11. CITIZENS MAY JOIN VIA WEBEX USING THE LINK AND MEETING INFORMATION BELOW: MEETING LINK Meeting number (access code): 129 963 4250 Password: BC123 (ANYONE who wishes to speak during the Citizen Comment portion of the meeting will limit their comments to no longer than three (3) minutes ( a total of 15 minutes ) and will address Council in a respectful manner appropriate to the decorum of the meeting, refraining from the use of profane, abusive, or obscene language)

[11. CITIZENS MAY JOIN VIA WEBEX USING THE LINK AND MEETING INFORMATION BELOW: MEETING LINK Meeting number (access code): 129 963 4250 Password: BC123 (ANYONE who wishes to speak during the Citizen Comment portion of the meeting will limit their comments to no longer than three (3) minutes ( a total of 15 minutes ) and will address Council in a respectful manner appropriate to the decorum of the meeting, refraining from the use of profane, abusive, or obscene language)]

THE RURAL AND CRITICAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM. >> SO WE WANT TO DO OUR CITIZEN COMMENTS. OUR GUEST MA'AM CERTAINLY THAT WAS THE WHOLE INTENT BEFORE WE WENT TO ACTION ITEMS. YES, WE HAVE. WE DID RECEIVE SOME CITIZEN COMMENTS ON ONE OF THE ACTION ITEMS FOR TODAY AND WE GOT IT THIS AFTERNOON.

IT IS UP ON YOUR SCREEN. THIS IS FROM JESSE WHITE AT THE COASTAL CONSERVATION LEAGUE AND IT'S REGARDING NUMBER SEVEN WHICH IS THE ZONING PROPOSED CHANGE FROM TIF TO RURAL C 3 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE. AND I WILL READ THESE COMMENTS OUT LOUD.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COASTAL CONSERVATION LEAGUE REGARDING THE REZONING REQUESTS FOR NEARLY 18 ACRES ON OKATIE HIGHWAY, THE REZONING AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU IS A SIGNIFICANT UP ZONING ALONG A REGIONAL CORRIDOR THAT IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING SUBSTANTIAL GROWING PAINS AND TRAFFIC ISSUES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ENVISIONED BY FUTURE LAND USE MAPS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS RURAL AND IS APPROPRIATELY ZONED T TO RURAL WHICH ALLOWS FOR FIVE DWELLING UNITS AND LIMITED NONRESIDENTIAL USES THAT REQUESTED UP ZONING WOULD INCREASE DENSITY DRASTICALLY TO ALLOW 25 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS 80 MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND OVER SEVENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT AT THE SCALE AND MAGNITUDE OF THE PROPOSED REZONING RUNS COUNTER TO THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF L IN THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL AS WHAT IS IN VISION FOR THIS PART OF BETA BEAUFORT COUNTY. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE CORE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS AN INTENTIONAL EFFORT TO MAINTAIN A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RURAL AND DEVELOPING AREAS OF THE COUNTY.

ENCOURAGING INFILL AND FOCUSING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ALREADY ESTABLISHED URBAN AREAS WHILE DISCOURAGING SPRAWL AND INTENSE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN DESIGNATED RURAL AREAS.

ANOTHER CORE LAND USE GOAL IS TO ADDRESS AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING ON A REGIONAL BASIS WHICH CANNOT BE DONE IN A PIECEMEAL DEVELOPMENT BY DEVELOPMENT FASHION AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING SHOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY AS TO ALREADY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS WHERE JOBS CENTERS EXIST NOT OUTSIDE GROWTH BOUNDARIES.

[00:05:01]

LOCATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE OUTSKIRTS COUNTY IS SIMPLY PERPETUATING THE EXISTING PROBLEM OF PUSHING LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME WORKERS TO THE OUTER FRINGE FRINGES OF THE REGION FORCING LAW LONGER COMMUTES, INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION, HIGHER CARBON EMISSIONS, INCREASING MONTHLY EXPENSES AND EXASPERATING SUBURBAN SPRAWL.

AS A RESULT OF THESE INCONSISTENCIES, WHETHER THE COUNTIES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN FUTURE LAND USE MATH AS WELL AS COMPOUNDING IMPACTS ON SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL TRAFFIC CONCERNS ALONG THIS QUARTER AND SCHOOL CAPACITY CONCERNS, WE URGE THE COMMITTEE TO DENY THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES SIGN. JESSE WHITE, SOUTH COAST OFFICE DIRECTOR OF A COASTAL CONSERVATION AND THAT IS IS THAT THE ONLY PUBLIC COMMENT WE'VE RECEIVED TODAY? TODAY. YES, MA'AM. AND THERE'S NOBODY LOGGED ON

[6. RURAL AND CRITICAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM CONSULTING SERVICES FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY]

SPEAK. OK. ALL RIGHT.

