[0:00] Call me county official for July 106

[0:07] to the flag of the United States of America and

[0:12] it stands nation

[0:17] with all

[0:23] previous meeting

[0:27] previous meeting that I sign the motions.

[0:32] » First motion 26-311 to approve the consent agenda.

[0:41] 26-312 to recess the open meeting and go into

[0:45] executive session to discuss RJA

[0:52] 26-313 Executive session to discuss the health

[0:55] department director applicants

[1:00] [snorts]

[1:02] 26-314 executive session to discuss health

[1:06] director health department director applications

[1:12] 26-315 executive session to discuss legal

[1:16] advice regarding projects

[1:22] and 26-316 executive session to discuss road

[1:26] bridge.

[1:48] » [snorts]

[1:51] » Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. >> Thank you, commissioners.

[1:57] » All right. Looks like we're going to start with the

[2:02] reason for everyone's here today. Um, we have zoning Mr. May Smith, Mr. Joshua

[2:08] Allen, presenting the planning and zoning recommendations.

[2:12] » Start us off. >> You get to start us off. What we'll do

[2:16] the day today. Good morning. >> Good morning, commissioners.

[2:23] Um to begin this, as you have in front of you, you have motions of

[2:27] recommendation u that have been presented by the

[2:31] planning zoning commission for Crawford County.

[2:35] Um to go through and explain these, we went

[2:40] through and voted article by article. The reason why we did article by article

[2:45] instead of voting it as a book as a book and hold is to allow the commissioners

[2:52] to decide if there are additions and corrections for each individual article

[2:58] that we wouldn't have to send the entire book back but only that article.

[3:03] And that way it will streamline the process and keep us on a better time

[3:08] limits that we need to be on. Um also included in these

[3:16] motions of recommendation there are also uh certain things that should be added

[3:22] index page represent or ref referencing applications

[3:28] a different different form style things that would have to be approved at a

[3:32] later date but the actual idea of them will be put into these motions of

[3:36] recommendation. The final approval of the form will be a policy.

[3:42] As you're coming through this, these motions of recommendations go by article

[3:46] on article in numerical order and it definitely excludes other types of

[3:52] articles that we chose to exclude altogether.

[3:56] The last part of these motions of recommendations is the final motion of

[4:02] recommendation on the issue of countywide zoning.

[4:08] Uh which would be to zone Crawford County by the full meets and bounds of

[4:14] all unincorporated areas of Crawford County, Kansas.

[4:18] And so today what we will do I will give you sort of a procedure is in front of

[4:24] you uh you have the zoning recommendations that we have passed at

[4:28] the planning zoning commission. There are a few um scrier errors and things

[4:33] like that that need to be changed as well as one or two additional amendments

[4:37] that might need to be brought back before the commission.

[4:41] Along with that there has been submitted public comment

[4:47] um specifically uh uh as uh submitted and in front of

[4:53] the commissioners you have uh public comment from a Russell Smith

[4:59] of Deer Creek and uh Timothy Kundinger

[5:05] of uh a business owner there in Pittsburgh, Kansas.

[5:10] Those are the two specific written public

[5:13] comments that we have today. During our uh approval meeting, there

[5:20] were participants within the uh crowd in the public audience as well. Uh we

[5:28] accepted questions and responses from them. Uh those have been considered as

[5:32] well into these recommendations. At this time, um, I will leave it up to

[5:38] you as the commissioners to determine what order you would like to take this.

[5:43] If you would like to go with the meats and bounds issue first or if you would

[5:47] like to go with the book and article by article amendments first,

[5:54] what do you recommend, Jim? >> We can go either way. Josh can go

[6:00] through article by article. It's kind of how it's presented. All right. Or we can

[6:04] start kind of wind up. It doesn't matter.

[6:07] Doesn't matter to me. All has to be addressed. So,

[6:12] » yes, >> let's just go article by article. Here

[6:14] we go. >> All right. Starting off with article

[6:18] one. This is our title and purpose page. Um, this is your basic statement of

[6:26] rules and how the um the affiliation is supposed to go. um basically outlines

[6:34] the scope. >> Is this anywhere on where I can put it

[6:38] on? >> It should be on the website.

[6:43] » That's okay. >> Sure.

[6:47] » You're fine.

[6:52] I'm going to make sure I keep hydrated here during the last meeting of

[6:58] your eye.

[7:06] » [clears throat]

[7:12] » Josh, it's fair to say definitions, all that stuff pretty standard. It's just

[7:17] nothing specific to Crawford County. It's just a pretty much generic

[7:22] » correct view of what each word or grouping words means. Correct.

[7:26] » Correct. There are specific definitions in there that are legal in uh size and

[7:32] scope. Uh mainly talking about manufactured homes versus mobile homes

[7:36] versus travel trailers and things such as that. Those give dimensional um

[7:41] definitions to be able to differentiate between the types. Um but um overall

[7:50] the definitions that are presented in article 2, which we'll get to in a

[7:54] second, um outside of a few um additions to those definitions that are

[8:02] included to be comprehensive throughout the entire uh

[8:08] the entire book.

[8:12] So going past the table of contents here, you'll start it on page four.

[8:20] This is article one. These were that's basically giving us

[8:25] our title. It's our zoning regulations. It gives the statutory uh inferences and

[8:31] allowances. It gives you the idea of how public zoning is supposed to go, what

[8:36] and how and why we zone. Um variety of zoning districts. It gives just a basic

[8:43] overlay of everything. The last thing here

[8:47] um is the jurisdictional part on page four

[8:54] or [clears throat] five on your sorry once again my working document is

[9:01] a little bit different. Um, but the jurisdictional statement at

[9:06] the bottom is the one thing that could change depending on later votes because

[9:13] this one proposes an approval. Um, and before we would approve article one, I

[9:21] would uh argue and and tell you that we would have to design that count or

[9:26] decide that countywide because the jurisdictional statement would then have

[9:31] to change [snorts] to specifically those things that are indicated in the current

[9:37] uh county zoning map. And we would go through and have to actually point out

[9:42] the meats and mouths for the sections that are included. and the sections that

[9:46] are not included. And it gets a little bit more of a complicated jurisdictional

[9:51] statement at that point. And so at this time, I'm not asking for an approval of

[9:55] article one, but mainly to table it until we decide the moment uh or the

[10:00] nature of countywide zoning.

[10:06] Article two is a rules and interpretations as well as definition

[10:09] section. This is a section that we've spent an exceptional amount of time. Uh

[10:15] the rules are general rules that we use for interpretation uh explaining things

[10:20] such as conjunctions, technical terms, non-technical terms, how we apply rules

[10:26] and different meanings as well as overlapping or contradictory meanings.

[10:31] Um these are pretty well standard throughout. We have a severability

[10:36] clause that goes in and says if one part is found to be nonapplicable or

[10:42] non-compliant that it doesn't mean that the entire book or the entire article is

[10:45] non-compliant. It is just that specific thing

[10:49] going through the definition sections there are certain things that are

[10:54] definition put in to be congruent throughout. So a land lot size for

[10:59] agricultural use. What you'll see in here is also in conjunction with the

[11:04] same land lot sizes that we put for the agricultural district.

[11:10] Same thing with residential things like that. But overall, the definitions

[11:15] themselves are all standard definitions that have been either used in our prior

[11:22] uh zoning rules that we currently have or have been approved through other

[11:27] planning and zoning to have their regular meetings at that time.

[11:34] specifically to go through a very specific highlight of this and what we

[11:39] have disguised or talked about at uh quite a bit is having the on page 18

[11:49] having definitions of their legal meanings for licensed providers and

[11:54] making sure that we point specifically to the statutes for those instead of

[11:58] giving them their own definitions here. lot coverage. Those are standard

[12:04] technical terms that are used in planning uh planning and zoning rules.

[12:10] What I really want to point out is definition on page 19 uh manufactured

[12:17] homes. This is always been a a issue within the county. uh reviewing uh some

[12:25] of the minutes that I had to go over from our last planning and zoning when

[12:30] you adopted this back in 2017. Manufactured homes, trailer homes, those

[12:36] things were an important thing at that point in time. And so we wanted to make

[12:40] sure that the definition clearly defined the the differences between what a

[12:47] manufactured home is, what a mobile home is, what a travel home is, and those

[12:51] things. We decided to go specifically with and as you see here in this

[12:56] definition the federal code under the HUD code which gives it its actual

[13:02] definition will give it its more design and it's by its federal and legal

[13:08] standards. Same thing that we talked about modular

[13:12] homes on page 20. We went with an international code term. While we do not

[13:20] have any or use any international code terms, for the purpose of this

[13:24] particular item, we adopted this international code term to allow us to

[13:30] give a clear definition for what a mobile or modular [clears throat] is

[13:34] going to be. Outside of that, the majority of all the

[13:39] rest of these are going to be uh specific to or just standard type or

[13:47] sorry standard uh definitions throughout the book. The last definition I will

[13:52] point to is that on page 23, the residential design manufactured home.

[14:00] Um, this has a dimensional requirement and a foundational requirement. And

[14:05] those things that we put in those are to specifically give us ideas of how

[14:12] they're going to differentiate from the other definitions within the code.

[14:17] Are there any questions or comments about article 2?

[14:20] » Yes. >> Okay. I figure there would be. Let's go.

[14:25] Uh, page eight accessory use. >> Okay. And I know on a zoning board and I

[14:30] know we have some zoning board members here. Appreciate their work and spent a

[14:33] lot of time on this, but I know one of the topics that May continually

[14:37] addresses is what uh what types of homes are are allowed and and what areas and

[14:44] accessory use talks about uh subordinate use on a on a uh on a

[14:50] main that's page page eight there, Lisa. um

[14:55] including like tennis courts, swimming pools, air conditioners, etc. to include

[15:01] uh the modular container home, uh a tiny home, and a mother-in-law

[15:06] suite. So, I just I just wanted to point that out that that would be allowed

[15:09] those will be allowed as an accessory use on a on a property as the way the

[15:13] definition sits. Um and that may be a little different than what we've used to

[15:18] what we used to have. So, I'm just pointing that out. Not

[15:20] » I'm happy to go over that specifically. So we went through and had this long

[15:25] conversation about the practicalities of what we are experiencing in the county

[15:30] today is that in giving specific consideration to bringing in an

[15:37] excessively large amount of land that has previously been unzone.

