Alright, so I'll call to order the 28 May 2026 meeting of the new County planning commission to order.
And please join us in the pledge pretty pledge. High pledge Allegiance States.
Okay take the role, please?
Alright, do we have any disclosures of X partake communications from any of the commissioners?
Nope. Excellent. Are we good with the agenda? Do we need to make amendments? No changes to the agenda. Okay. Motion to accept. To accept today's agenda?
Okay, we have 1st and second all in favor? Bye bye. Bye. No opposed Alright, we're gonna have business from the floor. This is for any members of the public to address the commission on items that are not on the agendas.
So if you're here to speak to one of the items in the hearings, then hold your comments to those hearings, but if anybody's here for just general business from the core, please come forward. Okay.
Hearing nothing, we'll close that. So we're going to move to the public hearings. If you are here to speak during the public comment portion of these, I would like you to fill out one of the yellow speaker cards in the back of the room and give them to our court.
Courtney here.
So that we can call you when that time is open, ok? Mark, turn it over to you. Thank you. Good morning chair Parrot members of the commission. Mark Mitchlina Development Services department.
The slide should have changed. Okay, the item before you is a continued item. It's used permit 250002 for the towers communication facility. The project was last heard at the planning commission on 23 April 2026.
The planet commission, requested a continuance for staff to review a couple items that were brought up. One was the question about the original study on, NO hazard to flight determination. It was originally canceled. The applicant which was done by mistake, so the applicant reapplied for one.
And had a new one issued, which was in continued, which was included in your packet today, which was 7 May.
That regards to that. And so basically the other was con asking questions about how the FAA analyzed the the airstrip. As part of the analysis, they identified that what they look at is a public uset airport.
An airport that's or something that's related to Department of defense or something that has at least one instrumental approach use to the airstrip. Since they did not have any of that, they were saying that they would typically wouldn't analyze it under the normal way. But under the rules of the AFA, they have jurisdiction overall.
Airspace. And so in this particular case, the concern about safety, they don't have that concern. Again, they would have brought that up if it was a concern, so that's kind of what came out of our additional information being brought forward and just to recap, again, here's an aerial photo showing the location, so everybody's familiar with it again.
Just on the north side of Richfield Avenue, site plan goes up and there's an elevation, but just kind of give you familiar again with the tower itself. So basically, staff identified that the project cannot be looked at as a.
Denial for determination of health and safety for aerial navigation and bringing the project back for your discussion and decision. Alright, does the applicant have a presentation or wish to make comments?
So can you activate that microphone, just touch that button there and turn it green. Perfect. My name is Pat and Han I'm with the law firm at Bank. I'm not gonna go through the full presentation we've had. We've spent a lot of time presenting on this matter.
I'm certainly happy to answer any questions. I believe our position is kind of summarized to reiterated in the 20 May letter that I sent the commission which is part of this part of your staff report. We certainly agree with staff recommendations. I'm happy to answer any questions about the project. I'm here with Nick Photo Officer assurance development.
To help with the site application.
And the site search and we're certainly happy to answer any remaining questions that the commission may have about this matter. Okay, thank you. Any, any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Alright, I will now open up public comment.
Public comment is available for anybody to speak on this. The, the comment period is typically 5 min. This is an opportunity to provide comments, but this is not a Q and A you can ask rhetorical questions, but staff or the commission is not required to give you a response to any of your questions, so.
How many speakers do we have that important? I received one card. Why don't read the name and we'll call. Eileen Book? Good morning.
Good morning.
If you filled out a card we have all that I think that you just asked for my name is Eileen Book and I am the wife of one of the pilots that flies out in the Richville area taking off from Richville Airport.
No other comments on this matter?
Anything further from the applicant? I just want to point out we certainly understand the concerns that have been raised. I think these are incredibly skilled pilots.
And I think that the way the FAA regulations work, it trusts these pilots to know the the obstacles that are out there and to avoid these obstacles. I respectfully think that as your staff has re has reiterated.
The FAA determines safety and it conducts an aeronautical study of this site and to determined that a site the structure of this height is consistent with general aviation. Thank you. Alright, I will close public comment.
And open it up to the commission for discussion. So Mark, I guess my question is, is there was a slide where it shows different arrows going off from where the cell tower is that that's going toward the Chico airport and airport, is that correct?
From the FAA report, it shows a little small map just so this and it shows like a green arrow and a red arrow going off on the. Yeah on our packet that we have here for the Again, I I did look at the.
But it was how they analyze. Okay. And in that they show they're kind of showing the two two different arrows going there. There's nothing in my where I say where it goes towards this airport at all is the issue. To me, I don't know what county council says really the issue is, but.
I mean, part of our roll up here is to go ahead and see if there's any other conflicts with this stuff is kind of what I've been told over the years, so I mean there's there's some of these things that I don't know if if it's if they're not looking at, at this airport as a, as a deal and and what's taken off I mean.
Is the public comment said there's more, there's more takeoff as landings going off of this airport and runway right now than there are either Chico or Orbill kind of in this month. So I mean why we we wouldn't even have a discussion if this were next to the Chico or Orbil airport. Why are we having this discussion what's next to the Richmole airport?
Why why do they not look at, so I think there's two points. 1st of all, page two of the staff report I think summarizes the preemption issue pretty clearly, but the way I would.