SO MOVING ON TO THE FIRST ACTION ITEM. IT IS THE RURAL AND CRITICAL AND PRESERVATION PROGRAM CONSULTING SERVICES FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY AND I THINK MISS MR. D DAY IS NOW. THIS IS DAVE THOMAS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AND GET AWAY. OK, THANK YOU. >> SO COUNCIL MEMBERS LIKE TO PRESENT YOU WITH A CONTRACT RECOMMENDATION. THERE WAS THE BEAUFORT LAND TRUST COMPANY. THEY WERE THE ONLY FIRM THAT BASICALLY PUT IN A RESPONSE TO OUR RFP. JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND.

WE PUT THIS OUT FOR SOLICITATION BACK IN MAY. WE DID NOT GET THE RESULTS THAT WE WANTED. SO WE REBID THIS RFP. UNFORTUNATELY I GOT ONE RESPONSE BUT IT'S A PRETTY GOOD RESPONSE. IT'S IT'S A LOT LESS A LITTLE LESS THAN THEIR FIRST PROPOSAL IS ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THEY'RE GONNA PROVIDE OUR SERVICES THAT ARE REQUIRED. BUT IT'S SUCH TO YOUR QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND FOR THIS TO BE CALLED FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THAT WILL GO THROUGH BEGINNING APRIL 1ST IF WE CAN GET IT TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AND THEN RUN THROUGH MARCH 30 FIRST OF TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO.

SO SUBJECT TO YOUR QUESTIONS. OKAY LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS PLEASE.

MR. CHAIRMAN. MY MADAM CHAIR PERSON IF I MAY ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

TWO THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THE FIRST ROUND THAT YOU ASKED US TO TAKE CARE OF WITH THIS PARTICULAR RFP. AND THAT WAS A STATEMENT THAT THERE WOULD THAT THE SELECTED FIRM WOULD NOT BE MAKE PROFIT OR PROFIT FROM OTHER WORK AS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGRAM.

MISS WARD BRITTNEY WARD WITH LEGAL ROUTE DRAFTED THE CONTRACT HAS THAT LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT. IN ADDITION, SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF IS THAT THERE IS ALSO INFORMATION IN THERE BECAUSE IN THE PAST THE OPEN LAND TRUST.

AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THAT WE KNOW THAT I'M SAYING IS NECESSARY OR NEGATIVE.

BUT ANOTHER THING THAT WE'RE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION AS THEY'VE RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM ORGANIZATIONS THAT THEY WORK THROUGH ROOM CRITICAL LANDS ON WITH REGARDS TO DOING CONSERVATION MONTHS AT THE SAME TIME AFTER THEY HAVE DONE CONSERVATION THESE WITH THE COUNTY. SO IF WE WE ARE HOW THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE AS WELL THAT THEY CANNOT DO THAT IN KEEPING WITH THE CONSISTENCY FROM THE CONCERNS VOICED LAPSED THROUGH THE LAST RECOMMENDATION RFP THAT WE REJECTED. SO WE CAN OK.

COULD YOU KIND OF GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT? WOULD IT BE THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY THEY'D RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM THAT PROPERTY OWNER OR.

OK TO THEIR ORGANIZATION? CORRECT. THEY WANT A MONETARY DONATE MONITORING. YES. NOT COUNT NOT EASEMENTS BUT MONITOR. RIGHT. THAT'S GOOD.

OK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. GREENWAY OR MR. THOMAS REGARDING TO OUR. YES, MR. COUNCILMAN DAWSON, IF I MIGHT JUST AS DAVE WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT OF PREVIOUS CONTRACT ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND 170.

IT WAS THEIR LAST PROPOSAL. I'M SORRY. I THINK IT WAS LIKE WE HAVE TO GET THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU ON THE LAST CONTRACT. WHAT WOULD BE THE LAST PROPOSAL WAS ORANGE CITY NINE THOUSAND NINE. I'M NOT ASKING FOR A PROPOSAL.

THAT'S CORRECT. YOU'RE ASKING FOR WHAT WE PAID THEM ON THE LAST CONTRACT.

I HAVE TO GET THAT INFORMATION FOR A TOKEN. YOU'RE YOU'RE WITHIN A THOUSAND DOLLARS. DAVIS IT'S 1 7 8 4 1 7 8. SOME SAY IN THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

OK. I SEE. QUESTION FROM COUNCILMAN RODMAN

YEAH. >> A QUESTION IS A ONE YEAR CONTRACT.

DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THIS FOR ONE OR TWO EXTRA YEARS

[00:10:03]

WITHOUT GETTING IT? YES. >> YES, SIR.