[15:41] » Yes. We wanted to be more inclusive of things that you would see out there,

[15:48] including some things that we have noticed throughout the county, including

[15:53] tiny homes. Uh as you noticed on 69 highway, there is a container home

[15:59] builder that would fall under this uh this type of building uh model. As well

[16:06] as things that we have noticed with mother-in-law sweeps or some type of

[16:11] living apartment or compartment above a garage that may not be attached to a

[16:16] building. That would be what we would consider a mother-in-law suite. or under

[16:21] your old code, any work garage, metal shop, or anything that had a restroom

[16:28] and a kitchen and it would have qualified for a an additional

[16:33] residential property that would not have been allowed under the new code. And the

[16:39] reason why we added this in is to be more inclusive of those properties that

[16:44] we would have seen in the full meets and bounds of the county, not just

[16:48] necessarily what's currently in the zoned area. What we are trying to do is

[16:54] the old book was fairly stringent and straightforward about disallowing very

[17:00] specific things. By allowing these things as accessory uses, it gives us

[17:06] also more maneuverability as our changing standards come that we can

[17:11] include different things as accessory uses as they appear. And so it wouldn't

[17:16] be a giant amendment or things that come into this, but it would be a simple

[17:22] change in front of the commissioners to allow certain things as an accessory

[17:26] use. By broadening our accessory use definition to allow these types of

[17:31] things, it just gives us a lot more flexibility.

[17:35] So I guess my question when you say um commissioners to allow is this something

[17:40] that would come before us >> as a use

[17:45] from a recommendation of the zoning board?

[17:47] » Correct. So right now this is the recommendation is that

[17:52] we allow these specific things modular container homes. The reason why we do

[17:56] this is that they meet HUD standings. They meet all our federal regulations.

[18:02] And if we're talking about a property value

[18:06] standard here, there are several container homes, tiny homes, that's

[18:11] overall property value is greater than

[18:17] a fairly decent portion of homes that are already existing that are stick

[18:21] build homes. Right now, the average property value for a 12,200 square ft

[18:29] stick built home when our housing inventory is approximately 70 years old

[18:38] is going to be around $49,500.

[18:43] When you have a container modular home that is going to be significantly have

[18:49] more value and actually by allowing these we're protecting more of the

[18:55] property value for those buildings than we are by disallowing it. And so also

[19:03] talking about our overall theme there's things that we have to consider public

[19:10] health safety and welfare. Welfare in this manner also means affordability of

[19:14] homes. And by allowing this and having a greater ability to have a greater

[19:19] inventory would benefit the public welfare of Crawford County. And we

[19:24] determined at that point in time that to use these as an accessory use would be

[19:29] beneficial for the county overall.

[19:34] you know, we uh are these uh container homes, are they going to have to be on

[19:39] two acres? >> If they're going to be on a residential

[19:43] property or at that point in time, they have to still meet the rule residential

[19:48] area qualifications and setbacks. They still have to have water hookups and

[19:53] everything that would be necessary. Right now, we're doing them as an

[19:57] accessory use, meaning that there's already going to be a residential

[20:01] property there. This is going to be an addition to it.

[20:07] So, so who's who's going to police this here? If someone puts a a small

[20:13] container, well, they have to go before the zoning board

[20:17] » there. Again, you know, I know where they have some in another county.

[20:22] They don't even have hooked up to the sewer system.

[20:25] » And unfortunately, here's the problem is that Crawford County currently doesn't

[20:30] have the resources to police it as it is. If there was a container home within

[20:35] the zone meets and bounds, we are a complaint driven county. We do not have

[20:42] a certified inspector or a certified compliance officer that is going to come

[20:48] in and actually inspect this. How we will handle this and how we would be

[20:54] notified of this is through the zoning process and a building permit. They

[20:58] would have to come in for a building permit and that building at that point

[21:02] in time per that building permit would have to meet the regulations as set

[21:07] forth here. Rules are for rules followers, not for

[21:12] rule breakers. There's always going to be rule breakers and there's always

[21:15] going to be compliance issues. If there is a time where we find a compliance

[21:19] issue, it goes before uh depending on what it is, if it's a nuisance issue or

[21:24] if it's an actual uh use here, it goes before the commission to handle as

[21:29] according to the rules. So in other words, uh if a person like say we split

[21:36] some of these uh properties up to 2 acres or 2 and 1/2 acres, person people

[21:43] build $200,000 house and then you go through the comm uh zoning people and

[21:50] they can come in there and put us one of storage containers.

[21:54] » Yep, they could with an additional building. I I I would

[21:59] see it the same way as if somebody built a

[22:05] million-doll home right out here on 47 highway, still in the zoned area, but

[22:12] they're professional. They may have an office here in town or

[22:16] an office in Pittsburgh, but me as a personal professional, I have an office

[22:21] at home. And I [clears throat] sure wish at times that my office was not in my

[22:26] home as opposed [laughter] to outside of my home because it's more professional,

[22:30] but it's secluded. It has different things. I propose building an office on

[22:36] our farmland in Panee County several times. But if I were to build an office

[22:41] that was just a shed, it'd be fine. But the second that I wanted to put a

[22:46] bathroom in there and some water, it would have to fall into these

[22:50] compliance. And if it wasn't listed as an accessory use already, then I could

[22:55] not do that. It's more about inclusion for what we are offering

[23:00] now with the changing landscape of things versus

[23:05] okay, we're going to disallow it as a whole.

[23:09] What we would rather have is compliance through notice. Come and get your

[23:13] building permit. Let us know it's here. That way it's properly taxed. That way

[23:18] it's properly assessed and appraised and that way we also are informed about

[23:24] what's going on in the county. >> Well, drive [clears throat] uh there's

[23:28] one spot that's in a zoned area. They got probably five or six of these

[23:34] storage buildings that people use for storage.

[23:38] People's living in them and we couldn't do nothing about it

[23:43] » in his own area. But and at this point in time, if there wasn't a complaint

[23:48] issued, I mean, >> there was a complaint issued.

[23:51] » So, but you know where we go with that?

[23:54] Zero. >> Sometimes I will tell you that the law

[23:58] is not always going to be on your side for every compliance issue. It's the

[24:04] what we do is we make rules for those who are going to follow the rules.

[24:07] There's always going to be issues with people.

[24:11] like this particular one. If we had had it back then, why can't we make it that

[24:16] they have to come in front of the zoning board in a zoned area to to do all this

[24:22] here? We couldn't touch it. So, is that in

[24:27] this book here showing that we can now if someone tried to pull this?

[24:31] » Yeah. Well, you would have certain abilities to go forth, send cease and

[24:37] desist letters. Do you have an ability to

[24:41] » uh I don't know how the process went the last time. I I will tell you

[24:45] » how the process go this time. >> Well, the process this time would be you

[24:48] have a complaint that's issued by a neighbor to the pl to the zoning

[24:53] administrator. The zoning administrator would then send them a cease and desist

[24:57] letter letter. Go out and inspect the pro or look at the property to make sure

[25:01] that the complaint is is valid. At that point in time, if it is a valid

[25:06] complaint, you have two different options. Option A is you turn it to your

[25:10] county counselor to seek uh further compliance issues. But the proper way is

[25:16] that May informs them this is the violation. This is your compliance.

[25:22] The goal is to get them into compliance, right?

[25:25] » And so if we say this is what you need to do to get compliance, if they don't

[25:29] comply with that, then you have two options. Option A, you go through the

[25:35] legal action. You remove the building as an entirety of issue. Whether or not

[25:42] your judge down upstairs is going to enforce that on equitable issues is

[25:47] entirely up to the facts surrounding the case itself or you do it through a tax

[25:53] abatement issue. But those are the types of things that

[25:57] you're going to have to deal with. That's just things that happen with

[26:00] planning and zoning al together. >> Okay. Okay.

[26:05] » Okay. Sorry if you want to jump in for a minute. I have a couple questions on

[26:10] this. >> What we talked about in our planning

[26:12] zoning meetings as far as these sheds are concerned. You told us we cannot

[26:16] limit how many sheds people put on their property.

[26:19] » A shed is a shed. >> A shed is a shed. So if you turn one

[26:21] shed into a residence, that's what you did. You made it a residence. Correct.

[26:26] And it has to have. >> So when we go back to the accessory part

[26:30] of this, when you said it would have to go to planning and zoning, it

[26:35] necessarily does not if they just have to get a building permit. Correct.

[26:38] » Correct. But the building permit has to be in compliance. If it's not in

[26:42] compliance, then it would be a conditional in compliance to what

[26:45] standards. I guess if we have no building codes or inspectors, what am I

[26:50] enforcing? >> What you're enforcing is the actual

[26:53] knowledge that it is there. number one. And if it's going to be an accessory use

[26:59] where there's going to be a residence that it's hooked up to sewer and water.

[27:03] » So that so they so we're being clear that as far as if I get a phone call

[27:08] from somebody that has this home and they want to put on a mother-in-law

[27:12] suite as long as it's hooked up a sewer and water and they get a building

[27:15] permit, they're okay. >> That's it does not go to planning and

[27:20] zoning. It does not go any further than me.

[27:22] » That's it. >> Okay. I just want that clear for

[27:24] everybody in the room. >> Okay. So, let's get this straight right

[27:28] now. I don't like it. So, what's the procedure we do? Mark it down and send

[27:33] it back to the zoning. >> That's it.

[27:36] » Okay. So, is there a number of these tiny little sheds that we can that they

[27:43] can put? >> We were told we were not if the way or

[27:46] else we would have, but we were told we cannot cover how many sheds. I can't

[27:50] call you up and tell you how many sheds you're allowed. So, I got six kids, I

[27:54] could put six and put one in each house. >> And from what this is understanding, if

[27:58] it's hooked up sewer and water and they get a building permit, if I followed all

[28:02] this correct, these are calls I take all the time.

[28:05] » Well, what whatever the number it is, I mean, I didn't get through all the book,

[28:09] but mark that down that I'm opposed to that. If we have to go, whatever the

[28:14] seizures going to be, I want that going. That would be a question for council.

[28:20] You understand? Jim, you was with me on this problem that I had.

[28:23] » Oh, I remember that. Can we discuss this now and vote on what we want to do?

[28:27] » This is just the old definition. We haven't got to the article.

[28:32] » The definition that Josh is telling

[28:40] right now.

[28:46] Well, I appreciate the conversation every

[28:50] conversation. So, it's good to have it. >> I'd rather get it out on the table now.

[28:56] » You know, Jim, you got you got another few. Yes.

[29:00] » Okay. Salvage. >> Yes.

[29:02] » Okay. Uh, you know, I have a lot of problems and with this,

[29:09] especially with the vehicles and the ones that one guy, uh, he he's got a

[29:17] bunch of these travel, not travel trailer, little storage trailers. They

[29:20] all all around. He's got half a dozen in his yard. He's got a S in his yard.