Rephrase it is the federal government has completely preempted the area of air air navigation and air safety completely, and that's so that applies to states, counties, cities, all public entities.
The FAA does look at certain, certain aspects of these types of projects. E.g., they note in their determination, they look at the effect of a tower on frequencies and, those sorts of things. Those obviously don't apply to the Richmole airport.
The fact that the FAA doesn't, doesn't do any more than that is still preempted, and what I mean by that is that's a federal rule is based on their regulations to the extent that the county doesn't agree with that or the pilots don't think that's proper, that's an issue for either the FAA or changing.
And federal regulations. It's very similar to the issue that's come up here many times about emissions from cell towers and the health effects and federal law says that's also preempted the FCC sets the maximum standards for emissions. If a towers.
The Missions are underneath the FCC maximum, then there's nothing that can be done on a local level. It's an exact same analysis and I do think that, e.g., local pilots, there is an avenue to contact the FAA and say, we don't think he did a proper analysis, we don't think the regular.
Relations take into account.
These types of towers with respect to aerial applicators, but unfortunately it's not something the county can consider. And I that the hands your hands are I guess my question is I'll take it to one extreme. If this was put on the property just directly to the south of the, their strip.
They would have the same response right at the end of the runway. Well I don't know. I personally don't know the answer to that. Well, I think they look at it. They, they definitely looked at, you know, so the application was forwarded the FAA.
They do look at it, so it's not as though they didn't look at it. They do look at the, there was NO ment my my deal was is to have the staff make sure that they looked at this airstrip and there's nothing in their report that says they even looked at this airstrip. This airstrip's totally left off, they don't have NO indication of anything of this airstrip even being looked at, and that was part of my direction to county staff was to have them.
Make sure that this air strip was looked at. And I don't see anything in the report that makes mention of that. Unfortunately, commissioner Danati, the fact that we are preempted from this, to be very clear, it doesn't mean that.
We don't hear the value of your question that we are not able to step into that space as a local jurisdiction is what county council has.
Conveyed. We we can't answer the questions that you're asking basically on why the FAA is doing what what their approval process is or how they're doing it. It is a space that we as a county jurisdiction are completely pro.
Be empted from and have NO ability to do it. As county council indicated both to the, the public, the pilots yourself as a concerned citizen reaching out to the FAA and trying to.
Have influence in their process and their regulations is an avenue that is open. However, it's not something that can be done as part of this project's application unfortunately.
We we can't answer your questions about if they move it to a different location or anything else. At this time the project that is before the commission for consideration is the one that has been submitted and what we as staff are conveying to you is we are preemptive from the aeronautical.
Safety conversation.
By the federal government, so that's not part of our abilities to make a decision based on that. Will this go to the board of supervisors after used?
If it is appealed, on a use permit, your decision is the entitlement decision unless somebody appeals it to the board. The board will have the same ability or limitation, I should say on that ability of making a decision on aeronautical.
Safety. I think I think it's pretty evident that the commission has been offered a pretty sympathetic ear to the, the neighbors especially the areal applicator.
I I tend to lean towards the comment by the, by the applicant in that I think these pilots are skilled enough to avoid an obstacle. I I don't find that argument compelling. And my concern is for the role of the commission to.
Not put the county in a position of, of, you know, predictable litigation. Is there a prepared slide for a resolution? Unfortunately there is not another with regards to that. So the staff recommendation would be to approve the project or find the project.
Approved the project with the findings and conditions. I thought that was one of the slides. It was not on this on a prior one. All right, any additional, any additional comment?
From commission. There wasn't one though? Alright, I'd entertain a motion at this point easier to read it.
I'll do it. Thank you. I will move that we gonna start with the sorry Mark, we adopt the resolution, finding the certify the negative declaration. Certify the negative declaration.
And adopt the resolution. Adopt the resolution for the use permit. Do we have to put the permit number in there? That would be permit is UP 20 five-You said NO? Yeah, UP 25000.
Is that enough for the motion? I will second that. Okay. And all in favor. No. Okay. So the resolution pack one?
Alright, we will move on to the next item.
Good morning commissioners. Once again, my name's Alyssa Mondoza an assistant planner here with Beaute County Development Services. And what I have for you today is a county.
Ordinance.
This project comes before you as a mix of our work with interested property owners in the county, mobile food truck vendors who are currently operating in the county already are work with sister departments like environmental health and public works, as well as our research and communication with other jurisdictions who have also adopted mobile food portland.
Even right down the street here in Forkbell. In terms of form, this project comes before you as what's technically called a zoning code amendment to add that mobile food court land use section to the zoning ordinance. This project is exempt from Sequa and.
I think the recommended motion for you today is to adopt the resolution and make findings recommending approval of adding a mobile food court section up to the board.
Mobile food courts defined. What exactly are we talking about? What is it? What is it not? How would this play out? How does it work? What we're looking at today in terms of a mobile food court is a situation as we've had, come up already where private property owners are interested in having at least two.
Food trucks operate at the same time for over 1 h a day on any given day on their private property. What it's not is gonna be, the use of multiple food trucks during something like an outdoor festival or a special event or the use of a singular accessory food truck is that's already traditionally.
Under code is separate.