WE'RE GONNA PUT IN THE CONTRACT THAT IT'S UP TO UP TO FIVE YEARS TOTAL.

WE'RE GOING TO RENEW IT EACH YEAR. GOOD.

MAKES SENSE. THANKS, DAVE. IS OUR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK. I CAN ONLY SEE A PORTION OF EVERYONE ON ONLINE. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS YOUR CAR A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONTRACT. I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND.

SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OR NONE WITHOUT OBJECTION WE WILL.

>> WE WILL PASS THIS ON TO FULL COUNCIL AT THE NEC. WE'LL BE READY FOR THE NEXT MEETING. MR. THOMAS? YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

[7. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT/REZONING REQUEST FOR 17.92 ACRES (R600 013 000 00369 0000) AT THE INTERSECTION OF OKATIE HIGHWAY AND CHERRY POINT ROAD FROM T2 RURAL TO C3 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE AND C4 COMMUNITY CENTER MIXED USE DISTRICTS.]

GREAT. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS THE ZONING AMENDMENT REQUESTS SEVENTEEN POINT NINE TWO ACRES AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE OKATIE HIGHWAY AND CHERRY POINT ROAD FROM T TO ROAD TO SEE THREE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE AND C FOR COMMUNITY CENTER MIXED USE DISTRICT. THIS IS DAY ONE THAT WE RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON. SO IS MR. MERCHANT'S GOING TO PRESENT THIS CORRECT? YES. AND I RECEIVED AN EMAIL JUST THIS MORNING FROM THE APPLICANT

WISHING TO POSTPONE ACTION ON THIS ITEM. >> AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT LETTING YOU KNOW SOONER THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS.

YOU KNOW THAT THE CONCERNS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD AND THEY'RE CONSIDERING MAYBE SOME

CHANGES BEFORE BRINGING IT TO ATTRIBUTE FORCES. >> OK.

SO PROCEDURALLY I'M CORRECT. TELL US WHAT DO WE DO? WE JUST TAKE IT OFF.

WE DIDN'T SAY WE TAKE IT OFF THE AGENDA AT THE BEGINNING BUT WE POSTPONE IT AT THIS TIME.

YES, YOU CAN. I THINK THERE WOULD BE A MOTION TO PROCEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE BIG FEEL. WE HAVE A MOTION NOW FOR QUESTIONS.

YES, GO AHEAD. ARE THEY JUST ASKING TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE OF BAD PRESS OR BECAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD THAT ADVISED THEM? NOW THE PLANNING BOARD VOTED HAD THEIR SEPARATE SO IS IT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN ASK TO POSTPONE A DECISION? I HAVE THAT RIGHT AT ANY TIME. OK. THANK YOU.

AND YET TO HEAR A MOTION. COUNCILMAN RON AND FIRST I SEE YOUR MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL I HEAR A SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT. OK, THANKS.

COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM, ANY DISCUSSION ON BARRY NUNN? WITHOUT OBJECTION WHAT I WOULD

SAY. >> WHAT WAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S THEIR VOTE WAS TO

DENY WHEN IT WENT TO THEM? >> WAS IT CLOSE OR NO? AND SHE MET AT A MOSTLY BUSY OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND I DO HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT FOR AND DISCUSS WHEN IT DOES COME BACK TO OUR TABLE. CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT WE ALSO BRING BACK UP THAT SYSTEM COMMENT AND THE RECORD FROM THE PLANNING BOARD?

>> OH YES WE CAN DO THAT AND THERE MAY BE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AT THAT TIME AND THEY HAVE LIKE THEY CAN TAKE AS LONG AS I WOULD LIKE. ZACK CORRECT.

GRAB THIS AS FAR AS I'M AWARE. WELL, I'LL LOOK INTO THAT BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN ANY IMMEDIATE DANGER OF THIS EXPIRING AS FAR AS PLANNING COMMISSIONER REVIEW.

OK. >> FOR SOME REASON LESS THAN 12 MONTHS STICKS IN MY MIND.

I MAY BE INCORRECT ON THAT. I'LL LOOK INTO THAT AND LET EVERYONE KNOW.

OK. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WITHOUT OBJECTION WE'LL TABLE THIS ACTION UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

[8. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT/REZONING REQUEST FOR 1.96 ACRES (R600 036 000 015E 0000) AT THE INTERSECTION MAY RIVER ROAD AND BENTON LANE FROM T3 EDGE TO T2 RURAL CENTER.]

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 8. >> THIS IS ANOTHER ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REZONING REQUESTS FOR ONE POINT NINETY SIX ACRES AT THE INTERSECTION OF MY RIVER ROAD AND BENTON LANE FROM T THREE EDGE TO T TO RURAL CENTER .

MR. MERCHANT. MR. KRAFT SO YOU'RE GONNA HANDLE THAT ONE?