[29:24] » Uhhuh. >> And we've been telling, hey, put that

[29:28] behind. We're not being shown. on the county in his own area. So how do we

[29:36] contend to that? I mean right now we got one that brings vehicles in, strips

[29:41] them, 2 days later he pulls them out, takes them someplace else

[29:46] down. >> I would hope that he would be smart

[29:49] enough to go to KDH and get a license to be

[29:54] » don't have so. So salvage yardage is one of those specific things that's an

[29:59] allowed use in a specific area. If it's not an allowed use, then it's a

[30:04] conditional use permit and it goes through the conditional use process.

[30:08] That's before the planning and zoning commission itself.

[30:13] » Okay. Well, the ones I've been dealing with, they have five or six. Well,

[30:18] » and they would qualify under this definition after that third inoperable

[30:23] vehicle. So, you know, I lived in the country for

[30:29] quite a while my life and I I work on cars myself. I have project

[30:36] cars. They're going to be inoperable if I currently I have a 55 Ford frame

[30:42] that's sitting out there. That's an inoperable vehicle. And I guarantee that

[30:46] one day if I decide to put two more in there, uh, where my shop is located,

[30:51] they will definitely come down on me hard. You know, I don't mind farms.

[30:55] Everybody's got a hedge. >> Yeah.

[30:57] » You know, stuff they rub parts off and all that. But these people, they deliver

[31:03] it. I mean, they they love junk. And I'm talking about they stack it next to

[31:08] their house. >> So, but we've been fighting a couple of

[31:13] them. They'll clean it up a little bit. Then

[31:16] you got to go back. We have no one that completes this. How long do we get it

[31:20] from? >> And

[31:24] to be honest with you, Commissioner, the best answer that I can give you is

[31:28] actually a fiscal answer is that if you want greater compliance, then your

[31:34] answer is a certified building inspector and compliance officer.

[31:39] » Okay.

[31:49] agricultural use. >> Thank you.

[31:52] » And this may just be uh something that you were fixing, Josh. There was a

[31:56] couple blank >> Yeah.

[31:57] » lines there. And I just want everybody I just want to point it out cuz we're

[32:01] we're 3 acres for an act lot. So probably not less than 3 acres,

[32:06] which is which is different. I think that I think that's fine. But then I

[32:11] didn't know. Were there some other definitions that

[32:13] » there's the egg >> look like there's like BC and H were

[32:18] left out. >> We had some other things that we

[32:20] addressed specifically in the article that we decided not to put into the

[32:25] actual definition itself. >> Um and those were kind of there. There

[32:30] were certain things like green houses or heads rows corn mazes things like that.

[32:35] » Okay. Uh, couple more. Base 17. Uh, Junk, I was wondering if unless it's

[32:42] coming somewhere else that we've had an issue here if

[32:50] I thought maybe we should add tires to that.

[32:53] » Okay, good idea. >> I think that tires might have its own,

[32:58] but I think it ought to be in there anyway

[33:01] » with the junk itself. >> We're going to that. Yes, of course.

[33:05] Okay, tires isn't in here. So, let's add it

[33:09] here to junk. >> Appreciate that.

[33:14] » Tires.

[33:21] I think that was it for definitions.

[33:26] Okay. Now, uh Josh is this is two of the people that are having trouble

[33:35] They got all this stuff. So what would be the procedure

[33:40] at making them come into compliance? >> Well, junk itself would go under your

[33:45] nuisance code and it would go through your nuisance court.

[33:49] » Okay. Right. And we'll see later that's going to be

[33:53] an option even for enforcement, but we're not there yet. So

[33:58] » we have a nuisance code that is full meetats and bounds of the county itself

[34:02] at this point. Um, and that nuisance code is actually

[34:07] very encompassing and very broad to allow us to handle a lot of these issues

[34:11] that might come up under planning and zoning to use utilize that system that

[34:17] we've already been approved for.

[34:29] Any other comments or questions about definitions?

[34:33] everything. Good.

[34:41] » Okay, this time um we'll move on to article three

[34:50] get there.

[34:55] Article 3 is the explanation of our uh districts themselves. It starts on page

[35:01] 29. Thank you. Um, so our old book here

[35:09] has quite a few different types of districts.

[35:13] Um, and I've said lots of times that it'd be great for Overland Park or a

[35:21] city, not a rural county. Uh the problem with having too many

[35:27] districts is you have too many inconsistencies and contradictory terms

[35:32] that are coming into a place where 98% of the unzoneed area is going to be

[35:40] agriculture. And within the zone area, these three

[35:45] definitions would qualify 90

[35:50] 99% with outside of unincorporated

[35:55] uh zoning areas such as like Farlington, our towns, Brazleton, things like that

[36:01] which we would address in different manners. And so the specifics were to

[36:07] drop it down to three specific districts. an agricultural district, a

[36:13] rural residential district, and a general commercial district. Zoning

[36:17] maps, a zoning map has not been produced until we come once again to that

[36:22] jurisdictional matter about where the zoning is.

[36:26] The other part about putting a zoning map together would also be an approval

[36:30] part of the comprehensive plan. Uh specifically talking about

[36:36] approached and considered overlays that we would also add to a zoning map.

[36:44] Annexation uh this is just a basic uh annexation

[36:49] term rules for uncertainties. Um

[36:55] these are basic rules that we put down uh to go and basically how to read

[37:01] things variances and exceptions. Um there's a process for these and

[37:07] violations as well. Along with this is a flood plane management conditional use p

[37:13] standards permit application requirements.

[37:17] Um along with this we would add an index section that include forms and different

[37:23] things to use uh for our conditional use permits. That way we had a consistent

[37:29] onesize form that was compliant with the article itself.

[37:34] Questions and comments concerns about article 3.

[37:39] » Um the question I had >> Okay. um section 35

[37:44] item for a >> uh

[37:47] » when you are the the phrase was or land to be used

[37:52] except for the purpose permitted in the district. So I guess my clarification

[37:57] would be if we went with the general commercial

[38:02] zone >> Mhm. Is it only is general commercial

[38:08] only allowed in that zone >> without a variance? Yes.

[38:11] » Okay. >> Or a reszoning.

[38:14] » I mean the residential be the same thing. If I have residential area then

[38:18] it's considered residential but that's purposeless.

[38:22] » Yeah. So there's certain permitted uses. You have a nonconformity

[38:26] procedure, a variance procedure, conditional use. Those types of

[38:31] procedures are put in there. But this is all part of the orderly planning itself.

[38:36] Uh in school, we always use the the mantra, you don't want to put a strip

[38:42] club next to a school, right? And and that's the the governance here is that

[38:47] we want to make sure that our districts are separated. I'm not going to put a

[38:52] subdivision or a rural residential property intentionally within the

[38:58] minimum setback of a hog farm or something along that lines because

[39:05] you're going to see automatic issues that come out of that. Uh we have a you

[39:10] know Supreme Court cases that have been just devoted to just that those

[39:17] nuisances issues. And so part of the orderly planning and zoning is to allow

[39:23] what those permitted uses is are. And then if there's another issue, we have a

[39:28] conditional use permit variances and other mechanisms to look at individual

[39:33] cases as they come. >> Okay.

[39:37] » Okay. Say we annexation. You're talking about bordering a corporate city uh like

[39:45] Pittsburgh to the county. Oh, is this is this is this the annexation you're

[39:50] talking about? >> So, what would happen is this

[39:55] if a piece of land was annexed that is So, we [clears throat] currently own a

[40:01] piece of land. Uh it is within our zoned area. It is zoned as rural residential.

[40:09] If it were to be annexed into a city without it being reszoned for a

[40:16] different purpose, that zoning would still apply. What we're doing is is even

[40:23] if something is annexed into a city, we're trying to protect the citizens of

[40:27] Crawford County that were part of this zoning. And so whether or not they went

[40:34] into a city, this is the zoning that they're expected to have. These are the

[40:38] setbacks that they built on. These are the setbacks. These are the rules that

[40:42] they followed to have this regard >> through us to make sure that they don't

[40:49] come in annex something and then automatically try to say you're

[40:53] non-compliant. >> So we would govern

[40:57] an annexation

[41:01] owned it. We just still tell them what they could put there.

[41:05] » No, that's not what this means. What it means is when a city annexes a piece of

[41:11] property, >> okay,

[41:13] » that that zoning is there, that rules that that house was zoned under when

[41:19] they were annexed is what the city has to follow, not us specifically saying,

[41:24] okay, you can't do anything else with this. And what it's saying is that

[41:29] you're going to have to get this property owner's approval or this go

[41:33] through a zoning process if you're going to change anything that we've done here.

[41:37] It's to protect the citizen that is being annexed.

[41:43] » I don't uh we're not on the same page, but I'll try to explain myself. Okay. We

[41:48] had a the casino come in. >> Uh-huh.

[41:52] » Okay. Uh they didn't want to do a spot zoning.

[41:57] » Mhm. >> Okay. We give permission. So you're

[42:01] saying if we have this these rules in place, we would govern the city of

[42:07] Pittsburgh. Got it. >> No, we don't govern it. All we're saying

[42:12] is that once they annexed it, what they annexed it as is what zoning that we

[42:18] gave it. That's what we're trying to say here is that

[42:20] » that's what I'm trying to say. If it's in a rural area, I mean an agriculture

[42:25] area, Pittsburgh wants to annex it, then then then the people that live around

[42:32] there, they can say, "No, we don't want it."

[42:37] But still yet, it gets annexed into the city of Pittsburgh. I'm just using this

[42:41] for example. >> So, what I'm trying to tell you here is

[42:43] that we have no continual governance. That's what this is saying. What it's

[42:48] saying is that if you annex something in, you can't say that that citizen is

[42:53] non-compliant based upon your So if >> the city can't come in and annex a

[42:59] property that joins a city. >> Uhhuh.

[43:02] » With really kind of sole purpose that I want to take this, I want to change you

[43:05] and I want to make you conform to our rules because we don't like whatever's

[43:10] going on there. That's that's what the this is saying is that if a city is

[43:15] trying to annex something, we don't have continual authority, but that citizen is

[43:21] expected to have these zoning rules when they're annexed. And if there's

[43:25] something that happens further down the road, we don't have a dog in that fight,

[43:29] but we protected the citizens before they were annexed and while they were

[43:33] annexed. Carla said they annex 20 acres of your

[43:38] property and you've got cattle. The city annexes it and the city rules are you

[43:43] can only have one animal on a on a lot of property. But based on this

[43:49] regulation that that property is still protected as a county a use zoning even

[43:55] though it got moved into the city limits. They still have to keep it as

[43:58] county as they are. >> That's not for all time. We might go

[44:04] through a process to reszone that, but but that be pretty difficult.