So what we're looking at here is the collection of mobile food trucks or cards or vendors on private property to provide a centralized location where folks can come to you and gather and cherry pick which food they want to eat that specific day. This draft ordinance as well as the administrative.
Permit guide which is included in your packet before you also takes into account certain things that we've looked at with public works and environmental health. So by definition, we're looking to only have mobile food vendors operating with their food safety permits which are already regulated by environmental health, so they have to meet that.
And mobile food courts would not be permissible by definition. Safety and like line of sight concern that we've seen from public works The recommended entitlement that we have here would be.
This type of process is recommended today as it enables staff to take a unique project specific look at each location that's being proposed to have a mobile food court and take into account overall development standards that are listed in the ordinance and.
Such as things regulating noise and trash, as well as to account for specific particular property aspects like its size as it relates to parking. And OneNote on parking, I did pass out to you guys before this started. If you wanna, I wanna say it's paid.
Item six we did have a minor clarification to the parking standards and to read that out, that would be that mobile four mobile food courts shall comply with current parking standards and requirements and shall have at least one parking space per mobile food vendor space that we're looking at.
Like any zoning code amendment, there are three required findings that the planning commission would need to make in order to get added land use up to the board. The 1st would be to ensure that there is vertical consistency with the general plan. Go to there.
Policy that you see on the screen identifies the economic use and value of private property be maintained, which the zoning ordinance is drafted to do. To ensure that it does not it's not a detriment to public interest, health safe.
To be your welfare of the county and in working with our sister departments, particularly environmental health and public works, this ordinance was drafted to maintain public health and welfare.
And additionally to the administrative permit process enables permits to be revoked if for some reason development standards that are listed in the packet are not met. Lastly, we're looking for horizontal consistency, which is gonna be this zoning ordinance that we're proposing to add in relation to other exist.
And here we're recommending mobile food courts as a land use in commercial and industrial zones specifically because these zones are already equipped to handle more intensified uses than what's being proposed. Once again this project is exempt from Sequa.
And here's just a list of some of the mobile food vendors in the county that we've been able to engage with in bringing this ordinance forward today.
On each of your desks today. So how do we treat mobile food vendors right now currently in the county? Right, so traditionally, you can have basically one mobile food.
Truck as like an accessory use to an existing say commercial shop or industrial warehouse. Mobile food vendors are specifically regulated through environmental health, food safety permit regulations and guidelines, and it breaks down into different categories depending on the type of truck and or if you're using like a handburt instead.
So the only thing I don't see where it addresses this and kind of different than most other areas, but has a few different people to come in and they set up shop kind of and they're only there for a couple days of the week and they go to other areas too. What do you.
In the application looks like you're setting up for the same food truck vendors being the same place. Do you, are these to accommodate? Is there any way to accommodate people that are rotating different spots and setting up different days of the week or is it multiple applications they need to fill out and get approved for or how do you.
How do you accommodate those situations? No, that's a great question. This permitting process is set up to help a private property owner who's looking to have X many spaces of their choosing within limitations and they would be ultimately picking the vendors and maybe setting up rotation agreements with those vendors, whereas the vendors themselves would still have to meet environment.
You know health requirements. Okay.
Because on the application I saw where it just said you had one vendor applying for everything so I didn't know if it was each vendor had to go ahead and get it or if it was a property owner that gets it or how it's being set up. Right, let me let me language real fast, but I want to say it's broken down to where we're looking at like operator who would likely be the private property owner or their agent who's mainly filling out and applying for.
And then the vendors could be food trucks or operators with the valid permits who are operating within it. But it's really just the private property owner or their agent who's applying for this. Okay. So in the the trucks that rotating and out don't know they don't have to meet the the fees, just two or more. Yeah, but it's not.
But it falls back on the owner not on the operator itself. Okay. That was just my clarification. I had a question. Are we talking like parking lots or what's what's It said it could not be in the public right away.
Explain what that means to me, please. Right, so we're only looking at having these as permitted within the private property owners. Okay. Not necessarily expanding into public right of way areas or areas owned by the county, which is something we've seen in other jurisdictions as well.
Okay we have one parking lot that you frequently has four or five of them that makes it difficult sometimes to drive through their park. So I just didn't know, but that's private property I guess they own that. So they would still have to do like this, two or more.
Right, and I'd like to add to that encroachment permit requirements from public works line of sight would still apply. In the comments that.
He did, the 300 set book and I had actually marked that myself. Yeah, some of these lots are only like well high school that's you know a hundred by a hundred or so.
And then there's usually one to maybe, you know, three hundred's a long way. Is that something that can be changed? He even mentioned compared it to the I thought he compared it to the egg setback.
Why did we have 300 ft? Do we have a, it was just a number we picked or? That's a great question commissioner. A couple of things I'd want to hit on. Mobile food courts as a land use is still a relatively newer concept. We've seen a few ordinances pop up, not a ton in terms of.
300 ft. Again, it's mainly to ensure that if we're gonna allow them to be permitted with an administrative permit process in any commercial or industrial zoned lot in the county, that there's still a catch for land use compatibility when it comes to looking at the area.
And another point that I would like to make is that that 300 buffer would only be applicable to the relevant property line. So if there's another property line that's not about it, they could still have the mobile food port on site just we would like to see it at least 300 ft from that shared property line.