YES, I'D LIKE TO HAVE I KNOW I PRESENT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. >> THANKS, DON.

SHERIFF JOE, I GUESS JUST TO START OFF. WE DO HAVE SOME DRONE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPERTY ON I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL WOULD PREFER TO SEE THAT AHEAD OF MY REPORT OR IF

YOU'D RATHER WAIT TILL AFTER YOU HEAR ABOUT THE PROPERTY. >> WELL, WE SAY IT BEFORE AND

[00:15:05]

THEN ORIENT US TO WHAT THE REQUEST IS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE STARTED NOT WHAT I THINK THE LAST REZONING WE DID IS HAVING BECAUSE WE KNOW COUNCIL MEMBERS MIGHT NOT ALL BE ABLE TO GET OUT AND ACTUALLY SEE THE SITES. SO WE HAVE SOME DRONE FOOTAGE OF THE SITE. YOU CAN GO AHEAD IF YOU WILL. SARAH, DO I HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHARE FROM HER? WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE TIME TO COORDINATE BUT YOU SHOULD.

>> OK, LET ME JUST GO AND TRY TO DO. NO, I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU.

ALL RIGHT. MAYBE PUTTING TOO MUCH FAITH IN ME.

HOLD YOU. YOU'LL SEE THAT NOW WE CAN'T SEE.

MAYBE I FORGOT SOMETHING. THERE WE GO. THEY CAN WALK US THROUGH THAT.

SURE. SO WITH THE VIDEO IS GOING TO START FROM JUST THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW YOU'RE LOOKING WEST DOWN RIVER ROAD.

IT'S BACK TOWARDS THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE AND PRITCHARD BUILT IT IS GOING TO TURN TO LOOK AT CROSS ME RIVER ROAD AND THEN SPIN SO YOU CAN SEE THE REST OF THE PROPERTY AND SHOW THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AS WELL ACROSS BENT. AND I CAN PLAY MORE THAN ONCE IF NEED BE. SO DIRECTLY BELOW IS THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY

WHERE YOU SEE THE TREE LINE. >> AND THEN HE'S GOING TO ADJUST THE DRONE SO IT SHOWS THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. THIS SECTION ISN'T PERTINENT TO THE PROPERTY.

IT'S NEIGHBORING ONE. OKAY. SO NOW HE'S SPINNING AROUND TO

SHOW YOU MOST OF 120 TO MID RIVER ROAD. >> SO THAT'S BENTON LANE AND ONE TWENTY TWO RIVER ROAD AND WE COULD WAVE TO ALEC IF THAT WERE A LIVE STREAM.

AND THEN HE KIND OF BRINGS IT BACK DOWN JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THAT A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

THERE'S A SMALL OFFICE BUSINESS IN THAT HOME I BELIEVE SO THAT IS KIND OF YOU KNOW WHAT WHEN WE PULL THAT BACK UP REAL QUICK AND SHOW YOU ONE MORE THING. JUST JUST OF NOTE ALSO GENERALLY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN ACROSS THE RIVER ROAD BEHIND.

SORRY. THIS IS MAYBE DIZZYING FOR A SECOND.

SO ON THE LEFT OF ON THE LEFT ACROSS MARY RIVER ROAD THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT TREE BUFFER.

AND THEN THERE SEE THE CEDAR LAKE SUBDIVISION BEHIND THOSE TREES WITH SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THE FIVE HUNDRED FOOT NOTICE AREA. OK.

I WILL STOP SHARING THAT FOR NOW. IF THE GOOD.

SO ON. AS MADAM CHAIR SAID, THIS IS A RESOUNDING REQUEST FOR A ONE POINT SIX ACRE LOT. IT IS AT THE CORNER OF MAY RIVER ROAD AND BENTON LANE ONE TWENTY TWO MINUTE ROAD. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED T THREE EDGE.

THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE IT TO TEACH TO RURAL CENTER.

JUST SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED COMMERCIAL AS FAR BACK AS THE NINETEEN NINETY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ORDINANCE AND THEN IN NINETEEN NINETY NINE WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE MARY RIVER A COMMUNITY PRESERVATION DISTRICT IT WAS RESOUND TO COMMUNITY PRESERVATION BUT THAT AT THAT TIME IT RETAINED ITS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND THEN THERE WERE A FEW INSTANCES IN 2000 AND I BELIEVE 2002 WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNERS ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS TO BUILD A CONVENIENCE STORE ON THE PROPERTY.

THEY NEVER ACTUALLY ENDED UP CONSTRUCTING ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY.