[44:10] » That all it's saying is it keeps the same zoning. So if the casino is running

[44:14] out in the county as a casino and they have zoning as a commercial casino, the

[44:19] if the city annex is that zoning stays as a commercial casino and they can't

[44:25] tell them that it has to be residential or multifamily or or whatever. It just

[44:29] keeps the same It keeps the same zoning when it's brought into a city. Now,

[44:35] the time when this probably comes into play more is when there's annexations

[44:39] that are more confrontational. Most of the ones we've had lately are

[44:44] » voluntary >> voluntary zoning or voluntary annexation

[44:48] » where someone's requesting to be annexed. It's it's really when the city

[44:52] takes over a neighborhood maybe that that where some of the some of the

[44:56] people maybe wanted it but some didn't. But they can't change the the folks that

[45:02] did still get to maintain. A lot of times I think it's probably for egg use

[45:05] where they're still allowed to have their animals and they're still allowed

[45:08] to do possibly some things that wouldn't be allowed in the city.

[45:11] » So, but they're protected. >> The best example is an egg use. Um, the

[45:17] city I represent did an adjacent lot annexation because we needed to for

[45:22] water improvements and we had to have um an available area for wetland cells.

[45:31] Part of our agreement in that is to allow them because even that city does

[45:36] not allow boine within the city limits unless they are

[45:41] FFA or or some type of feeder calf or something along those lines. This was on

[45:47] a ranch on a uh thousand acre ranch. And so we annexed it, but understanding

[45:56] that there was going to be cows on that property and we didn't care because we

[46:00] needed to have that piece of property so we could buy it and then put a wetland

[46:04] cell on it. But that's the goal is that we couldn't annex it and say, "Oh, guess

[46:11] what? You don't have any cows anymore. put a fence here and keep your cows on

[46:16] that side of the fence. That's not what this is about.

[46:21] So, that's what we're talking about here is that we can't annex something and

[46:25] then say, "Guess what? You're now in the city. You have to follow these rules."

[46:30] No. These are the rules that I had. I have proper zoning here. You annexed me

[46:35] knowing these rules. It's the notice issue.

[46:39] I'll give you one more example which most of the cities is corporate they

[46:44] have they got development outside their city limits

[46:50] and we'll say they want to the city wants to annex it to get more revenue

[46:56] you know increase their population or what have you and it's already zoo uh

[47:01] zoomed probably would be residential just made it possible probably is.

[47:08] » Yeah. So, how would that change with these new rigs as far as we'll say

[47:16] Gard telling the people outside the city limits that you're going to do this,

[47:20] this, and this because now you're under Gerard's rules.

[47:24] » They can't. >> They can't. And that stays forever.

[47:28] » That stays until they go through a reszoning process. If you forcefully try

[47:32] to reszone somebody, it is a judicial mechanism that you either do it

[47:37] voluntary, but if you do it compulsory, then you require notice, you have public

[47:44] hearings and things that go along with it through your planning and zoning, and

[47:47] then you have an ability to appeal it to the district court on top of it. What we

[47:53] are telling this is that it is not an automatic thing is that you're going to

[47:57] have to go through hell and high water to change this.

[48:01] » Now if these people did not want to be annexed to draw we for example

[48:07] » Uhhuh. >> can they draw cannot take them? Well,

[48:11] that's an annexation rule that I can't answer on this one because what we're I

[48:17] I think the better example is this is we put in a subdivision under a county

[48:22] subdivision rule. >> Okay.

[48:24] » If that subdivision gets zoned or annexed into a city, they can't change

[48:30] our subdivision rules automatically to comply with whatever

[48:34] they want it to be. Our subdivision rules still are going to stand until

[48:39] they have to go through the full procedure. Give the people notice. Go

[48:43] through divided application. Go through those magic five things. Your five

[48:50] words, public health, safety, general welfare, those types of things, public

[48:54] policy, all those things have to be addressed before they can do anything to

[48:59] change one iota of that subdivision rule.

[49:04] So if the people that's trying to end it, they have to group together to fight

[49:10] like the city of Gerard in theory.

[49:16] You're you're >> I know

[49:19] at the doors now I I understand that. What this is just saying is what they're

[49:24] zoned at now is what they stay zoned at if they

[49:28] » Yeah. It's a good thing. It's not a bad thing.

[49:30] » It's not a bad thing. This is uh something to protect our citizens.

[49:35] » Okay. Sorry for the interruptions. >> You're fine.

[49:39] Any other questions, comments, concerns? >> No, I think I'm doing that one.

[49:45] » All right. Moving on to article 4 starting on page 33.

[49:52] This is the agricultural district. Now, I want to point this out uh at the very

[49:58] beginning of this title. is, and I'm going to read this for the

[50:04] record, nothing in these zoning regulations shall conflict with

[50:09] agricultural exemptions specifically stated in KSA 192921

[50:16] and 192908. Kansas is a right to farm state.

[50:23] We are not here to interfere with any agricultural

[50:27] operation.

[50:30] And I'll repeat that. We are not here to interfere with any

[50:37] legitimate agricultural operation.

[50:42] What this says is that to be an egg, this is what we expect you

[50:49] to be doing. Crop production, livestock, farmsteads, barn silos, roadside stands,

[50:54] home occupations, all these things we expect in here. We have conditional

[50:59] uses. All these conditional uses are agricultural purposes that are

[51:05] agriculture related but need additional safety, health and welfare things to

[51:11] work properly. And that is why we ask them to be conditional uses,

[51:16] things that have like commercial feed lots, farm equipment repair. All of

[51:20] these different places have additional zoning regulations because they have

[51:24] additional needs and safety requirements. If you're going to be

[51:27] dealing with a bunch of diesel fuel, we want to make sure that you have a proper

[51:31] fire procedure, if you're going to be dealing

[51:35] with a commercial feed lot, you're going to be dealing with KDHE anyway. We just

[51:40] need to make sure that you've got the proper setbacks, you've got water silos,

[51:45] you've got everything that you need because not only that is your

[51:50] significant feed lot operation is going to require water.

[51:56] And so your conditional use permit might talk about geography and topography and

[52:02] it might talk about whether or not water usage is accessible to that type of

[52:06] place. So those are the reasons why we ask for conditional use purposes.

[52:14] Now I I'm sure that there will be a question

[52:18] about number five under conditional use permits specifically

[52:24] the utility scale renewable energy projects when installed.

[52:30] This is a conditional use permit. We do it as a conditional use permit is not

[52:34] only do we have additional regulations within the the

[52:39] code itself to specifically deal with any additions onto unzoneed areas if it

[52:45] were to happen, but to also maintain and to give us some authority for the

[52:51] current projects that are already within the county.

[52:55] Any type of production of energy projects

[53:02] is broad enough to allow us to also have an ability to have a conditional use

[53:09] repermit process where there's a review where there's procedures and things that

[53:15] need to go through whether even if it's not wind and solar, if it's something

[53:20] new that we don't know exists, if it's something like somebody wants to do uh

[53:26] the new one I heard the other day was a modular nuclear reactor.

[53:34] This would give us the process still to say we're going to review this and judge

[53:41] it upon that public safety, health, and general welfare to determine if that is

[53:47] the proper thing that we want in Crawford County. And we have a process

[53:51] under our conditional use permits to judge that.

[53:56] By having a conditional use permit, it gives us the authority to not just have

[54:02] a basic standard of bare minimums, but also gives us the authority on an

[54:08] individual casebycase basis to determine what is more appropriate for that

[54:14] particular project, that particular piece of land.

[54:19] And that is why it is put in this specific section and where it is put

[54:24] today. Going further on, we have setbacks. Uh

[54:29] these are general agricultural and most setbacks from loads. The only thing that

[54:33] I have here that might be contentious is height limits.

[54:38] Um there are some silos that go higher than

[54:42] 35 ft. Um there's some grain bins that might go that high. Um that would be a

[54:48] conditional use permit and we would go through that process

[54:51] » and that's just something that would be reviewed that yeah

[54:54] » you know if it's a fit it's >> it's a fit it's a fit. So the the height

[54:57] because that's one question I had the height is

[55:03] but it said exempt agricultural. >> Yeah. Except for so we're really going

[55:09] on there's what I'm really thinking about when we put this in there is we

[55:14] have a high limit because there's FAA requirements and things such as that. We

[55:19] want to know if something that's going to go above those requirements what they

[55:22] are and if it's just going to be something

[55:26] that's already going to be permitted, we want to know about it so we can just say

[55:30] okay and then make sure the FAA is going to be informed to put it on a a plane.

[55:36] » I had no because I was having a hard time reading.

[55:38] » That's right. Because there's an and >> Josh the second sentence where it says

[55:44] » except building say 35 ft except for exempt a structures and she'll have no

[55:51] height limit. >> Yeah. So a silo figure that out. Okay.

[55:55] » Yeah. So a silo a grain bin that's going to exceed that 35 ft. It's an

[55:59] agricultural. We expect it to be there. >> The hope is is that you're going to give

[56:03] us a building permit that we know that it's there.

[56:06] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[56:07] » Okay. Good. non-conforming uses uh existing non-aggriculture uses that

[56:13] predate the zoning ordinance may continue but expansion or change of

[56:16] requires zoning video and approval. So anything that you've got out there now

[56:20] is going to stay out there. We're not changing a dang thing. If you're going

[56:25] to add on to it, get a building permit. That's what we're asking.

[56:31] We go to the next page in number 10 on page 34.

[56:40] Uh-huh. Municipal waste. >> What we talking about waste there?

[56:44] » Yeah, you're talking about wetland cells. Um,

[56:48] you're going to have water. It could include

[56:52] water um filtration systems, things like that.

[56:57] I'm not talking about uh waste from no wanted to run a a CND or a

[57:06] operation that uh you know has got contaminants in it.

[57:10] » You're still going to have a conditional use permit if they're going to try to do

[57:12] that. You have the opportunity to review it.

[57:17] » Could they fight us on that? Yeah, >> I fight you if I want to leave my lawn

[57:23] no more than 6 in, but it it doesn't mean that I'm going to win.

[57:30] » They understand that we don't want no hazardous materials.

[57:34] » But then you're going to get into a fight about what a hazardous material

[57:38] is. You're there's there's a lot more

[57:42] nuances. The goal is if we put it under

[57:45] conditional use permit, once again, it could be individualized. We can review

[57:50] it plan by plan, side by side. Carl, anybody can buy anything.