And then limited operating hours because of it being adjacent to residential uses or zones. So if it's on a residential yeah so I'm sorry for clarity, just to jump in, this is only if there is a residential use adjacent to the property, and the 300 ft is something that the.
Mission does have discretion if you would like to change that to either greater or lesser.
That is a point of discussion that we would love to have with the commission. The conversation that we had, and Alyssa did a lot of research with other jurisdictions and talking about what problems they had with implementing their ordinances and things like that or any concerns that they're.
Communities had expressed after having these as a use in their community. And the only item that was noted was when it's next to residential because sometimes they will use generators and things like that, that the noise was something that was a concern.
Learn when it was a residential property immediately adjacent. And so by the 300 ft offset is an.
A way to address the noise impact that could be happening. Now, because these are administrative permits, the property owner who owns the property and is allowing someone to set up a food court type of situation, they would have the option of installing electric as part of their project and pro.
Improvements if they wanted to. And so that would be something that we could consider if there.
Lining up with electric and they're not going to be using generators which are noise producing, then is that impact to the residential still as impactful or not? So that could be a clause you want to add to this ordinance is saying if electric is provided in the food.
Trucks or carts would be attaching to electric then they could be closer to the property line, but it was really addressing the noise impacts that other communities had expressed as a concern. And I think the parking impacts too probably too from a.
Would be one of the things too with residential. But to be clear, if you're, if you're a property in the middle of a commercial district or a middle of an industrial district, that setback does not apply. Yeah, we have a school that's right in a residential, the corner lot right across the street.
Has been vacant for, well, it's never been built on. And traditionally there is usually a truck through truck in the field or I don't know, two, maybe, I don't know, but it's a residential in that lot, you know, it's just a residential lot.
Those I don't go over two trucks or one truck, they can have one truck, right? The res the the two two truck is two trucks is what triggers this, this amendment. The other thing just to note and to to keep in mind.
This was only for county jurisdiction, so unincorporated areas. So if something is in a community that's an incorporated area, their land use is what will apply not this and.
This, this is a space that's a little interesting because environmental health permits and regulations of food truck from aspect, and there is a representative here from public health to discuss any questions on any specifics in that space cause that's.
Or outside the planning lane. But the, that does crossover into anywhere in the county. There are some things that the county jurisdiction is within cities and, and not and land use. It's only unincorporated, but.
The food safety is countywide including the incorporated boundaries, so just point of clarification. So what I'm hearing is that the 300 ft is not an arbitrary number. It was researched due to a standard set over noise concerns which would.
Include other things besides generators. Yes, it is based on other experience in this space because it is a new new use that we're seeing pop up over the last couple years. So another question outside the box, is this something are trying to implement?
Rules on to you or are we gonna the 1st one to pioneer in this? City of Orabel actually already has a plan use section in place. We have a foodport county or the city on Feather river Bullovart.
But it's graveled and clean and bathrooms and they've got it where you can you can see where they come in and there's picnic tables and but it's more of in a commercial, well it is the commercial area, not in your houses. Okay.
I'll open a public comment on that. Oh I have one more question. There's something here about storage. The mobile food facility shall not be stored overnight, so does that mean they have to take the food trucks home everynight and bring them back or because I see like dunnel later, they pretty much stay set up there all the time when they're.
As a, as a mobile food truck area, so I'm just wondering Well NO, but it's a food court area, so I mean it's just kind of a, there's still mobile vehicles but they're they're a set of time. That's a great question. And the reason we included that is just to kind of reiterate that storage through this ordinance would not skirt any sort of environmental health department.
Requirement which requires mobile food trucks to return to a commastery each night. Okay. Good? Yeah. Excellent. Do you have speakers? Yeah I received one card from Michael Evans.
Good morning. One Tan Sharp Road in Orbill. I brought up the 300 ft rec requirement for the same reasons that y'all have just talked about. There are a lot of.
Commercial properties that can't support that. They're just not big enough. And what I've noticed and I had a request on Tuesday, from a property owner, commercial property owner, two small piece of property. He's out and he has.
Had one truck on his property originally not by permission that was rectified, and that gave him the idea that this odd shape piece, he could.
Install some pads, install electricity, change the fencing, provide security, and it would make a nice amenity. I've been to several in, in various places. We went to one in Oregon.
That was really 1st class and everybody got the food they want. We sat at a hundred foot long picnic table in the middle and it was it was a great thing. So that brought me in when he asked about, can I do this on my property? And we we said well I think it's a good idea.
Boom. Find out that there's a public hearing today. Oh, ok, well how how is this gonna affect us? I think by articulating whether or not a generator it's used could mitigate that.
300 ft. I, I totally appreciate the, the, the neighborhood not wanting to have the generators. That's why I think the food court concept could construct electricity without having to have generators.
Whether or not the owner, the proprietor of the court, the landowner, does install it or not, I think we could mitigate it if there was a little more language in.
The ordinance that said you're allowed to put it to be within the 300 ft if you don't have that noise issue going on. So maybe a little more work on this would, would, would be appropriate.
They're living there in a building, an RV, who knows?
But does that constitute a residential use, therefore, there's a 300 ft radius around that caretaker that property.
