULD BE THE MINIMUM TWO ACRE LOT SIZE AND THEN OTHER LOTS WOULD GO UP TO 15 ACRES IN SIZE.
AGAIN, WITH A TOTAL OF WHAT HE INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION WAS POTENTIALLY 22 LOTS ON THE 85 ACRES.
UM, HE HAS SINCE, UH, HE APPLIED INDICATED THAT AS OF COURSE, THAT HE WOULD BE SUBMITTING, UH, PROFFER CONDITIONS, UH, WITH THE APPLICATION.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN, UH, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED THE FORMAL, UH, PROFFER STATEMENT OR PROFFERS TO GO ALONG WITH THE REZONING REQUEST.
UM, HE HAS, UM, INDICATED BY EMAIL OUTSIDE OF A FORMAL PROFFER STATEMENT, UM, THAT, UM, NOW HE'S LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY OF 18 LOTS ON THE 85 ACRES.
AGAIN, VARY IN LOT SIZE FROM TWO ACRES TO, UH, 15 ACRES POTENTIALLY.
UM, AND ALSO AS PART OF THAT, UM, HE'S INDICATED THAT HE WILL BE SUBMITTING A, A SUBDIVISION SKETCH OR CONCEPT PLAN OF HOW HE PLANS ON, UM, LAYING OUT THOSE 18 LOTS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT AS OF THIS DATE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT CONCEPT PLAN.
SO, UM, WE ARE WAITING AGAIN ON THE FORMAL PROFFER STATEMENT INDICATING WHAT THE PROFFER CONDITIONS WOULD BE.
UM, VOLUNTARY PROFFERS CONDITIONS FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN.
SO WE'RE WAITING ON THOSE ITEMS. UM, BUT AGAIN, HIS APPLICATION DID INDICATE, UM, THAT, UH, THE ACTUAL APPLICATION THAT HE WAS PROPOSING 22 LOTS AGAIN, SINCE THEN, HE HAS INDICATED TO
[00:15:01]
STAFF THAT HE'S LOOKING AT 18 TOTAL LOTS ON THE 85 ACRES.UM, AND EACH LOT WOULD HAVE, UH, ROAD FRONTAGE ON EITHER ROUTE 40 OR MANSON CHURCH ROAD.
UM, EARLY IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS, HE INDICATED, UH, TO STAFF THAT ONLY TWO OF THE LOTS WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ON ROUTE 40 AND ALL THE OTHER LOTS WOULD HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ON MANSON CHURCH ROAD.
SO TO THIS DATE, UM, THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT STAFF HAS RELATED TO THE REZONING REQUEST.
YEAH, I, I HAD A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
I'M JUST, I, I GOTTA GET REEDUCATED ON THE ORDINANCES, BUT WITH THE CURRENT, UM, ZONING WITH 2, 2 2 3 ACRE LOTTS THAT THE OTHER TWO WOULD BE IN THAT SCENARIO WOULD BE EVENLY SPLIT WITH THE REMAINDER, RIGHT? UM, NO.
UM, WITH THE CHANGE TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT, UM, THE WAY WE HAD TO, UH, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS JUST THREE ACRES.
SO YOU COULD DO AS MANY THREE ACRE LOTS AS YOU COULD GET UNDER THE MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT.
SO IT'S, THE OLD WAY WAS YOU WERE ALLOWED TWO THREE ACRE LOTS AND THEN THE, ALL THE OTHER LOTS HAD TO BE 20 ACRES OR MORE.
BUT WITH THE 2019 AMENDMENT, UH, TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS JUST THREE ACRES AS IT IS FOR ANY LOT IN THE A TWO ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT THAT, UM, AFTER YOU GO OVER, UM, 48 ACRES OR 46 ACRES, I'M SORRY, UM, AFTER THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HUNDRED ACRES FOR EACH ADDITIONAL LOT.
SO YEAH, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED THEN.
SO WHEN YOU SAID FOUR LOTS ON 85 ACRES, IT'S TWO? YEAH, BECAUSE UM, ONCE YOU GET OVER FOUR LOTS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A, UM, 146 ACRES TO GET THAT.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HUNDRED ADDITIONAL ACRES.