[57:55] » Yeah. No, but what I'm saying is the county or the people can't fight big

[58:02] corporates. So, what do you do then? If you have it,

[58:07] if you have it. Yeah. I mean >> if you deny a conditional

[58:10] » in other words I I feel southeast Kansas is nothing but a double ground everybody

[58:15] don't want nothing that comes to Crawford County period and I don't think

[58:19] it's right cuz we don't have the the power or the money to fight stuff this

[58:25] is the same they would have to get a conditional use permit if they wanted to

[58:29] do that activity they have to get our approval so they don't they

[58:36] I I don't know what I really want I just don't want it where anyone can dump

[58:41] here. >> But not anyone can dump. It's only

[58:44] approved people. >> Approved people that they turn around

[58:47] and invite you and fight you and fight you. Well, you don't have to land.

[58:51] » If I put a a complete If I put a complete uh statement that

[58:58] says this shall not be allowed, what happens if Pittsburgh comes in and says

[59:03] KDH says we need to have a new wetland cell? But it

[59:07] » uh nope. We don't allow it. Period. >> Well, we we can't control what does in

[59:14] our area. >> We can't in our area.

[59:16] » Yes, but you said >> Well, but what I'm telling

[59:19] » what I'm saying is that >> what what I'm saying is that they may

[59:25] not want to annex, buy a land, or where they have it have a contiguous issue.

[59:31] What we're saying is that they have to come to you to have approval no matter

[59:35] what. But if I outlaw it out outright, there might be an unincorporated area

[59:41] that has municipal services that we need to do. But that would also include

[59:45] things like rural water if they needed to have a wetland cell for disposing. If

[59:52] Chikapi needed something specifically, they're within our pure view. But if we

[59:58] outlaw it outright, then they don't get the services.

[1:00:02] Period. Because there's no way for us to change a blatant outlaw without coming

[1:00:08] back here and rechanging this and going through the amendment process. That's

[1:00:14] hinders our citizens abilities to get the services that they need.

[1:00:20] » Well, for an example, I'll tell you one that I was involved in was the Sandy

[1:00:25] landfill. We took it all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court.

[1:00:32] They got it. So, we spent not hundreds of dollars,

[1:00:36] quite a bit of money. There was five of us involved here. [clears throat]

[1:00:40] But what I'm saying, you really don't you don't you own the land, but if

[1:00:45] corporate wants to come in here and do something,

[1:00:49] you know, they can do what they want to do if it's next as long as it's not your

[1:00:52] land. If it's next door to your land, then what do you do? I can't control

[1:00:57] everything, but I'm telling you that if we put in here,

[1:01:01] » what I'm telling you, this is what we put in there is a conditional use

[1:01:04] permit. So, we can accept or deny it. But if we outright deny it, then that

[1:01:09] also prohibits our citizens from getting services. And we can't do that either

[1:01:14] because that's contrary to what we're supposed to be doing, which is the

[1:01:19] public health, safety, and welfare. There might be a time where that big

[1:01:25] corporate comes in and determines that this needs to be there. And if it's

[1:01:30] under the public safety and health and welfare and they can prove that, there's

[1:01:35] not a dang thing I'm going to do to stop it because those rules, those governing

[1:01:40] principles are the foundation of your job as commissioners is to protect the

[1:01:46] public safety, health, and welfare. And if we don't like the way that something

[1:01:50] looks or smells or sounds, but it's for that purpose, we're going to have a darn

[1:01:56] hard fight no matter what rules I put down in a book.

[1:02:01] Okay.

[1:02:10] Aquarium mining. This is another big issue. Uh this is a specific section.

[1:02:15] When we talk about our process, this still is a conditional use permit. What

[1:02:19] this is is a minimum standard. Minimum standard. It's always going to be

[1:02:25] specific to the property, places, the people around it. This is on page 35 and

[1:02:31] 36. >> How does this compare to what we have?

[1:02:35] Do you also know the old ranks on this? >> Um, it's a little bit uh more

[1:02:42] streamlined than our previous one. Our previous one had a lot of things that

[1:02:48] necessarily might happen. Um I actually So every time I come to a work session,

[1:02:55] I decide that I pick five different sections of the county that I'm going to

[1:03:00] go through and explore and figure out if there's actual needs or things or how

[1:03:05] that works. Three of your mine are your mining and quarry sites are actually on

[1:03:10] county roads that are paved and some are accessible through only gravel roads.

[1:03:16] Some of our regulations kind of uh don't incorporate anything about gravel roads

[1:03:23] and gravel usage. What this does is gives us a bare minimum but still puts

[1:03:28] us in that conditional use theory that we can go through and approve sight by

[1:03:33] sight, project by project. Just like anything, if this something

[1:03:40] comes down that we have to change this to address a certain activity that we

[1:03:44] can't >> there's an art there's an article for

[1:03:46] amendments in here. >> Perfect.

[1:03:49] » Any other comments, questions? >> Yeah, I've got a comment on 35.

[1:03:53] » Okay. >> Hall road maintenance.

[1:03:55] » Uhhuh. Uh here we go again. We designated a hall road or hall route.

[1:04:01] Mhm. we can't get it enforced.

[1:04:05] » So, what language do we need in there that we can enforce it?

[1:04:09] » That's a criminal code. I don't have a dog fight criminal code.

[1:04:13] But if you designate a a whole route that requires a common carrier or a

[1:04:18] tractor trailer to go down that road and a highway patrolman, county sheriff sees

[1:04:23] them, that is a traffic citation. That citation goes to criminal court and is

[1:04:28] handled right then and there. sheriff's department. But still yet,

[1:04:32] we get the complaints that are now running the hall road or the hall route,

[1:04:39] you know, that the sheriff or the highway patrol did. So,

[1:04:44] what we got riding there with don't mean squat.

[1:04:48] » This isn't it does not enforce. No,

[1:04:51] » but what I'm telling you here is this gives us the ability to designate it.

[1:04:55] This this isn't about enforcement. This is about designation based upon quarry

[1:05:00] and mining saying that if you're going to haul quarry rock from point A to

[1:05:05] point B, this is the how hall route that you have to use. We as county

[1:05:10] commissioners make rules. We are not the enforcement wing of the government. In

[1:05:16] this particular instance, this is the judicial branch. It would be to

[1:05:20] interpret the rule of the law. the county sheriff would come in under their

[1:05:25] oath and enforce the law as it is written. This gives us the ability under

[1:05:30] our planning and zoning rules to designate that route. When we give

[1:05:34] notice of that route and publish it as part of this,

[1:05:38] then they have the authority to stop that tractor trailer.

[1:05:42] This isn't this rule here isn't about operations, it's about designation.

[1:05:49] that gives us the authority to designate, not necessarily how to

[1:05:52] enforce because that's not in our purview.

[1:05:57] » I'm a planning and zoner. I >> I understand the county attorney. It

[1:06:01] » just seems like the only ones that I brought up that seems like the county

[1:06:06] could have more little bit. So just general because like I say the thing is

[1:06:12] Carl is we could have all the body in the world but if it's not getting

[1:06:17] enforced there you go then >> why you have it

[1:06:20] » well because we have it our sheriff's department would enforce it and that's

[1:06:27] where that problem lies if there is a problem.

[1:06:34] » Am I wrong? Oh, that's it. Is that we have the ability to designate, we make

[1:06:39] the rule, it's up to the sheriff to enforce it in that one because it's a

[1:06:43] public safety road and things such as that. Other enforcement issues, like I

[1:06:47] said, it's more of a fiscal issue. If you want more enforcement, certified

[1:06:52] inspector and and compliance officer. So,

[1:06:57] » there you go again. That's just more staff we have to put on.

[1:07:02] » Well, compliance requires staff. I mean, I don't see this as a bite. I

[1:07:06] see this as foreseeing the issues we want to have, trying to address the

[1:07:09] issue before it's an issue, and then having steps to make sure that we can

[1:07:14] keep our race safe and and try to and you're going to have issues. I mean, we

[1:07:20] all know that, but I >> I don't have a problem.

[1:07:25] » I have this common talk on a regular basis. I I love talking about truckers

[1:07:30] and over the road truckers versus regional route truckers versus local

[1:07:34] route truckers. So regional route trucker doesn't have to abide by the 11

[1:07:38] hour rule. They can drive for 20 hours straight if they felt like it because it

[1:07:43] only applies to over the road truckers. And so if they're an over the road

[1:07:48] trucker, they have to abide by that 11-hour rule. Regional truckers do not.

[1:07:54] And so how we interpret the rules is the important part. We designated the hall

[1:08:02] route. It's up to how we're going to enforce it through what policies we put

[1:08:10] in with the county sheriff on these roads

[1:08:13] with if we decide fiscally that it's we want more compliance. It's like

[1:08:19] everything else. If you feel like you have a part-time financial officer for

[1:08:25] the county, but you need some more economic development, you're going to

[1:08:28] have to hire somebody to do economic development. If you feel like the

[1:08:32] compliance in this is lacking, you have to as a fiscal manager

[1:08:38] find a way to do it. Either reassign somebody to have that job or hire

[1:08:45] somebody who knows what they're doing.

[1:08:49] Any other questions and comments on article four?

[1:08:54] Okay, moving on to article five. This is the

[1:08:58] rule residential district. So the permitted are obviously those

[1:09:03] that are residential in nature. Uh we talk about home occupations

[1:09:07] specifically. Uh agriculture uses confined

[1:09:13] animal feeding and we're talking about feed lots and things such as that. We

[1:09:17] have our conditional uses. Basically, most of these uses in here,

[1:09:22] most of the time you're not going to have a problem with, but we like to have

[1:09:25] notice that they're coming in. New churches, private public schools, bed

[1:09:29] and breakfastes, greenhouse, plant nurseries, things such

[1:09:33] as that. We want to make sure that they have the proper parking lot

[1:09:37] measurements, and everything else that goes into it. These are our general bulk

[1:09:42] regulations for setbacks. The one I will point to specifically on

[1:09:47] page 38 here is the maximum lot coverage. Given the rule residential

[1:09:54] uh nature of this, the rule part still stands out. And the only thing that

[1:09:58] might prohibit the amount of sheds that you have on your property is how much

[1:10:03] lot coverage it has. Um these are our rules is that you can have no more than

[1:10:09] 50% of your property in coverage. And so you can't go and get a 2 acre

[1:10:16] track and I just fill it up with a bunch of modular homes. That becomes a

[1:10:22] subdivision issue. We have subdivision rules for a reason. And so those are the

[1:10:27] types of things that we handle there. Additional regulations, we talk about

[1:10:34] driveway access, uh waste disposal, water supply, those

[1:10:39] things are essential here. Outside of that, residential is always going to be

[1:10:43] the most straightforward place here. We have our general setbacks. You need to

[1:10:47] have water. You have to have those issues. I'm just popping in here again,

[1:10:51] but this is one for me on 52. Number two, the accessory buildings and

[1:10:56] structures. Just again, I just want to make this clear that they somebody wants

[1:11:00] to put in an additional structure, as long as it's hooked up to water and

[1:11:03] sewage on the property, it is permitted by right. So we can have people living

[1:11:08] in little houses off the big houses >> in this based upon our definitions.