If I had a whiteboard I I draw it. I need you to I need you to visualize how it, is that what we mean when we say residential use? Which should, I think it should be like that says residential zoning.
Would be a more correct term to put in there. Yes sir. Okay, you can make comments, but this is Yeah, I understand. So, so this is an opportunity for you to make so my comment would be that.
If the owner owns the property and he has a residence on a commercial parcel already, does his own residence preclude him from having a food truck? That I didn't I don't think it's clear about that.
So I'd like to again have additional consideration for that. If we were to look at the zoning map and and identify all the commercial and, and industrial parcels, how many of them would the 300 ft.
Requirement, eliminate. We maybe down to very few large pieces in the county that could accommodate a food court. Are we helping those property owners or are we hurting all the rest of them?
Would be my rhetorical question. So I I would just appreciate if we would continue the discussion, have a little more consideration, perhaps hear from some property owners who want to consider this.
The property that I'm representing is at lower Windot and oral Banger. It's near a high school. There's a convenient store across the street.
There's a barbecue trailer in that convenience stores parking lot is a series of trailers that are barbecues? Is that a.
Food truck court, if three people had three different types of food and put it in their parking lot. So I I think there's a little more work to do here is my point. Thank you. Your times up. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Okay, anyone else here came in late that wants to speak on this matter? Okay, we'll close public comment and turn it over to commission for discussion. I, I would offer.
The the noise issue does go beyond generators in my opinion when you're gathering people in a environment like that. However I'm not I'm not opposed to a discussion of of mitigation as it relates to that.
I'm not gonna make a motion on it, but I guess noise and, and generators always have fumes. That's what I was thinking is that I don't wanna smell somebody's fumes in my living room or I can't enjoy my backyard because of that. That being said.
300 feets a long way and I'd like to I'd like to see it, if it has power and they don't use generators that would be definitely shortened so I guess the question is, do you want to make a proposal?
For amended amount or do you want to give it to staff to to come up with a better with a amended proposal based on that back? The the only other thing I'd say to you is I don't know if, if it would fit in there but.
One parking spot, I don't think is enough for just through with the residential 300 ft space for, I mean if the deal for taking those alleviations off there for the 300 ft I think if they have more parking spots what the what the correct number is, I don't know, but I mean depend on what they use, but.
Kind of a, if you have, I don't know if it's three or five or how many you need to have there to take those restrictions off of 300 ft setback too, but I just don't want to see people parking someone's neighborhood and the neighbor's getting upset about that too for this kind of little aspect I'm looking at.
So. But it's not residential. It's commercial and industrial areas but but if they're within so many feet of a residential area then that to reduce that setback, you should have more parking spots to reduce that.
Conflict. Yeah, definitely. But I think I think having less conflict or less, I mean less of a setback's a great thing in areas where you can but I think having more requirements for it to alleviate as much. In my opinion I think it should be.
Needs be thought through a little bit more, you know, if I owned a home in a neighborhood and there was commercial next to me, and there was a carnival atmosphere next to me, you know, that wasn't there when I bought the property and I've got dogs, maybe I dump that dog, but you know something did, they had to be pretty disruptive needs to be thought through and I think one part of the space is, is.
You know, is that a parking space on the private property on the industrial commercial spot? Because one parking spot that. And this is all just so.
Developers can make money off of their property, so, you know, there's a really supportive more than the community, but something I think it needs to be thought through, so I propose that gets thought a little bit more and be thinking about electricity and.
So, let's craft that into motion. So just some guidance on motion and for what the commission wants to do as you're crafting this, because you do not have final say on this ordinance, you have a couple.
Couple of options on how you, how to get the direction. You can either.
Give the direction for include the provisions that would allow for the reduction of the 300 ft with inclusion of electricity and perhaps a sound wall along the property line and include additional parking spaces.
Is.
For each food truck spot, as part of the motion to recommend approval to the board with those changes incorporated and then staff would draft those changes as it goes into the board's purview in the next meeting or if you want to see this.
Specific language yourselves, you can direct us to revise the ordinance and the information in your packet and bring it back again for consideration. There is not a timeline, this isn't an applicant driven project, so you could go either way with this.
And it's really up to y'all. Do you wanna see the specific language drafted or do you just wanna give the guidance and we'll incorporate that as we move it forward to the board decision? And just for some clarification, I think we're really talking about those.
Properties at the butt residential not not for the other other areas where, where there's NO relevance to the proximity to.
Too residential. Is that, is that what you're saying? I I think the former thing that that recommended, which is we can ask for those changes for the staff to present to.
To the board instead of bringing it back to us. I'd like to see it. So let me make a motion. Do you have a motion? We do. We should, yeah. How do, how do we come up with a one from staff, how do we come up with a one parking spot for location? I mean, and does that need to be paid or does that need to be a lot? I mean, what's, I mean, I mean, are there any standards we're put on the.
People to have a certain deal or just the gravel parking spots fine or dirt? I mean what's the what what's the intention of staff on this? Yeah, so the idea was mainly to keep it minimal parking standard. They can definitely go over more than just one space if they chose to.
But at minimum we are looking to see at least one space per vendor space that they're looking to add in this operation. Secondly there's already parking standards in place in terms of the types of surfacing that they can use, as well as standards like on the size of each stall that's incorporated in our parking ordinance sector.