SO, SO JUST FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION AND THE TWO THREE ACRE LOTS WOULD LEAVE YOU 79 ACRES, RIGHT? 6 85 TO 79? WELL, LIKE I SAID, YOU COULD DO ALL THREE ACRE LOTS THAT WHEN WE MADE THE CHANGE IN 2019, IT'S JUST UNIVERSAL.
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN FOR PROPERTIES ZONED AGRICULTURE GEN IS THREE ACRES.
SO, OKAY, SO WHAT I'M, OKAY, I MISUNDERSTOOD THEN.
YOU'RE SAYING OUTTA 85 YOU COULD HAVE FOUR, THREE ACRE LOTS AND THEN THE REMAINDER YEAH.
AND THEN, UH, GOSH, HAVE TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THAT FOR A SECOND.
YEAH,
SO BA BASICALLY WE, WE REALLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF LOTS YOU COULD GET UNDER USING THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT.
YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THE OVERALL GOAL.
AND THEN AGAIN, YOU ALSO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 400 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE PARCELS.
SO EACH ONE OF THE THREE AC LOTTS.
UM, SO THE OTHER QUESTION, I HAD MORE OF A COMMENT AND I'M, THIS IS FOR Y'ALL 'CAUSE Y'ALL ARE HERE TOO.
I, WERE YOU HERE MR. LANGLEY FOR THE, UH, NASH ROAD, UH, PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REZONING? WAS IT A YEAR OR TWO AGO? THAT WAS RIGHT BEFORE.
SO YOU'LL REMEMBER UPON THIS, BUT I JUST FELT LIKE THAT APPLICANT CAME IN HERE WITH A VERY POOR SITE PLAN.
IF YOU RECALL THAT COMMENTS, I JUST WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO, TO, TO HAVE THIS APPLICANT AS WELL AS ANY OTHER APPLICANT COME WITH A SITE PLAN THAT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, CAN REALLY BE DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY, UM, RATHER THAN SOMETHING AKIN TO WHAT WE LOOKED AT BEFORE.
THEY HAD THE CAMPING TO THE CAMP, THE CAMPGROUND, IT WAS GONNA BE A ONE APPLICANT WANTED TO HAVE A CAMPGROUND AND THEN THAT FAILED AND THEN THE NEXT APPLICANT CAME BACK, ANOTHER APPLICANT CAME WITH A, WITH A SUBDIVISION.
BUT THAT SUBDIVISION DIDN'T SHOW ANY STREETS, IT DIDN'T SHOW ANY, YOU KNOW, WHAT LAND WAS, WAS, UH, WETLANDS.
IT JUST LOOKED LIKE SOMEBODY TOOK A PENCIL AND JUST CHOPPED IT ALL UP INTO LOTS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION FOR THE, I'LL SAY THE ENGINEERING BEHIND IT.
AND I JUST FELT LIKE THAT WAS NOT A VERY GOOD PLAN.
AND I NOW THAT WE, THIS WILL BE THE FIRST ONE I THINK SINCE THEN, RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
THE FIRST, I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT
[00:20:01]
I FEEL LIKE IF, IN ORDER FOR US TO CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, THOROUGHLY WE NEED TO SEE A THOROUGH PLAN.UM, LOOK LIKE WE MR. WE'LL BE HAVING A QUORUM HERE IN JUST A FEW SECONDS.
IT LOOKED LIKE THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BACK, UH, HAD HIS HAND UP.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF HE WANTED TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK.
HOW WAS THIS? HOW THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE? SO, UM, OKAY, ONE FOUR PROPERTY.
I WAS JUST INTERESTED, UM, COULD YOU COME FORWARD PLEASE? YEAH.
SO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE.
UM, 12 5 0 9 BROOK LANE, THAT'S IN CHESTER, VIRGINIA.
UH, MY FATHER AND MOTHER HAVE PASSED AWAY AND FOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS, UM, INHERITED THE LAND.