[1:11:14] That's correct what it says. >> Okay.

[1:11:16] » Uh unless definitions are requested it be amended. That's what it would be

[1:11:20] said. >> Questions about article five.

[1:11:25] » So in terms of because I know we talked a little bit about it but the

[1:11:31] the tiny houses and such. >> Yeah.

[1:11:36] They are allowed only as an accessory building, not as a primary building.

[1:11:41] » Correct. >> Under this code,

[1:11:43] » they would have to be an accessory building, not the primary. So, you can't

[1:11:46] go out and get a a lot under this code and put a tiny home on it specifically.

[1:11:55] If it had a residential building as defined in here,

[1:12:00] then it would be allowed. >> Okay. So I guess my next question would

[1:12:04] be that single family detached dwellings without any codes or inspectors and

[1:12:09] knowing people live in tiny houses and container houses. So I can So that's not

[1:12:14] allowed for that to be their main house. >> Correct.

[1:12:17] » So where do they live? I guess is my this is where we're residential district

[1:12:22] but we don't have codes or inspectors but I can't tell them what they can't

[1:12:26] you know that just doesn't make sense. Once again, it's a compliance issue. If

[1:12:30] you're going to we we can talk about the compliance issues,

[1:12:35] a single family. We have a definition for it. We have a separate definition

[1:12:41] for modular homes and container homes. And we have a separate definition for

[1:12:45] accessory use. Specifically,

[1:12:50] that definition for single family homes. We want to go back to

[1:12:55] this article 2.

[1:13:08] » All right.

[1:13:12] » So, we don't have a single family detached dwelling definition.

[1:13:17] » So, if that's the case, we would if you want to Well, I just know I've had

[1:13:23] somebody call me recently and they are they got a building permit for a tiny

[1:13:28] house while they built their new house. So now they can't do this. If somebody

[1:13:34] calls me, they're not allowed to do that now. And we've increased our coverage by

[1:13:38] 70 some%. So >> we haven't

[1:13:42] » we have at this point if you want something along those lines and be more

[1:13:47] specific, but you're also by creating a new definition for it, you're also

[1:13:52] limiting one way or another. >> Well, we are limiting one way or

[1:13:55] another. It sounds like >> Josh, do you see this is just

[1:14:02] thinking outside the box a little bit? >> Mhm. Um cuz I I understand as far as

[1:14:09] rural residential that the likeness of a neighborhood when you have a

[1:14:13] neighborhood that typically the house next to it

[1:14:17] » maybe doesn't even be exactly the same but similar structure and that's where

[1:14:20] maybe a tiny house doesn't fit. >> Yeah. Um, but when we're talking about

[1:14:26] more the rural area, you know, when you have a a primary

[1:14:32] house that let's say mold, for example, and there's no one around,

[1:14:38] does a tiny house really hurt anyone? I mean, I'm just thinking for the the

[1:14:42] questions I want to have to ask because it it may be it may be enough for one

[1:14:46] person or for a personal for a person that in that area [clears throat] that

[1:14:51] doesn't belong next to a half million dollar house. I get that as well. I'm

[1:14:55] just throwing a question out there. >> Here's here here's my statement about

[1:14:59] it. Our housing inventory and our housing changes as a society overall are

[1:15:06] changing. The idea of tiny homes would have never

[1:15:11] been considered beyond what we used to call the cracker jack houses back in the

[1:15:15] 50s. >> Right?

[1:15:18] » Nobody would have considered it now. The idea that we are off-rid or all

[1:15:26] these different things have changed how we look at housing in entirety

[1:15:32] and the availability of materials and those types of things. Reuse, repurpose

[1:15:38] All these things have changed what we normally do.

[1:15:42] The accessory building use allowance was specifically for things that we could

[1:15:48] foresee. But if somebody wanted to put a tiny home onto a piece of property, say

[1:15:53] a single bachelor farmer, that you know, I've got this land. Um I used to have a

[1:16:01] t a house in town. My wife died. I sold my house. My kids aren't coming back for

[1:16:07] any reason. I'm going to put this container house that I bought down on 69

[1:16:12] Highway right here on my ground. I've got a little pasture. I've got a shop

[1:16:16] that's got a shower and a tub and bathroom in there. I put a little hot

[1:16:20] plate in there and I'm perfectly content.

[1:16:25] My question in our type of world is how much authority do we have to tell him

[1:16:32] that he can't live like that? >> That's my question. That's my question

[1:16:35] too because you basically said that we're not going to let them look like

[1:16:39] that. >> But the the basis for that is also on

[1:16:43] the previous conversations and what's in our previous code.

[1:16:48] That conversation is a theoretical and and philosophical argument that I hope

[1:16:54] we have here. Cuz at this point in time, you would be telling me that anything

[1:17:01] that is designed for the sole purpose [clears throat and cough] of residential

[1:17:05] living is a permitted as a single family detached dwelling.

[1:17:10] » Should we get those inspectors? I mean, that's just the whole thing. It

[1:17:15] goes back to that in my world and you tell people that oh this is just

[1:17:20] theoretical but don't build please. I mean

[1:17:24] » I I mean I'm just curious how this I mean this is the time to address this

[1:17:30] obviously. >> Yeah.

[1:17:31] » Um because I do see a niche where those are not only adequate but I mean pretty

[1:17:39] cool. I wish I had 15 acres of my walnut and had a tiny house on it and I would I

[1:17:44] would would live there probably, but I would stay there.

[1:17:47] » I have a hunting ground. We have a tin. >> For me, that's kind of a they do have

[1:17:53] their niche now. I get the neighbor that doesn't want to have one right next

[1:17:57] door, right across the street in a in a nice neighborhood. I understand that as

[1:18:01] well. So, how do we address that? That's

[1:18:06] right. I'm going to say how we address this.

[1:18:14] » That would have been my next suggestion. The actual what I would say is we

[1:18:19] changed the definition for the accessory use. And if you want to allow modular

[1:18:24] tiny homes, you add them as a conditional use. And that way you have

[1:18:27] the ability to designate them and determine their uh

[1:18:32] » fit >> their fit on a case by case basis.

[1:18:36] That's what it works. Well, my uh opinion about that is if you

[1:18:43] let one, you're going to have another one and you're going to have another one

[1:18:47] and you're going to have another one cuz they say you went so and so put one in

[1:18:51] and this person here owns ground next to $200 or $300,000 house. He's the person

[1:18:58] owns the ground. How you how you going to stop him? [cough]

[1:19:04] Here's my direct statement. I >> I really I I mean, you know the area,

[1:19:10] but I don't think I You just don't know how people operate here. I'm sorry.

[1:19:15] » And that's true. I haven't lived here in 20 years.

[1:19:18] » But you know the area in general. >> Yeah. And here's what I would tell you.

[1:19:22] I live in community just like this cuz guess what?

[1:19:27] Andover has some of the most expensive houses in Sedwick County.

[1:19:32] They took their subdivision for the most expensive houses and they split it off

[1:19:38] from the city as a whole, completely

[1:19:43] created a outside world by adding screening by the tune of 30 foot pines

[1:19:51] and then put gated community doors at it. So if you want to live in the $5

[1:19:56] million homes, that's where you're going cuz that's where they're built.

[1:20:00] My direct statement to the tiny home versus putting it in next to a $300,000

[1:20:06] home is planning and zoning allows us to have

[1:20:11] authority on those golden rules, public safety, health, and general welfare.

[1:20:19] If it fits to where it is the antagonist of one of those things, we can limit it.

[1:20:26] If it does not, you better be able to defend it.

[1:20:33] » Does it would have got something to highlight back here cuz under

[1:20:37] conditional use permit standards, you have is compatible with existing and

[1:20:43] permitted land use. >> Where' you?

[1:20:46] » I'm on page 32, but when I read that is compatible with existing Yeah. would be

[1:20:52] similar to a city that you know if I want to put a development in this area

[1:20:56] they got curbing gutter I have to have curbing gutter well this is gerard

[1:20:59] standards if I don't have curbing gutter then I can do you know just or

[1:21:06] whatever so can that termin be used and something like that as far as

[1:21:11] conditional use item that you know what is

[1:21:15] the word I said there compatible >> compatible with neighboring properties

[1:21:21] it it can Um

[1:21:23] » I mean obviously conditional use it would come to us for approval and then

[1:21:27] the neighbors would have the right to be involved well go to the zoning board.

[1:21:32] Sorry. Yes. Neighbors would have the right to

[1:21:34] » to come in whatever >> and so we go during that commit that

[1:21:39] conditional use hearing process. There's the need notice requirement uh and

[1:21:45] that's from the corners of in the meats and bounds of the property,000 ft

[1:21:51] right out there. If your neighbors have a problem with it

[1:21:55] and they come in and launch a protest and they are able to articulate the same

[1:22:01] rules of why they are just in a different way, then your planning

[1:22:06] commission has the authority to consider those as part of their decision as well.

[1:22:13] » Okay.

[1:22:17] » Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out a way to be fair. So, what I would suggest

[1:22:20] is based on the comments that I'm hearing is for article 5 is consider

[1:22:25] taking those modular uh [clears throat] tiny homes out of the

[1:22:31] accessory use definition itself and allow them as

[1:22:38] as a conditional use within the district or

[1:22:45] to to have further discussions upon those

[1:22:49] clarification. >> Okay,

[1:22:51] » there again, I I I know you I know what you're going to say. I just

[1:22:57] » We don't need it. >> Okay,

[1:22:59] » but like I say, we went through this on other articles, so

[1:23:02] » I'm not going to repeat myself. >> Okay.

[1:23:06] Any other comments on article five? Um what what's the purpose of uh

[1:23:15] no more than 10 acre just

[1:23:19] » more than 10 acres you should be agricultural use that's why

[1:23:26] » I'm just curious on that >> you're on an animal cropless farm grace

[1:23:31] grass cut you got so yeah that makes sense

[1:23:47] 102.