Are they gonna conflict? I'd like to see it too. I'm just thinking of I've never seen a food truck with one vehicle in front of it. I always see multiple.
Maybe that's kind of my question are we making them at least one so if they can have more just minimum yes they need at least one, would this process go through a minor used permit if the neighborhood be at the.
No, the recommendation at this stage is for an administrative permit, which is a staff level review. I'd like to make a motion that we.
Send it back to staff to revise with the suggestions that we have made and to bring it back to us next month? I mean, how much time do we need?
Do we have to have a date? No, we can, you don't have to have a date. We'll take that, but if we could delineate exactly what the direction is to make sure that staff is clear on what that includes.
Yeah, you can either try or we can tell you what. Okay, well the 300 ft, you know, maybe we need to clarify that one. If it has power, it can be less than that.
Okay I'm done trying. Now what? What I'm what is the commissions it's the and this is your motion, but what was the direction on the parking? Do you want.
Do you see an increased number of parking spaces in.
Or were you comfortable with the minimum of one but they can provide more? Anybody? Would this permit require a site plan that delineated out parking the number of vendors? Yes, that's part of the administrative permit. They would have to present.
The layout of the property fully dimensioned as to how they plan to utilize it. Does the fire department involved involved? Absolutely. Okay. So I would like to add on to Tammy's comments about the any time it's encroaching on or getting near the 300 ft limit for residential.
Is that they start talking about noise and.
You know, those neighbors are not gonna be given the opportunity to complain about it before it happens, so we need to be prepared to help check their properties they were there 1st to me. Well, if we shorten that 300 though they put in power.
And now we only make it 50 from the property line. Well, whether or not there's power of still, you know, what I would call a carnival atmosphere, you know, people gathering and starts idling, part of moving in and out, hardly Davidson's, loud trucks, you know, all that noise stuff that happens.
You know, it was my house that would, yeah, I think this I would agree I think this issue of noise exceeds or goes beyond just the the power of generator issue. I I personally am fine with it as as proposed, but I'm not opposed to.
Considering some changes, so you wanna but what I'm hearing you say is you wanna make a motion to send back to staff to examine a mitigation on the setback to a reasonable amount if there is electrical installed.
And a further examination of heightened parking requirements when these are in residential areas. Yeah, I'm not worried about the parking. I I am just the setback, but the 300 ft. I mean if we could bring it down to say 200 ft.
I'm just thinking my whole house of the property isn't 200 ft wide, of course I don't have food truck on it, but I.
I think that's I think we'll just go with that. Have you revised or re look at again the set box? I think in my opinion, I agree with the commissioner you know 300 degree is fine for the residents, you know I don't.
There's NO. The back doesn't apply.
Yeah. Residential areas if I'm correct. It doesn't, it doesn't apply unless there is a residential use or it's zoned residential. And if you wanna further direct us to say only zoned residential.
We can do that as well. Yeah, I think I like that. The zone residential. I'm just trying to think of, you know, Jerry's market where they have it, you know, it's in a residential, but he's on a commercial lot so that kind of changes it and then again by the high school.
That is a residential area and I'm sure that's a residential lot. But it comes also down to more than one if you're having one. So the the other thing to interject for discussion purposes for the commission and consideration is that.
Properties that are are included in this proposal are zoned for commercial and industrial use. And this uses a less intense use than other permitted by right uses would be in those zones.
So that was the consideration that we had with the residential and why we added that in as a setback or a concern to make sure that that would be appropriate as a, a compatibility issue in the zoning district, but just as part of your consideration and thoughts.
This is in properties that much more intense uses.
By right could go in and locate on these properties. So if that's why it was only the the buttding ones that this was considered. I still think three hundred's too far. I'd like to come down to 200.
Up against the residential, that's where I'm at. Excuse me through the charge, just from understanding when you were saying reduce it down, that's what the generator used. So if somebody has power.
Source. They can plug in, not different standard that you would want because right now you would have a, in the commercial zone next to a residential zone, you have a I think it's a 5 ft side and a 10 ft rear setback for any any commercial use. That's on our standard zoning code.
Industrials a little bit different zones extra residential for an industrial use, which we wouldn't consider this an industrial use. The question is on generators, here's what you need and if you're on power, then you're whatever standard your zoning code could be.
Yeah, well again it's still like as she was saying the party atmosphere, you know, you're up against that residential. I just think the three hundred's too far. Now, I do like the idea of the electricity part, but I think it still should just be.
With power or without power, I think it needs to be three hundreds is too big in my view. That's just my opinion. So let's go back to I have NO idea what I motioned.
At this is you motion to give it back to staff to examine changing that with some form of mitigation initially regarding the electron. Now I'm hearing what I, what I believe I hear you say is that you.
Just want the reduction from 300 to a lower amount and I think you threw out the word 200. Yes. Okay, so, so is that that would be my motion And do you want it to come back to us or do you want it just to move to the board with that recommendation? They can go to the board.
I'm not worried about that. We have a second. Alright, all in favor? Close that passes three to one. Is that appropriate?
Okay, on to the last item. Yep. Good morning chair parent members commission Mark Mitchelina. This is a zoning cut amendment to our existing short term rental ordinance.