BUT THERE IS THAT HISTORY WITH THE OWNERS OF SHOWING, YOU KNOW, INTENT AND GOOD FAITH AND ATTEMPTING TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL USE. AND SO THEN IF YOU JUMP AHEAD A FEW YEARS TO 2011, THERE WAS A SHRED HELD IN THE PREACHER BILL BISHOP BILL THAT WAS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE DURING THAT CHARETTE THE PREACHER REAL COMMUNITY DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO LIMIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO A SMALLER AREA AROUND AND GIVE IT ROAD AND MAY RIVER ROAD THE INTERSECTION

[00:20:05]

THERE IN. AND SO IN 2014 WHEN THE CODE WAS WAS ADOPTED THAT AREA OF MARY ROAD AND GIVE IT WAS ZONED TO RURAL CENTER AND THIS PROPERTY 120 TO MARY EVER ROAD WAS ZONED T THREE EDGE BECAUSE IT WAS SEVERAL PROPERTIES OUT OF THAT SMALL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BY CHARETTE PARTICIPANTS. I COULD PULL UP ONE MORE THING I GUESS I SHOULDN'T HAVE STOPPED SHARING SO SOON ACTUALLY I COULD PROBABLY JUST TELL YOU WITHOUT WITHOUT A VISUAL IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THAT PROPOSED AND EXISTING MAP THAT COMES WITH THE WITH THE PACKET YOU'LL SEE THERE'S ABOUT FIVE OR SIX PROPERTIES BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE T TO RURAL CENTER AREA TO GIVE IT ROAD INTERSECTION.

SO THERE'S A PRETTY LARGE GAP THERE AND EVERYTHING SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY IS.

THANK SARAH IS YOU'RE ON IT TO EVERYTHING AROUND THIS PROPERTY IS T THREE EDGE.

SO THAT SAID STAFF INITIALLY COULD NOT SUPPORT THIS CHANGE BECAUSE IT VERY CLEARLY IS A SPOT ZONING. THERE'S ALSO SOME CONCERN FROM THE NEIGHBORS IN CEDAR LAKE SPECIFICALLY I THINK WE GOT ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE LETTERS FROM THOSE IF YOU CAN SEE THOSE SMALLER PROPERTIES ALONG CEDAR LAY CLAIM THAT ALSO BUT MAYBE OF A ROAD WE RECEIVED A FEW EMAILS FROM THOSE FOLKS. BUT I MEAN IT SHOULD BE NOTED ALSO THAT THERE'S A PRETTY SELF-SUFFICIENT TREE BUFFER BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MAYBE FOR ROAD. SO STAFF CAN'T SUPPORT APPROVING THIS BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS GOOD FAITH SHOWN BY THE OWNERS IN THE PAST WHEN IT WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL. THERE IS NOT THERE'S NOT ANY INTENT TO DO ANYTHING CRAZY WITH THIS PROPERTY. THE OWNER OR THE DEVELOPER ACTUALLY SENT SOME PHOTOS THAT I COULD SHOW YOU ALL IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT GIVES AN IDEA OF KIND OF THE BULK OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUILD THEIR DOUBT THAT WOULD BE USEFUL.

I THINK I GOT ONE SECOND. OBVIOUSLY IF I RICK CALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED FIVE TO THREE. CORRECT. TWO.

CORRECT. >> YES. SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FIVE TO THREE TO DENY AND I'M SORRY TO DENY I MISSPOKE.

YES ARE. OK. GOT THIS PHOTO.

IT'S VERY SMALL. SO I'M GOING TO ZOOM IN BUT YOU KIND OF SEE IT BUT THE INTENT HERE IS SO THE THE RESOLUTION I WAS SENT KIND OF BLURRY BUT YOU CAN STILL SEE THE TYPE OF BUILDING THAT THEY'D LIKE TO DEVELOP THEIR DO THEY SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO PUT INSIDE THE BUILDING? THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT BLOW LOCAL LIKE A SMALL CAFE COFFEE SHOP THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD SERVE THE BRITISH BUILT COMMUNITY. THEY DID NOTE THAT THEY LIVE IN THE PICTURE BALCONY. SO IT'S A THEY WANT TO PROVIDE A SERVICE OR RETAIL THAT WOULD

BE USEFUL TO THE FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA. >> I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY

OTHER QUESTIONS. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT? YES, THIS IS MARK. WHAT'S THE WAS A ZONING CHANGE THAT FOR AFTER CHARETTE OR WAS IT WE'VE HAD SOME OTHER ONES THAT WHATEVER THEY THEY PUT THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN PLACE IN THE ZONING FOR DISAPPEARED AND THERE WERE SOME THAT WOULD HIRE A LITTLE BIT LOWER.

SO IS THIS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS CHANGED BECAUSE OF THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HOW WELL DO WE ACTUALLY CHANGE THE SURAT WAS CHANGED? SURE IT WAS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THE ZONING CODE .