SO WE WERE INTERESTED IN SELLING, UH, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CNN PROPERTIES OR INVESTMENTS, BUT I WAS JUST INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU WERE SAYING HERE IN TERMS OF THE, UM, THE FRONTAGE ON THE ROAD.
UM, IF, UH, WITH THE REQUESTED ZONING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED, THE RR ONE YEAH.
ZONING CLASSIFICATION EACH LOT.
HAS TO HAVE 200 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE AT THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE, NOT NECESSARILY RIGHT UP AT THE ROAD, BUT AT THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE.
THEY DIDN'T IDENTIFY IN THIS NEW, UH, CLASSIFICATION, THEY DIDN'T IDENTIFY HOW MANY THEY WERE GONNA HAVE ON ROUTE 40 VERSUS THIS IS PARCELS THAT ACTUALLY FRONT YEAH, IN EARLY DISCUSSIONS HE JUST BRIEFLY STATED THAT HE WAS THINKING ABOUT HAVING TWO LOTS ON ROUTE 40 AND THEN ALL THE REMAINDER LOTS WOULD HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ON MANSON CHURCH ROAD.
MR. JOHNSON BACK HERE HAD MENTIONED, AND I GUESS THIS IS JUST RUMOR 42 LOTS WERE PROPOSED, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S POSSIBLE.
IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE REZONING REQUEST, HE HAD INDICATED 22 LOTS THAT HE WOULD BE PLANNING ON OKAY.
AND THEN IN A RECENT EMAIL THAT HE SENT ME, HE SAID HE WAS GONNA PUT IN THE PROFFER CONDITIONS THAT HE WOULD BE DEVELOPING 18 LOTS.
SO THAT'S THE MOST RECENT INDICATION THAT STAFF HAS.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED THE FINAL PROFFER STATEMENT THAT HAS TO BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND NOTARIZED, SINCE I'M ACT, SINCE I'M THE CLOSEST TO DEN WITTY, I WAS THE ONE WHO WAS, UH, DELEGATED TO COME SNOOP ON THE COMMITTEE MEETING AND TO FIND OUT THE DETAILS.
WE WERE NOT NECESSARILY INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY, WE WERE INTERESTED IN SELLING.
ONE BROTHER WAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO CONTINUING TO, TO HAVE LAND IN DEN COUNTY.
SO WE DECIDED TO, TO SELL THE LAND.
UH, THIS IS THE, THE FIRST OFFER THAT CAME IN AND OF COURSE EVERYONE WAS IN AGREEMENT TO, TO GO AHEAD AND SELL IT.
BUT AGAIN, NOT NECESSARILY INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THE LAND.
I WOULD WOULD RATHER BE INTERESTED IN, IN KEEPING IT WHOLE AND SELLING IT TO SOMEONE WHO COULD MAINTAIN IT IN THAT FASHION.
JUST THOUGHT I WOULD LET YOU KNOW.
YEAH, THANK YOU FOR INFORMATION.
SO WE'RE GONNA CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT PARTICULAR CASE, P DASH 25 DASH SIX.
SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL, I'LL OFFER YOU THE SAME OPPORTUNITY, SIR, SINCE YOU'RE HAVING INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, I CAN KEEP, I'M THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THAT AREA AND I'VE HAD A MULTITUDE OF CALLS I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHARE WITH YOU OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
ANYTHING, IF YOU NEED SOMETHING JUST LET ME KNOW AND I'LL BE GLAD TO HELP YOU.
I'LL GIVE YOU MY PHONE NUMBER BEFORE I LEAVE.
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
OKAY.SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GONNA, UM, DIGRESS A LITTLE BIT BACK TO ONE OF THE STEPS THAT WE HAD TO, UH, HOLD BACK UNTIL WE HAD A QUORUM.
NOW THAT WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE, UM, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING AND MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING, HUH? AND MR. HARVE? I'M SORRY.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE THE APRIL 9TH WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES AS WELL.
SO WE DO HAVE TO, UH, APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE APRIL NAP MEETING.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THOSE, MEETING THOSE MINUTES FOR THAT MEETING.
[00:25:02]
YES.[7. PUBLIC HEARING (Part 2 of 2)]
THANK YOU.SO NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE SKIP BACK FORWARD TO THE NEXT CASE.