It is zoning code amendment ZCA 20 five-0005. Dash recommended motion will be defined that the project's exempt on the common sense exemption under Sequa and to adopt the resolution making findings and recommending the amendment of the county code chapter 24.
Article four division one section 20 4172, short term rentals to the board of supervisors. This is a county initiated zoning code amendment. This short term rental ordinance was originally adopted back in 2018.
And staff decided to look at it and see after we've had it for this amount of time, see what changes can be made to hopefully make it a little bit more favorable for short term rentals in response to public needs, changes we've had in economic practices and to ensure this ordinance is responsive to changes.
The short term rental is subject to an administrative permit. It's an annual permit, so again they would have to renew it every year. The short term rental basically has sections that talk about definition permit process, rental term, side requirements, standards.
And permit rec revocation requirements. Also basically there's two types of short term rentals as hosted and non hosted. Hosted as a basically a residents, the owner of the property is living on site when they're doing the short term rental, whether.
It's part of the primary residents or their accessory drawing unit, they would be on site during that time. And unhosted would be that obviously wouldn't be on site when the, when the home is being rented as an ERBO or short term rental sorry and but they would have a either.
They would be the manager, they'd have a manager available for anything that comes up. So that's currently under the requirements today. But also again the all residential zones in the county allow primary dwelling and accessory dwelling in it.
A currently the the rules are that if you have a primary and an ADU, one would have to be considered a hosted stay, so then in one of the two dwellings. And again I mentioned about annual.
Permit is required administrative permit is required. So basically we were looking at amending the code and as part of the zoning code, Assa mentioned in her zoning code amendment was there's three specific findings you have to make under the zoning code related to.
Showing code amendments, text amendments. The 1st is that it's it's consistent with the general plan in applicable community or specific plans. So in this case as she mentioned, general plan use policy 2.2 allows for economic and value of proper private property use.
And this is one way people are using it to make a little extra money for their for their own their property. Second that it would not be detrimental to public health, interests, safety or welfare. Currently the county operates has 40 permitted short term rentals, we're working to make sure all of them get permitted.
But we haven't had any issues with any of them operating in the county. So again, that's why we're looking at possibly looking to update we're updating it to make it a little more favorable. And the last that's applicable with other provisions of zoning code, it has certain requirements like parking standards, all that, so it is consistent with the requirements of under the.
Zoning code. As I mentioned, this project will be exempted on the common sense exemption. And as part of the process, as you're well remember, we did a planning commission workshop back in December for those who were on the planning commission that time. And we presented three different types of code amends, we're doing one with a short term rental.
And we had public turn up for that and had public comments that we actually helped incorporate into these changes. We also held several many community meetings, including the view county fair, chief of home and Garden Show, smaller community festivals at Orgal Sammon Festival, mcgelly music on the green and polamo community festivals. We didn'.
A lot of outreach to get people's feedback on, how they, how they view short term rentals and how the county could amend their code. And here's really four quick responses that came out of that survey, and one was when we talked about hosted or unhosted, should people be allowed to rent out homes they don't live in? Now, when I mean that is.
They're not there. They can like if they go travel, they can rent it out or it can be a property they own with a house on it and they can rent it out. And it was overwhelmingly 88 % said yeah there should be they shouldn't have to live on the property if they own two parcels and they want to rent out the one that they don't actually live in.
No problem with that. Should there be an onsite property manager? They're saying just over 81 %? No, they don't They shouldn't have to be one, but we're gonna require a manager to be listed on the app permit, so maybe a contact for anybody who's using the short term rental or if somebody wants to call and have a question or complaint, that information will be available to a manager.
Sure short term rentals won't short term rentals won't be on properties either are NO or fewer neighbors close by, almost 80 % said, No, they shouldn't be restricted to larger parcels, so that really wasn't an issue. And that should short term rentals be allowed on prop property on any size, and just under 69 % said yes, so it was very overwhelmingly not to restrict.
Right.
People, having short term rentals based off property sizes. So as part of the code amendments, the main things we really looked at was, the amendments we took out was they didn't have to be a primary residence for somebody to rent their house out. So if they you own two properties of the county, you live on one, own another one would be.
There the long term rental, you can do short term rental on it. That's not an issue. So that's what was strongly supported also by the the survey we did. Currently in the code, the only places that would allow you not to be your primary residents are placed kind of like vacation place like beaute meadows, lake madroone, those places that.
You wouldn't have to be your primary resident, so that was part of the code. As part of the proposed change to rest to remove that would be your primary residents. We're restrict, we're removing that whole section of that vacation rental areas kind of thing like those like my jone. That whole section is just coming out so you don't have to.
In those areas to rent out of property as a short term rental if it's not your primary residents. Also we have the standards if you couldn't meet those standards. We had a process of a minor use permit. By making these changes, we're removing that whole section so.
There's not gonna be anything you can't potentially meet under the short term rental minutes. We also had some restriction on waves and act land. It's determined that they would not impact ag operations. In fact, some people actually like to rent like that to be on a forum to see kind of how it's used, and some actually.
Allow the guests to, you know, see the farm and and all that operation. So we're, we're removing the restrictions on Williamson at contracted lands. We're modifying the wastewater and water section to make sure they're in compliance with all the health regulations for if you're on well enceptics, so they gotta make make sure they're being all those code re.