AND SO IF THIS PROPERTY WAS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PRIOR TO THAT PRIOR TO BEING IN THE MAY RIVER COMMUNITY PRESERVATION DISTRICT. SO UP TILL THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE IN 2014, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL THIS AND THEN THE FOLKS IN THE REAL AREA DECIDED LET'S DESIGNATE THIS AREA THIS OTHER INTERSECTION AS A COMMERCIAL BASED AREA AND LET THE AREA'S FARTHER DOWN THE RIVER ROAD BE MORE RESIDENTIAL STRICTLY. SO AS 2014 CHANGE IN 2011. CORRECT.

[00:25:03]

WAS RENTED OUT THE 14 YES. MORE OR LESS. >> AND THEN THE OVERLAY OF THE COMMUNITY PRESERVATION DISTRICT CAME IN EFFECT 2014. CORRECT.

IS THAT RIGHT? IT WAS ADOPTED IN NINETEEN NINETY NINE AND THEN IT WAS ACTUALLY RIBAUT WAS IT WAS REALIGNED IN 2014. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

YEAH. AND THIS GETS A LITTLE BIT OF A PARTIES OLDER ORDINANCE OR ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ORDINANCE IT WAS ADOPTED IN 2000 OR IN NINETEEN NINETY NINE DESIGNATED THESE AREAS AS COMMUNITY PRESERVATION DISTRICTS AND THE ZONING FOR THEM A KNOWLEDGE ANY ANY BASICALLY APPLY TO THESE MORE RURAL TYPE AREAS.

>> AND AT THAT TIME CREATURE THERE WAS STILL RURAL DESIGNATED ANY AREA THAT WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL. IN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE WOULD STILL HAVE THE THINGS DEVELOPED AND WRITES BUT RETAINED ON THE PROPERTY. SO REALLY TWENTY THOUSAND FOURTEEN THIS PROPERTY HAD THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP COMMERCIALLY. AND SO IT'S ONLY BEEN SINCE THEN THAT IT'S BEEN TWO THREE EDGE. WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION GETTING TWO OF THE RECOMMENDED TO DENY IT AND STAFF RECOMMENDED SAYING IT'S OK. I HOPE COUNCILMAN.

OK, GO AHEAD. IS THIS IN YOUR DISTRICT? COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM IT BORDERS UP SUPPLY. FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW THE AREA IT IS LESS THAN A MILE AWAY FROM THE NEW PUBLIC WHO'S GOING IN. IT'S ALSO RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAND THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THE LIBRARY, THAT NATURE. I WAS WORKING ON.

WELL, IT'S RIGHT UP BY THAT CIRCLE. ONE OF THE CONCERNS I DO HAVE IS WE ARE ALREADY DEVELOPING ALL THAT AREA IF THE SERVICE THEY WANT TO PROVIDE IS THE COFFEE SHOP. THERE ARE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES POP UP AND PLACES THAT ARE ALREADY BEING DEVELOPED. RIGHT UP THE STREET FROM THAT WOULD BE A SUITABLE LOCATION WITHOUT PUTTING ANY MORE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT AREA.

JUST SOME TO THINK ABOUT. I KNOW A LOT OF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

THE ROAD THAT IT IS LOOKING TO BE PUT ON IS A TWO LANE ROAD ONE WAY EACH WAY.

AS WELL WHERE THOSE OTHER PLACES ARE NOT SO BUT SOMETHING TO TAKE CONSIDERATION WHEN WE VOTE ON IT. OK. COUNCILMAN PASCRELL, CHAIRMAN.

YES. YES. NOW D.C. I ASK SAYS IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS WE WOULD BE APPROVING SPOT ZONING. I DIDN'T THINK WE COULD DO THAT EITHER. YOU SHOULD. YOU SHOULD NOT DO THAT EYES.

THAT'S OUR. THAT'S A STOUT OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION THAT IT COULD CONSTITUTE SPOT ZONING TECHNICALLY SPOT ZONING IS ESSENTIALLY A ZONING CHANGE THAT WOULD BE SO CONTRARY TO THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

POTENTIALLY YOU SUBJECT YOURSELF TO A CLAIM OF THAT BUT REALLY ONLY.

ONLY A COURT CAN DETERMINE WHAT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES SPOT ZONING.

IN ANY CASE I MIGHT ADD. THE REASON WE WENT INTO THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROPERTY WAS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT SINCE THERE'S THIS HISTORY OF IT BEING ZONED COMMERCIAL THAT I THINK STRENGTHENS ITS POSITION. YOU KNOW IT CONCERNED THAT WE WOULD HAVE ABOUT JUST SPOT ZONING A RANDOM PROPERTY THAT DIDN'T HAVE THAT HISTORY. AND SO WE FEEL THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT IN MAKING A DECISION . THIS IS MARK.