UH, THE NEXT CASE WE HAVE IS REZONING CASE P DASH 25 DASH SEVEN.
UH, THE APPLICANT FOR THE CASE THIS EVENING IS CLAYTON HOLMES OF CHESTER AND THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, UM, MS. TONIA STEVENS, AND I KNOW SHE'S HERE THIS EVENING.
UH, TO REPRESENT THE APPLICATION FOR THE REZONING, UH, THE REQUESTED REZONING IS FOR, UM, TO CHANGE THE REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL LIMITED R ONE TO AGRICULTURAL GENERAL, A TWO.
AND OF COURSE THE PROPERTY IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF BOND ROAD.
UH, THE PROPERTY SIZE AREA, THE PROPERTY IS THREE ACRES.
UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA, UH, INCLUDED ALONG VAUGHN ROAD AND SQUIRREL LEVEL ROAD.
WERE PART OF A MASS REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL GENERAL, A TWO TO RESIDENTIAL LIMITED R ONE IN JULY OF 1965.
UM, ALSO JUST TO NOTE, THE, UH, DEWINE COUNTY, THE FIRST ZONING ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED IN 1964, AND OF COURSE THEN THEY, UH, WERE DOING MAPPING AMENDMENTS FOR THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP.
UM, AFTER THAT, AND AGAIN, THIS AREA, THIS LARGE AREA BETWEEN VAUGHN ROAD AND SQUIRREL LEVEL ROAD, UH, WAS REZONED TO R ONE IN 1965.
UH, DESPITE THE REZONING MORE THAN 50 YEARS LATER, A MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY PROPERTIES IN THE AREA CONTINUE TO HAVE FARMING AND TIMBER OPERATIONS.
AND THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ON, A LOT OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ON LARGE LOTS.
THE RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZES AND USES IN THE AREA ARE MORE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE AGRICULTURAL GENERAL, A TWO ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF THREE ACRES.
UH, LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, UM, ARE ZONED RESIDENTIAL LIMITED R ONE AND ARE COMPRISED OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON LARGE LOTS FARMLAND.
AND FORESTAL USES THE ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND WEST IS APPROXIMATELY 49 ACRES IN SIZE IN THE TWO PROPERTIES ACROSS VON ROAD TO THE EAST ARE BOTH 33 ACRES IN SIZE.
THE ADJOINING PARCEL TO THE SOUTH INCLUDES A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ON 1.1 ACRES.
UH, IT, LOOKING AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE PHASED GROWTH AREA.
AND, UM, THE THINKING BEHIND THAT WAS ALL OF THE, UH, AGAIN, ALL THE PROPERTY ALONG SQUIRREL LEVEL ROAD, UH, AND VAUGHN ROAD, UH, IS WAS REZONED R ONE.
SO THE THINKING WAS THAT IN THE FUTURE, UM, WE MAY HAVE FURTHER, UH, RESIDENTIAL AND SERVICE GROWTH, UH, WITHIN THAT AREA.
THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER PREVIOUS AND SIMILAR REZONING CASES WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UM, ALL WHICH REQUESTED A REZONING FROM R ONE TO A TWO.
IN 1999, A PROPERTY ALONG SQUIRREL LEVEL ROAD JUST NORTH OF FORT EMERY ROAD WAS REZONED TO ALLOW FOR CONTINUED USE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
AND 2011 PROPERTY ALONG SQUIRREL LEVEL ROAD WAS REZONED TO ALLOW FOR A COMMERCIAL KENNEL TO REMAIN ON A EIGHT 8.82 ACRE PARCEL.
IN 2018, NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, WAS REZONED, UH, TO ALLOW FOR AN AGRICULTURAL USE TO CONTINUE ON PROPERTY.
AND THEN, UH, MOST RECENTLY, PROPERTY ON SQUIRREL LEVEL ROAD, UH, NEAR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWED IN THE R ONE DISTRICT.
THEY WANTED, AGAIN, THEY WANTED TO BUILD, UH, A LARGE, UH, ACCESSORY BUILDING, BASICALLY A BARN, UM, RELATED TO THEIR PROPERTY, UH, AND THEIR HOME.