Requirements. So we we we've changed the language on a little bit on that. We've also removed the maximum night stays for, the unhosted for which was 90 days and the hosted a hundred and 80 days, we've just removed it cause again, we're not having any issues so we're not gonna restrict it to.
Only six months out of the year on that. And then we also did a, amendment to the table one, which identifies number of occupants and the number of parking spaces you need based off whether you're on septic or sewer well in public water. What we got at the.
Public learning commission meeting outreach, we had several people brought up the fact as well, there's a lot of houses that have a sleeper sofa. And we were basing off the number of bedrooms. So on the table we added they can have like one sleeper sofa, so then we could add two additional people into the into the revenue. So if it's two bedrooms typically unseptic.
It would be four people that would be allowed in it with it. Supersopia said you can have up to 6 s but they still have to be in compliance with all their wastewater making sure they're not overloading the system. So again, that's under the change to the wastewater system. So those were the main changes. Some other ones were just kind of clean up little language which was included in your packet with all the.
Actual edits. And so I'm just here for any questions you may have while I apologize, we did not receive any public comments as part of the packet that went out but we did have a lot of people very interested in the code amendment being changed who attended the workshops and also public outreach.
See for any questions you may have? Yeah, I think those are great changes. You guys did a good job. Are these gonna be consistent with the cities or do we know, like Orbill or do they have.
Are we, are we kind of all on the same or do they have different rules than we do? That, that is up to their jurisdictions. Okay, so we don't know. Yeah, they can change theirs at any moment, just like you can change. I didn't know if we were changing No, this was was primarily in response to our.
Our public outreach that we did and what the community was.
Just saying they wanted to see changes and also in talking and the stakeholder groups with short term rental owners currently and then just to analyzing our current projects that we have or the program as it's running and.
Were we getting complaints or, you know, it was, it was time to do the analysis and tweak it where needed. And So that's they're kind of getting a reward for that. Yeah. Any other questions of staff?
So then I think in the original deal there was a, there was a fee for every year kind of up at Are we still doing that or anything so everything's going so good? Is there something to make it easier every five years if there's not a complaint or do we have something like that in just to.
To make it easier, does that make it harder on the the fee is necessary because we do check in and we don't want to extend that beyond a year because this is where we're checking that the property manager is still the right.
Contact phone number, email, things like that. And then it's also tied to, how we are regulating it so that we make sure we're coordinating with the tax collector's office on TOT as well. So.
We would not recommend changing that from year to ok yeah and they do not transfer new one owner to another. A new owner have to come in and get their own at that point. So it doesn't run with the land, it runs with owner of the property that. Okay.
I thought that was a deal that was striked out out of here, but maybe I read that wrong. Okay, are we good to move to public comment? No I think so. Yeah. All right. I'll open up public comment.
I did not receive any cards. Okay, has anybody here want to address the commission on this issue? So I guess there's one I did read it under under administrative permit renewal process. Number two was struck out that says the short term rental has not been transferred to another.
Person entity or landowner that was struck out but oh yeah we just don't allow it and so ok I will close public comment and turn it over to commission for.
I guess I moved to adopt the resolution recommending the board of supervisors certify the project as exempt from the Sequa Act and adopt the proposed zoning code amendments as indicated in the staff report for short term rentals.
I'll second that. Alright, all in favor? Hi. All right, that one passes I'll address the appeal issue. So an appeal maybe filed within ten days following the date of any of these decisions, the appeal app.
Applications shall specifically state the participant.
Appeal of a decision maybe as to the whole decision or only part of the decision. If an appellant chooses an appeal maybe taken solely from any action or any finding action or condition, appeal shall be filed with the clerk of beautiful yeah.
Moving on to general business.
Anything from staff during this call? Just a quick update. Two of the projects that you had heard both of them were cell towers, have been appealed to the board of supervisors, and those appeal.
Hearings have been set for the 28 July.
Board of supervisor meeting. So just an update on and what where projects are in the process. Other than that, we are continuing to work on some of the county initiated projects. You saw that on this agenda. We have a couple more that are in the pipeline and staff is working on.
As time is allotted for those projects and we'll continue to bring them forward over the summer and into the fall is our anticipated timeline on those. We're not seeing much in the current planning application space at all. So.
If we are running into a month where we don't have something, we will be sending out cancellation notices for that meeting. Thank you. Any issues that commission wants to bring up? Concerns? So the only issue I had on this deal on the last topic.
It says we had zone coding changes, but it didn't say anything about short term rentals on our, on our zone on our zone on our, on the bulletin that you get posted on the door on the agenda sheet. I don't know if for sometimes like reading through the document, I understood what it was, but if you don't actually read through it, it didn't say anything about short term rentals, and to me something like that should have been listed on there for.
For future because everything else says what the issue is, but I mean that just unless you know the codes you have NO public has NO idea what it was. So that's just something maybe we could address a little better. Alright, anything else? Okay.
Any changes to last month's agenda? Okay I'm sorry minutes yes. All right motion to approve the minutes from 23 April 2026.
I'll make a motion to approve the April minutes. 1 s that I'm all in favor. All right, that passes. Alright, and that is it for today, so I will adjourn this meeting at 1014. Thank you.