YES. THIS IS ACTUALLY IN MY DISTRICT RIGHT ACROSS FROM MR. CUTTING HANDS. THAT STRETCH IS ALREADY HAS A LOT OF COMMERCIAL THERE.

IT'S RIGHT ON THE MAIN HIGHWAY. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THAT AREA WAS COMMERCIAL IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH, ESPECIALLY WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING JUST A QUARTER MILE DOWN THE ROAD ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THE SPOT ZONING PART OF THIS. HOWEVER, MY FEELING AGAIN IT'S IN MY DISTRICT WOULD BE TWO TO FOR US TO APPROVE THIS LET IT GO TO COUNCIL AND THEN OBVIOUSLY DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION TO FIND OUT FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND PEOPLE AROUND THERE WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD WANT IT TO GO FORWARD. OK? ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RODMAN HAS HIS HAND UP MUCH MORE BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN.

GO AHEAD. YEAH. YOU'RE PROBABLY KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT ZONING EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL BUT LITERALLY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE SOMETHING

[00:30:04]

THAT WAS ZONE COMMERCIAL THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE BOUGHT IN GOOD FAITH AND THEN TAKE AWAY THEIR PROPERTY VALUE BECAUSE YOU CHANGED THE ZONING TO SOMETHING LESS.

I'LL REFER THAT TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT ONE.

WELL, LET'S TRY TO DISCUSS GIVING LEGAL ADVICE. THE IN OPEN SESSION.

THE. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. KURT NO I CAN.

I CAN HEAR HIM. I'M SORRY. IT WAS ON MY END.

GO AHEAD. NO, I CAN'T. I'M.

ME. IT WAS ME. COUNSEL CAN MAKE CHOICES IN ZONING AS IT SEES FIT WHICH CERTAINLY SHOULD FOLLOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

CERTAINLY SHOULD FOLLOW THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SHOULD RESPECT SOUND PRINCIPLES OF PLANNING ZONING SUCH AS AVOIDING SPOT ZONING. THERE ARE POTENTIAL CLAIMS OF COURSE WHERE PROPERTY IS DOWN ZONED TO A LESS INTENSE USE.

THERE'S A POTENTIAL CLAIM FROM A LANDOWNER WITH REGARD TO THAT .

THAT'S ABOUT THE BEST PICTURE I CAN PAINT FOR YOU AT THIS POINT.

OK. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE AN EMOTION.

I THINK WE'RE GONNA NEED TO HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS. I HAVE HIM AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT SOME MORE AFTER THE MOTIONS MAKE TO HEAR A MOTION. THIS IS MARK LOST AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT. I HAVE A SECOND. THIS IS DUE.

I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MR. TAYLOR, COULD THE SAME ARGUMENT THAT MR. LAWSON MADE BE MADE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT PROPERTY AFTERWARDS THAT THEY BOUGHT PROPERTY SURROUNDING THAT WHAT THEY UNDERSTAND IT WAS NO LONGER COMMERCIAL AND THEY MADE THEIR INVESTMENT.

>> AND NOW WE COULD BE CHANGING TO COMMERCIAL. NOW I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> I THINK THAT SAME ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE IN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

OK. WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION GOING FIRST. COUNCILMAN LAWSON MARK LAWSON. YES.

OK, AND COUNCILMAN RODMAN A SECOND. YES.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM, GO. I'LL TRY TO GO IN ALPHABETICAL

ORDER JUST SO I'M ON THE SAME PAGE. >> THIS IS JUST THE SENATE

COUNSEL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. TO VOTE YES.

WE'LL SEND IT TO FULL COUNCIL. OH, IT WILL NOT. I'LL VOTE YES TO SEND IT TO

COUNCIL SO WE CAN HAVE THE ENTIRE BOARD ON THAT. >> LET'S SEE.

WELL, IT'S NOT ON COUNCILMAN DAWSON. COUNCILMAN DAWSON, I'M YOU.

>> MR. DAWSON. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, I CAN.

BEING THAT IS TERMED SPOT DAWNING. I'M GOING TO.

OH NO. COUNCILMAN MY NEXT I THINK I'M NEXT.

I WILL WAIT TILL THE END TO VOTE. COUNCILMAN CLOVER I'M GOING TO VOTE YES TO SERGEANT KELSO BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY.

OKAY. COUNCILMAN MCKELLEN. JUST, UH, COUNCILMAN UM PASSIM.

MM HMM. OH, SKIP BARBERSHOP. COME BACK TO YOU.

OKAY. UM, PASS LIMIT COUNCILMAN PASSIM.

YES. COUNCILMAN HABERSHAM. I'D STATE.