THEY WANTED TO, UH, THEY HAD AGRICULTURAL
[00:30:01]
USES ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY WANTED TO UTILIZE THE BARN FOR, UH, PREDOMINANTLY AGRICULTURAL TYPE USES.UM, LOOKING AT IMPACTS, WHEN WE DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED REZONING WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, UM, THERE WERE REALLY NO, UH, INDICATIONS, UH, FOR MANY OF THE, UH, AGENCIES THAT, UH, THE REZONING, UH, THERE WOULD BE ANY ISSUES WITH IT, OF COURSE, UM, BE CONSIDERED A A DOWN ZONING BASED ON THE DENSITY, UH, PROPOSED.
UM, THERE ONLY BE ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, UH, TO DEVELOP ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, VDOT UH, DIDN'T INDICATE ANY ISSUES WITH THE PROPOSED REZONING.
I DID WANT TO, WE DO HAVE, UH, ONE ADDITIONAL SLIDE.
THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE ELEVATION OF WHAT THE PROPOSED, MANUFACTURED HOME ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND YOU ALSO HAVE IN YOUR PACKET WHAT THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME WOULD LOOK LIKE, AS WELL AS THE, UH, ELEVATION OF THE HOME, UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING, UH, THE, OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BASED ON THE, THE REQUESTED ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
A TWO AGRICULTURAL GENERAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING PATTERN AND SURROUNDING LAND USES THE PROPOSED USE CONFORMS TO THE UNDERLYING USES RECOMMENDED IN THE PLANNED GROWTH AREA, IN THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THIS GENERAL AREA.
THAT'S ALL WE HAVE, UH, RELATED TO OUR STAFF REPORT THIS EVENING, WE'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
IN THAT AREA, HOW, HOW MANY OWN HOMES ARE, ARE ACTUALLY BEING STICK BUILT OVER THERE ON VAUGHN AND FORT EMERY AND ALL THAT.
HOW, HOW MUCH GROWTH HAVE WE GOT IN THAT AREA? UM, IN THE PAST WE HAVE HAD SOME GROWTH YOU CAN SEE NORTH OF, OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE, UH, WEST SIDE OF VAUGHN ROAD.
ALL THOSE HOMES ARE, HAVE BEEN THERE, UM, I KNOW FOR AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF 20 YEARS.
UM, AND IT DOES APPEAR, UM, I HAVEN'T INVESTIGATED ALL THE HOMES, BUT IT DOES APPEAR THAT A MAJORITY OF THOSE HOMES ARE STICK-BUILT HOMES ON THOSE, UH, THE SMALLER LOTS, UM, THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE, UH, NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON BOND ROAD.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU MR. BASSETT.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WOULD THEY LIKE TO COME FORWARD? PLEASE GIMME YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, MA'AM.
I'M WITH CLAYTON HOMES OF CHESTER.
UM, DO YOU WANT CLAYTON HOMES ADDRESS? DID YOU SAY ADDRESS? I'M SORRY.
OKAY, SO, UH, 1 1 7 1 6, ROUTE ONE CHESTER, VIRGINIA, 2 3 8 3 1 IS THE ADDRESS OF CLAYTON HOMES.
UM, SO THE MOATS FAMILY, UH, THEY HAVE A LITTLE, UH, BABY AND THIS RIGHT HERE IS MORE AFFORDABLE, UH, HOUSING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'ALL KNOW ABOUT CLAYTON HOMES.
WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR OVER 60 YEARS.
OUR HOMES ARE BUILT BETTER THAN STICK BUILD HOMES.
IT'S TWO BY SIX EXTERIOR WALLS COMPARED TO TWO BY FOUR.
UM, THE HOME IS GONNA BE 1344 SQUARE FEET.
WELL, IN SEPTIC WHERE I GOT THE APPROVAL FROM COURTNEY, UH, THOMAS FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
AND, UM, I'D LOVE TO TO GET THIS GRANTED FOR THEM.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY MORE QUESTIONS? NO, NO QUESTIONS.