[1:23:52] Yeah. So that's the maximum for res

[1:24:01] but it's on agricultural land too. >> [cough and clears throat]

[1:24:08] » General commercial article six. This is your general commercial areas. Um this

[1:24:15] will have a lot more to do with your comprehensive planning secondary because

[1:24:20] when you're doing comprehensive planning, you'll um do commercial

[1:24:24] overlays and corridors. But these are your basic permitted uses. It's not an

[1:24:29] exhaustive list. conditional uses, accessory uses.

[1:24:35] Uh these are your maximum lot coverages and things such as that, sign areas,

[1:24:40] parking requirements. Uh the parking requirements we actually discussed at

[1:24:44] Nazium pretty well to make sure that we felt that there was [snorts] enough

[1:24:47] parking area, land and service areas, and your signage.

[1:24:55] We do not have a full sign code uh is in the previous book and I know

[1:25:04] that that might be a contentious area here based upon previous conversations

[1:25:08] that we've had within the commission itself.

[1:25:11] » That's something we can look at if if needed. If it's a contentious

[1:25:17] thing that we need more of a definition than what is in the book,

[1:25:22] I invite you to come back with specific instructions on what you're wanting and

[1:25:28] looking at. is your sign regula. My problem is is

[1:25:33] that the current sign regulations here dwell into other

[1:25:39] areas where we might not necessarily have the ability to actually

[1:25:44] do any compliance and there might be arguments of whether or not those codes

[1:25:51] there would infringe upon other basic rights of businesses themselves.

[1:25:56] I would prefer to see it more if you have a basic and if they want to do

[1:26:01] something better or bigger, grander. It falls off of the conditional use permits

[1:26:09] area

[1:26:13] and uh if you want to add it, that's where I would add it as a conditional

[1:26:18] use consideration.

[1:26:22] The only thing I have um just an idea

[1:26:28] » uh >> as far as the permitted by right

[1:26:32] » cuz we don't even know where the general commercial district will lie yet because

[1:26:36] you haven't established the map. >> Yeah.

[1:26:40] » Is it okay? Well, I guess I know it's okay.

[1:26:43] My recommendation is that we stall on the permitted by right piece

[1:26:50] until we get a feel for this and if we transition into that later whenever

[1:26:56] we know what that looks like because I guess explain permitted by right to me

[1:27:02] if it's already z so currently you have a commercial district and an

[1:27:08] industrial district in here you have maybe eight total properties that might

[1:27:14] be actually zoned commercial, >> right?

[1:27:16] » All with existing businesses on them. Most of the time when you're doing a

[1:27:21] commercial business, it's either going to be a conditional use permit for one

[1:27:25] of your other or as a whole reszoning part.

[1:27:33] [sighs] When we do a a new zoning, what we're

[1:27:38] saying is that the future planning of this means that while this may be an

[1:27:43] agricultural non-compliant use right now,

[1:27:48] any additional or new [clears throat] building needs to be going through our

[1:27:53] proposed general commercial district and what we do a permitted right for those

[1:27:58] corridors. So that's where the comprehensive plan comes in specifically

[1:28:02] and says this is where we foresee businesses coming in. This is where we

[1:28:07] foresee what needs to be here and these are the types of businesses that we

[1:28:12] would allow in these areas without needing to go

[1:28:18] through a full hearing only a building permit. So retail sales and services,

[1:28:24] these are going to be your grocery stores, the personal services, salons,

[1:28:28] all these things outside of a m mixeduse development is one of those things that

[1:28:34] I always say it can go either way for conditional use.

[1:28:40] But those are the general businesses that we

[1:28:43] want to have in our community. They have community purpose and community

[1:28:49] strengths. They have everything that you want and we do not want to be seen as

[1:28:54] specifically trying to limit business at all. But for these businesses, come

[1:29:00] right in. We're proud to have you in Crawford County. We're proud to have you

[1:29:04] here. We're not going to interfere with you at all. Just let us know you're

[1:29:08] coming. We're friendly. We're welcoming. Come on

[1:29:12] in. The only thing I can because I've had

[1:29:15] conversations with people that have are looking to buy a property I've done

[1:29:21] several times with people looking to buy a property. They have to do a change in

[1:29:25] use because it's zone >> and then obviously we most time that

[1:29:30] drives them off. Yeah, >> I'm okay with the idea of the,

[1:29:37] you know, the general commercial district depending on where they fall

[1:29:40] » and the idea that these are pretty much same as a shoe in not a problem.

[1:29:46] » I still think it's important for us to be involved in that process in the

[1:29:51] beginning steps of this. And that's what that's all I'm asking is the fact that

[1:29:55] that Okay. Yeah. Yeah. You're running a a medical clinic. you're not going to

[1:30:00] have a problem with reszoning, but this is what the process looks like and we

[1:30:03] want to work with you. Does that make sense?

[1:30:06] » It it makes sense. >> I know what you're trying to I

[1:30:09] understand what you're doing because it's more of an approach that these

[1:30:12] things are automatically checked off. May does it, she as long as the permit

[1:30:16] goes as long as it checks that box, it gets approved and we're not involved is

[1:30:21] how I feel in my graphic. Right. >> It checks these boxes. These are the

[1:30:26] things we're good at. >> Yeah. And it's going to make sure that

[1:30:29] you have that parking storage, you've got this, you got that, you've got

[1:30:33] loading, you've got access. >> I don't have I don't have a problem with

[1:30:36] this list. I think it's great because then So, if there's a property that

[1:30:40] falls within that to make one right now, the person's wanting to buy it, but

[1:30:44] they're scared going shut down the zoning. I think that the idea that it's

[1:30:49] on this list as one of these uses is same as yeah, you're going to get

[1:30:53] through unless there just something major that comes up. It's not the same

[1:30:57] as changing the zoning use, turning a restaurant to a, you know, manufacturing

[1:31:02] facility or the idea too is it's a district. It's commercial district is

[1:31:08] going to be in that district. >> You're going to put everything that's

[1:31:11] going in is going to be commercial. I look at this specifically right there.

[1:31:16] uh north or just to the west of Armo where they put the Dollar General.

[1:31:22] That's agricultural land that was converted into commercial use. You got

[1:31:27] that Dollar General there. You have that as a corridor because we already have an

[1:31:32] anchor property. Now, it makes better sense for us to

[1:31:37] designate that as a future commercial use. So, we're saying, "Okay, this

[1:31:43] property, we're saying we want this developed. We

[1:31:47] want you to come in here. Give us a pitch." And if you come in and it's a

[1:31:53] retail store, so we've got Dollar General there. Uh, say you want to put,

[1:32:00] you know, a ace there, nice hardware store, Tractor

[1:32:07] Supply, something along those lines. Well, now we're saying, "Okay, you come

[1:32:12] in here, you check off these boxes, you give me your plan, I give you your

[1:32:17] building permit, and unless something comes up that we're off the walls, we're

[1:32:24] accomplishing our goal is developing that portion for commercial use."

[1:32:31] And that's what we want to do is we're saying these are the areas where we find

[1:32:37] we have commercial use. this is where we wanted. Let's go ahead and do it.

[1:32:43] Having our fingers in the pie.

[1:32:48] Going through and having a conditional use permit for every business that comes

[1:32:53] into a a community is just that it can be a hindrance.

[1:32:59] Um, I'll tell you as as an attorney representing those businesses,

[1:33:07] me telling them that they're going to have to come in and hire me,

[1:33:12] that this is the $800 that they're going to spend on the permit itself,

[1:33:17] that this is how much the survey is going to cost. This is how much I

[1:33:23] already just spent $350,000 on a flat property.

[1:33:28] You're telling me I'm going to have to drop another five to 10 grand to be able

[1:33:33] to use it when this is something that we're

[1:33:38] saying, you know, put it in Dollar General. That's that's my only concern.

[1:33:43] » Yeah. But I tell you right now, the ones we've dealt with in my last 8 years have

[1:33:47] been almost scratched out on paper. Here's what I'm planning on doing, and I

[1:33:52] don't think they spent anything other than their day coming over and talking

[1:33:54] to us. And I'm not disagreeing. I'm sure it's like that most of these things

[1:34:00] right now are happening within the cities and we're not even involved.

[1:34:03] » Yeah, >> I could count three maybe that we've

[1:34:05] been involved in. >> It'd be nice to see more, but it's just

[1:34:08] a fact that uh all three of those at least the last one, the one that

[1:34:13] happened in Franklin, you know, it was it brought out good conversations. We

[1:34:19] went back to the zoning committee and they resolved the things and they got

[1:34:23] approved and it was building done. Yeah. But so I'm just asking cuz I just that's

[1:34:28] how I read it. I just clarifying that's what it meant.

[1:34:31] » Yeah, >> I don't necessarily mind it as far as me

[1:34:34] being responsible for everything. I almost would like more than just do you

[1:34:39] have 3 acres and enough parking spots because I I can't tell you what hours

[1:34:44] you can be open and closed. I can't tell you your lighting. I can't tell you your

[1:34:48] security. You could play music for all night for all we know. I know that goes

[1:34:52] back to the spirit, but at the same token, I just signed off on it and you

[1:34:57] did live. You gave me something, you did another, but you're permitted by right

[1:35:02] because you still fall under that. You see where I'm going a little bit with

[1:35:05] it? These are just thoughts that I have when I'm home at night. As far as me

[1:35:10] permitting this and me being responsible for any business on 6,900 that

[1:35:14] everybody's going to see when they come to town.

[1:35:19] So, I don't know how this do it differently without going into a

[1:35:24] full-blown conditional land use, but I'd like to maybe see something a little bit

[1:35:28] in between if it's possible. >> But, but they we run through the same

[1:35:33] thing here parking lot. The people across the

[1:35:39] street was fighting it. They got together with the zoning administrator

[1:35:44] and uh went and took care of. But my problem is if if you don't have no

[1:35:49] nothing down in writing, then people could tell you'll fly kite. The ones is

[1:35:53] doing this. Yeah. >> Because I own the ground. But if we

[1:35:57] don't have no regulations up there, just like I was reading about that sign there

[1:36:02] and also at the same time, I'm taking your part. Uh home occupations, there's

[1:36:07] a lot of that popping up. A 4ft sign. Hey, it it they're doing this in

[1:36:12] residential areas in the county. How much is there? So, what we don't have no

[1:36:17] power to stop it. >> Home occupations have a different sign

[1:36:21] on their definition specifically, but >> you're right on your argument.

[1:36:28] There should be a 24-hour fitness stand to play music, keep people pumped up all

[1:36:33] afternoon. That's I did that.

[1:36:39] » Well, I know that article going to come with a map.

[1:36:46] So, he's address

[1:36:53] our chair. Come on.