I APOLOGIZE. I WAS A FEW MINUTES LATE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. CAN I LEAVE ANYONE OUT EXCEPT MYSELF? OKAY. I AM GOING TO VOTE NO DUE TO WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AND STAFF AND I DO BELIEVE IT'S THE SPOT ZONING. SO WE HAD TWO NO'S ONE ABSTENTION AND ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SIX. YES.

IS THAT CORRECT? MS. BROCK? A COUNT, RIGHT? OH. COUNCILMAN SOMERVILLE, I LEFT YOU OFF. SORRY. NO.

OKAY. SO WE HAD THREE NO'S. I APOLOGIZE.

THREE NO'S AND SIX YESES AND ONE ABSTENTION. IS THAT CLEAR? YES. YES. YOU GOT IT.

[00:35:02]

YOU GOT IT ALL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO THIS WILL GO FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. AND YOU HAD SAID THAT THERE WERE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IS THAT RIGHT? NO. YEAH, WE RECEIVED FOUR E-MAILS WAS IN OPPOSITION FROM SILVER LAKE RESIDENTS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ON THAT ONE, WE'LL GO FORWARD BOARDS

[9. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT FOR ROGER JADOWN TO DESIGN REVIE BOARD. 1st TERM - REGISTERED ARCHITECT EXPIRATION DATE 02/25]

AND COMMISSIONS NUMBER NINE ON THE AGENDA IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT FOR ROGER J DOWN IF I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY. AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY? ROB, THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HAS A RIGHT TO THIS. THIS REQUIRES I'M NOT SURE OF THE PRONUNCIATION MYSELF.

THIS REQUIRES A POSITION REQUIRES TO BE A REGISTERED ARCHITECT WOULD EXPIRE FEBRUARY OF 2025. DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER BOTH OF THESE TOGETHER AND SAID OK? ALL RIGHT. NO, LET'S VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.

TO HAVE A MOTION TO CONSIDER HIM TO FOR APPOINTMENT TO THAT POSITION.

SO MOST OF ALL SAY MADAM CHAIRMAN. >> OKAY.

WELL WE HAD A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DAWSON AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GLOVER WITHOUT OBJECTION THIS WILL GO FORWARD TO THE FULL COUNCIL HEARING NO OBJECTIONS.

[10. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR JOHN MAFFEI TO RURAL AND CRITICAL LANDS PRESERVATION BOARD. 1st TERM AS DISTRICT 10 REPRESENTATIVE (2nd TERM TOTAL) PREVIOUSLY VOLUNTEERED DISTRICT 7 SERVED PARTIAL TERM FROM 05/2020 TO 02/2021 EXPIRES ON 02/2]

THIS WILL GO FORWARD. NUMBER 10 IS CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR JOHN MURPHY TO THE RULING CRITICAL LANDS PRESERVATION BOARD. HE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY LIVING IN DISTRICT 7 AND WAS ON THE RULING CRITICAL LANDS PRESERVATION BOARD.

HE HAS SINCE MOVED AND WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE DISTRICT 10 REPRESENT.

WHICH IS COUNCILMAN MIKE ALLEN'S DISTRICT AND HE WOULD SERVE A PARTIAL.

HE SERVED A PARTIAL TERM IN DISTRICT 7 AND NOW HE WOULD BE FILLING OUT A FULL SECOND TERM IN DISTRICT 10. AND NOW IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING BUT HE MOVED AND NOW HE WOULD BE ON ON THERE FOR A FULL TERM EXPIRING TO FEBRUARY OF 2025. DOUG, YOUR EMOTION TO APPOINT HIM AS A DISTRICT REP. MADAM CHAIRMAN, WHOSE DISTRICT TO THIS? LARRY. I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. I'LL SECOND ADLER.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GLOVER. THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN MIKE ALLEN. VERY NO OBJECTIONS. HE WILL BECOME THE AFTER IT GOES TO FULL COUNCIL. THE DISTRICT 10 REPRESENTATIVE ON RURAL CRITICAL LANDS.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS COMING IN? THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE ONLINE.

SOMEONE BY THE NAME GREG AND THEN I SEE. KATE IS ON IS EITHER OF THEM

WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >> DO WE? OH I CAN GO AHEAD AND UM MEET THEMSELVES IF I'D LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS JUST ANY MORE BY EMAIL.

SO. >> OK. IS IT.

YOU SAID BRAGS THAT HEATHER BRAGGED PERHAPS. NO MAJOR GREG AND THEN KATE SCHAFFER. OK, KATE SCHAFFER, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?

NOTHING FOR ME. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW AND I APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION. AND THE BRAT AS A PERSON WHOSE LAST NAME IS BRAGGED WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS PLEASE. HEARING NONE. ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMITTEE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK THIS IS A REC

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Mar 01, 2021 Natural Resources Committee

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item