I'M GONNA OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE.
UM, MR. GRILL, IS THERE ANYONE OPEN SIGN UP? IS THERE ANYONE THAT'S IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS THE OPENING UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN IF THERE'S NOT, THEN I'M GOING TO BE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE.
COMM, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR ANY MR. CHAIR? I GOT,
[00:35:01]
I GOT A COUPLE.I'M NOT GONNA SAY IT'S GOING TO AFFECT MY FINAL OUTCOME HERE, BUT I'M, I'M AGAINST PLUGGING AGRICULTURAL BACK INTO R ONE IN RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE IT CAUSES OTHER ISSUES.
R ONE, PEOPLE TRULY CAN'T HAVE AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS AND STUFF LIKE THIS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
IF WE PLUG AGRICULTURAL IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER PEOPLE MOVE OUT THERE, THEN TECHNICALLY ON A TWO, THEY CAN HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT.
THEY CAN HAVE COWS, HORSES, PIGS, CHICKENS AND EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE OF THIS TYPE REZONING IN THE PAST.
WE HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THIS NOW WITH STAFF TRYING TO COVER THESE AREAS BECAUSE PEOPLE JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THINGS, SOME DON'T KNOW THE LIMITS, THEY DON'T KNOW THE OTHER PART, MY QUEST, MY ANSWER TO YOU IS WE JUST NEED TO BE IN MINDSET.
I'M NOT SAYING THIS FAMILY IS GONNA GO OUT AND PUT AGRICULTURAL, YOU KNOW, PIGS IN SOMEBODY'S FRONT YARD OR HORSES OR COWS OR NOTHING LIKE THAT.
WE JUST GOTTA BE IN MINDSET THAT IF THIS IS THE FUTURE GROWTH AND IT, AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS THIS IS WHERE WE WANT RESIDENTIAL TO COME TO WHEN WE DO THESE POCKET THINGS LIKE THIS, WE'RE POTENTIAL SETTING IT UP THAT THIS FAMILY CAN HAVE WHATEVER THEY WANT.
WE GO BACK TO THE REZONING CASE WE DID OVER THERE ON TRINITY CHURCH ROAD WHERE THE ONE FAMILY SAID, I CAN OWN CHICKENS AND DUCKS AND COWS AND I WANT MINE, BUT I DON'T WANT THIS GUY TO BE ABLE TO OWN NONE.
JUST BE MINDSET IN WHAT WE'RE DOING WHEN WE THINK THESE CASES THROUGH AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
I GUESS I HAVE A FOLLOW UP FOR THAT THEN.
UM, SO HELP ME MARK, HELP ME UNDERSTAND, UH, I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN.
CAN YOU GO OVER A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHY THE APPLICANT COULD NOT DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH A MANUFACTURED HOME AND THE EXISTING, UM, SO YEAH, WITH, WITH THE EXISTING, UH, THE EXISTING ZONING R ONE RESIDENTIAL THAT WE DON'T ALLOW DOUBLE WIDE MANUFACTURED HOMES.
WE DO ALLOW MODULAR HOMES, BUT NOT TECHNICALLY NOT, UH, MANUFACTURED HOMES, WHICH ARE HOMES THAT ARE APPROVED BY HUD AND HAVE THE HUD, UM, STAMP ON THE, ON THE HOME.
SO, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THEY DID THE PARCEL ORIGINALLY WAS A SMALLER SIZED PARCEL.
UM, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, FAMILY DOES OWN THE BACK, THE, THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE NORTH, THE ADJOINING PROPERTY NORTH AS WELL AS ALL THE PROPERTY TO THE REAR, TO THE, I GUESS YOU'D SAY WEST, UM, THAT 50 ACRE PARCEL.
UM, SO THEY WERE ABLE TO DO A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND INCREASE THE PROPERTY SIZE TO THE THREE ACRES, UM, TO GET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED IN THE A TWO ZONING DISTRICT THAT THREE ACRE LOT SIZE.
SO I CAN INTERPRET FROM THE, UH, DRAWING THAT THE, UH, LOT WAS EXTENDED BACK 355 FEET IT LOOKS LIKE.
SO OTHERWISE THOUGH, DOES THIS SITE MEET THE FRONTAGE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED OF A STICK BUILT HOME? UH, IT'LL MEET ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, UM, RELATED TO THAT AND YEAH.
SO GIVEN THIS IS A REZONING AND GIVEN MR. LANGLEY'S CONCERNS, I JUST WONDER IF THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO PROFFER SOMETHING THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE OF, UH, WOULD SATISFY THAT ISSUE, RIGHT? IS THAT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK? YEAH, IT'S A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK.
IT'S NOT A, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A CONDITIONAL USE SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IT CAN BE REQUIRED, BUT YOU'VE HEARD, YOU'VE HEARD ONE, UH, COMMISSIONER MAKE A A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT TRYING TO KEEP FOLKS NEIGHBORLY IN SOME OF THESE, I'LL CALL IT TRANSITION AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.
I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THAT MIGHT HELP IF YOU ARE WILLING TO PROFFER SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE MR. LANGLEY'S CONCERN, THROW THAT OUT.
[00:40:01]
UM, SO THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE PUTTING COWS OR CHICKENS OR ANYTHING ON THERE ON THEIR PROPERTY.AND, UH, MANUFACTURER HOMES, UH, IS A LOT, UH, MORE AFFORDABLE FOR FAMILIES.
THE MODULARS ARE ABOUT 60,000 TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
THAT WOULD PUT A HUGE STRAIN ON THE FAMILY.
THEIR MORTGAGE WOULD GO UP AT LEAST $1,500 MORE A MONTH FOR THAT.
UM, AND THAT'S IF THEY WOULD EVEN QUALIFY FOR THAT AMOUNT.
UM, THE FAMILY OWNS QUITE A BIT OF LAND AND SO THIS RIGHT HERE, HE'S STAYING NEAR THE FAMILY, THE THREE ACRES, AND AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT PUTTING FARM ANIMALS ON THE, THE PROPERTY.
DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR A FACT? OR ARE YOU JUST SAYING THAT? UM, WELL, I KNOW THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ANIMALS.
IT, IT HAD, IT WAS CORN THERE.
UH, HERE'S THE, THE FAMILY IS HERE ON FARM.
ANIMALS ARE EASY ENOUGH TO GET, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT'S THE REASON THAT EVERYBODY'S ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS.
I MEAN, YOU CAN GET COWS, HORSES, WHATEVER YOU LIKE, BUT MM-HMM
WELL, UM, I WAS GONNA SAY ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE APP THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR APPLIANCE INTENT.
BUT YES, LET'S SAY DOWN THE ROAD 10 YEARS FROM NOW, SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, THEY SELL THAT BECAUSE OF THE ZONING WOULD CONTINUES ON IN PERPETUITY.
UNLESS SOMEBODY CHANGES IT, THEN MR. LANGLEY'S POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
A FUTURE LANDOWNER COULD DO THAT.
WHAT WE CAN DO, WE CAN UPDATE THE DEED AND PUT ON THERE IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU LIKE AND HAVE IT WEAR, YOU KNOW, FARM ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT, CAN THAT BE DONE AS A PROPERTY? MR. SO WE HAVE STATEWIDE THAT DOES OUR DEEDS AND THEY HAVE THE ATTORNEY THERE AND THEY CAN PUT THAT VERBIAGE IN THERE.
UH, THE OWNER CERTAINLY COULD HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THE, IN THE DEED.
THEN WOULD THAT CARRY OVER TO IF, IF THEY WERE TO SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE, YES.
THEY WOULD CARRY WITH THE, THE DEED TO THE PROPERTY? YES.
AND, AND LIKE I SAID, IT IT, YOU KNOW, TO I HEAR IT ALL.
I, I'M NOT, I WON'T WANNA SAY I WANT TO HOLD SOMEBODY BACK FROM HAVING THEIR DREAM HOME, BUT WE DO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE OTHER ASPECT OF THIS AND TAKING CARE OF THE OTHER CITIZENS IN THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE.
AND THAT'S THE REASON I BROUGHT IT TO LAW.
THE ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IS TOO, I I, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THING HAS BECOME, YOU KNOW, MUCH MORE EVIDENT TO ME PERSONALLY IN THE LAST MONTH.
SO, UH, I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THAT.
SO I WOULD DEFINITELY, I KNOW I WOULD LIKE TO DO WHAT I CAN TO SUPPORT THAT HERE, BUT, UM, WELL, I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION, BUT WAIT, WE GET A MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME GET BACK TO MY PAGE THERE.
MR. HAYES, YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE ONE? I GOT IT.
SO I, I'LL MAKE A, A A MOTION THAT, UH, I'LL USE THE STANDARD LANGUAGE, BUT I'M GONNA AMEND IT TO SAY, WELL, I'LL APPEND IT, I GUESS IS A RIGHT BETTER WORD TO SAY.
I'LL APPEND IT TO SAY THAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO PUT A DEED RESTRICTION RELATED TO, UM, FARM ANIMALS, IS THAT, IS THAT APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE FOR YOU TO WORK WITH? YES.
SO BE IT RESOLVED IN AN ORDER TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 52 POINT 15.2 DASH 2286 A SEVEN.
IT IS STATED IN THE PUBLIC PUR THAT THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THIS RESOLUTION IS INITIATED IS TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, GENERAL WELFARE, AND GOOD ZONING PRACTICE.
I MOVE THAT CASE P 25 DASH SEVEN BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE, UH, SHOWING A DEED RESTRICTION TO ADDRESS FARM ANIMAL CONCERNS, UH, IN A, IN A, UH, A TWO IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITE PARCEL.
P DASH 25 DASH SEVEN HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITH AN APPROVAL PENDING A DEED RESTRICTION, UH, TO THE ADDRESS, UH, REFERENCING, UH, NO FARM
[00:45:01]
ANIMALS.WITH THAT SAID, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT STEP, WHICH IS, UM, OLD BUSINESS.
I, I HAVE NO OLD BUSINESS, MR. CHAIR, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS.
MR. CHAIR, ANY COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY.
[11. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS]
THE, UH, GOING TO ASK YOU BACK THAT THEY GOING BE THE GROUP GOING TO BE OVER AT, UM, DALE COMMUNITY CENTER BECAUSE I'VE HAD A FEW PHONE CALLS TOO.AND, AND I KNOW BOARD MEMBER, UM, MR. DOOLEY HAS TOO.
HE'S TALKED WITH ME A LITTLE BIT.
IS THAT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? YES.
LIKE I SAID, I JUST, I'M JUST NOT SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE OUT ONLINE WHETHER IT'S BEEN BOOKED OR NOT AS A, AN EVENT.
I NEED SOMEBODY, UH, I BET MR.
UM, ALL WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN TOLD IN THE OFFICE THAT HE PLANNED A COMMUNITY MEETING.
WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN.
UM, I'M SURE YOU SAW EVERYTHING THAT WENT DOWN ON FACEBOOK LAST WEEK.
HE INDICATED ON THERE HE WAS GONNA HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING.
BUT AS FAR AS 100% CERTAIN, WE, WE HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD.
WELL, MY COMMITMENT IS I WILL FOR YOU ALL AND FOLKS THAT WERE HERE IS, UH, I'LL CALL RAGSDALE CENTER TOMORROW.
I'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT THE DEAL IS AND LET Y'ALL KNOW AND LET THOSE GUYS KNOW TOO.
HOW MANY OF US ARE ALLOWED TO GO WITHOUT IT BEING CONSIDERED A MEETING.
IS THERE A RESTRICTION ON THAT? UM, TECHNICALLY YOU ALL COULD ATTEND AS LONG AS YOU, THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, DISCUSSION ABOUT OKAY.
RELATED TO THE ANY, UM, ANY ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IS THAT ALL FOR COMMISSIONER'S? COMMENTS, PLANNING, DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS? UM, I HAVE NO, UH, I WAS GONNA DISCUSS THE COMMUNITY MEETING, BUT I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
MR. CHAIR, IF THAT'S BEING SAID, I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE ADJOURN.