[1:36:57] » Well, I see what's going on. The best bet to handle this situation, listen to

[1:37:02] what everybody's saying is put it in a conditional use where it comes in front

[1:37:07] of the zoning board. You got what, eight, nine members there

[1:37:12] to approve it. Plus, when you do that, you get people in the surrounding areas

[1:37:19] have input into it. So, we get a good way of getting everybody's input into it

[1:37:25] instead of just one person. Well, what I mean, you're right, but

[1:37:32] what I'm saying is where do you have the teeth?

[1:37:38] Like, if you bring it up to us or May brings it up to us and someone says,

[1:37:42] "Well, this is not so and so." Hey, where do we have that? Just like this uh

[1:37:48] home occupation. Okay, I'll tell you. I don't We don't have all

[1:37:53] this. We don't have it down for this is the way it is. I'll tell you guys what I

[1:37:57] brought up down in the meetings more than one time and even at the last

[1:38:02] meeting before up here I said let's put a resolution in there that you inspector

[1:38:09] because that's what it's going to take to enforce the regulations you have

[1:38:16] it's either that or you get the sheriff and then people behind it which you're

[1:38:22] doing I mean we need an inspection

[1:38:26] this I know that's

[1:38:33] because what you want to do that's what it's

[1:38:37] going to take for all this

[1:38:42] but you just go back and look at this any municipalities

[1:38:49] or incorporated like Pittsburgh they all got the same missions we have

[1:38:55] they have to get somebody to enforce it and then you have to spend the money go

[1:39:00] whatever and some of these issues out there can

[1:39:05] run through your nuisance court

[1:39:09] I mean I but how can you do this you know people don't think

[1:39:16] I'm holding on this deal occupation hey they can run 24/7 they can have two

[1:39:22] people in there three people in there But rather

[1:39:32] say operations or something that's one of the things

[1:39:39] they

[1:39:43] can be put off is operation and we've done that

[1:39:50] occoning

[1:39:55] meeting. If it's going on in the four walls of their home and nowhere else

[1:39:59] isn't our business and we talked about that.

[1:40:02] » Yeah, but it's a business people having party share for noise.

[1:40:09] This is why it'll be talked about this if it happens

[1:40:13] in the four walls of their house. >> I agree with what you're saying. It's in

[1:40:16] the four walls of their house. But the part that concerns me is the coming and

[1:40:20] going if that's going to impact. >> And typically like in our old like when

[1:40:27] we had a whole occupation, we had like attorney, architect, hairdresser, stuff

[1:40:31] like that. That's not a high traffic event. It was the same people like my

[1:40:36] hairdresser has the same people over and over. And that was it's just something

[1:40:41] to think about. These are we're here today to have this discussion.

[1:40:44] » That's right. And that's what we're trying to do. I mean seriously but it

[1:40:49] just seems like but the way I see the on commercial stuff eas

[1:40:56] would be unconditional use it's a starting point

[1:41:02] where this all goes I do understand it's a lot of change

[1:41:12] I mean it's a lot of change we're Well, I I I

[1:41:17] understand the message I had to clean up a couple months ago with this whole

[1:41:20] talk. You know, it's not we're not tell people what to do and this that I'm

[1:41:25] hearing we're not getting enough bite, not enough teeth on all this stuff and

[1:41:27] it's starting to make me a little upset. I mean, I'm trying to be realistic with

[1:41:31] the idea that I understand these things are come here. I know it adds a little

[1:41:36] bit more stress on our zoning board to to hear some of these. But sometimes

[1:41:40] there's a little conversation we're dealing with one a year or maybe two a

[1:41:43] year is it's worth it until we get to the point where we can maybe look at

[1:41:48] » a codes enforcer if that ever comes to a point fruition and [clears throat] look

[1:41:52] at that transition because if we grow that will happen.

[1:41:57] » And that's the point here is the rules might have

[1:42:02] some growing pains. probably will >> and and that's just part of why [snorts]

[1:42:09] part of the rules are also meant to go along with what our comprehensive plan

[1:42:14] is >> to help us grow so we might have some

[1:42:17] revenue to be able to pay for a building inspector thing I understand um what I

[1:42:23] would suggest is this is a complete change of once again instructions

[1:42:29] thoughts uh that way when we come back to it we already have an idea idea of

[1:42:34] what you guys are thinking here because once again we make recommendations

[1:42:38] » right what I would like to see personally what I would like to see is a

[1:42:43] model that grows towards this I think it's this is a big jump for us right now

[1:42:48] I think I think this is end goal this is where we need to be but even if it's a

[1:42:53] 4year plan or threeear plan then we look at this every year and try to get closer

[1:42:58] to that I get the purpose behind it and I think it becomes easier when you start

[1:43:04] taking some of those areas. When you take that uh commercial district and you

[1:43:08] you have one here and you have one here and fill it up in the middle, it's not a

[1:43:12] big deal anymore because you're already surrounded with two businesses. It it

[1:43:16] kind of helps itself. But with some of this blank canvas, it's going to be

[1:43:21] difficult in the beginning. >> Yep. And I understand the grow paints

[1:43:24] and that's what this meeting is about. Bob and I had this conversation before

[1:43:30] you. I have never walked into a county

[1:43:34] commission after giving them a new set of regulations, especially changing

[1:43:39] something like this, and not expect to come back and have recommendations,

[1:43:44] changes, and things like that. It's just not possible. And that's why we did it

[1:43:50] in article by article. We know that those changes are going to come. The

[1:43:55] things that we know are good, we leave. The things that we need to change, we're

[1:43:59] not redoing entire book. We're just doing article by article.

[1:44:03] Any other thoughts on article 6 for conversation?

[1:44:09] Okay. Article 7 subdivisions. Now, this is a article that is near and dear to

[1:44:15] May's heart and uh she has her definite opinions

[1:44:20] about it that I appreciate because you guys have an entire set of regulations

[1:44:26] all together. And so we tried to take some of the

[1:44:30] things for subdivisions in there and we put it out here. The thought for my

[1:44:36] subdivision recommendations and what we talked about in the plans and I know

[1:44:41] that May has her disagreements and I understand because she's going to be the

[1:44:45] one that's doing this is that no subdivision is equal to the next.

[1:44:51] that every subdivision has to be its own entity, its own rules, its own

[1:44:58] everything because you're grouping all these properties together and trying to

[1:45:04] maintain them in one unique form and idea. And so my subdivision and what we

[1:45:12] talked about here and and went through down

[1:45:16] is a way for us more of having that conditional use style going through and

[1:45:25] looking at this individually having that premeating with with

[1:45:32] May public hearings planning commission recommendation and then coming up for

[1:45:37] governing body approval. But the administration also comes in and

[1:45:44] talks about monitoring, enforcement and remedies, how we are

[1:45:49] going to enforce it. We use civil penalties, injunction, illegal action,

[1:45:54] stop work orders, all those things. appeals reporting.

[1:45:58] Those are the sections that we put in there specifically to try to come out

[1:46:04] and look at things to make it

[1:46:10] conducive for growth, but not overly saying, well, this is one shoe fits all,

[1:46:17] one half fits all. Everything has to be different. If I'm going to put a bunch

[1:46:22] of houses that go along a hill that has a large strip pit that I'm using as a

[1:46:28] recreational fishing hole and things like that and I'm using that as my

[1:46:31] basis, that is going to be completely different from a subdivision that's over

[1:46:37] by Franklin that is on completely flat ground that is just that. It's a

[1:46:42] subdivision of houses. And so that was the common goal here.

[1:46:48] Going to page 45. Uh, lot splits. This is another thing

[1:46:53] that we went and had a significant lot of conversation about.

[1:46:59] How we do lot splits,

[1:47:03] uh, types of lot splits. Specifically, what we're talking about is your,

[1:47:11] uh, your agricultural splits and your actual

[1:47:16] splits. the the four to one. So you have a parent track of one, you can split it

[1:47:22] off three, four total, have basic view paths and things like

[1:47:28] that. Lot splits are are very very interesting

[1:47:34] things. They always are going to be um some counties don't allow lot splits at

[1:47:40] all and make you doladding for everything.

[1:47:45] What we're talked about,

[1:47:50] what we talked about is the 3 one. You have one parent that splits off into

[1:47:56] splits all three and have four total tracks with a minimum.

[1:48:02] That felt like a reasonable, but it's still a oneandone split like it is per

[1:48:08] in your current book. It's a one and done.

[1:48:12] We understand that we talked at Nauseium about

[1:48:17] uh about the estate planning aspects of it. How we have mom and Paul want to

[1:48:24] spill off their land and I've got five kids. Well, I can only make three tracks

[1:48:29] of property. How am I going to split my land up to my kids [clears throat]

[1:48:34] without, as we put it, coming in and putting a maze subdivision

[1:48:39] out there on the property or replatting? Those were the things that we had to

[1:48:45] talk about. And I understand that May has her comments and I'll invite her up

[1:48:49] here to give you what her thoughts are because I know she has and I can feel

[1:48:54] them. Oh, yes. coming from behind me here

[1:48:59] because this is one thing that uh you know as a pragmatist this is also going

[1:49:05] to be one thing that she's going to know more about because she sees it more

[1:49:08] differently in her in her everyday uh work that I don't see as an attorney. My

[1:49:16] job is to find ways around these rules or to bid these rules or deal with that

[1:49:21] for a private person but when trying to enforce these it's really May's idea.

[1:49:26] So, I want May to come up and talk to you a little bit more about the wind

[1:49:29] splits before we go anywhere. >> All right. I got a few thoughts about

[1:49:34] splits because they come up quite a bit on your own subdivision. You would be a

[1:49:38] good example on that. The the one the splitting it off three times. Not a huge

[1:49:44] fan of because at that point you've made a shortcut subdivision without any

[1:49:48] regulations. So, I'm not a huge fan of it. And I guess I went back and forth on

[1:49:53] it because one of my thoughts was if the property was over 50% act, you could

[1:49:59] only split up the part that wasn't act. But then what if it sells? I mean,

[1:50:04] Bruce, do you have the same rights if you buy it from Carl that Carl had?

[1:50:08] » Are you This is where I get stuck on it. This is

[1:50:12] where I'm completely stuck. We've been at an amate house with all of us at the

[1:50:18] board meetings over this of what do we do? Do you make uncontrolled growth by

[1:50:23] letting farmer Joe split it up or do you make farmer Joe now developer Joe split

[1:50:29] up his land that way for his kids cuz say he wants to do he has eight acres

[1:50:35] and he wants to do four splits. He's got four kids. He wants to do 20 20 20. Two

[1:50:40] of the 20 don't exactly touch the roof. So instead of making a simple easement

[1:50:44] access, Joe, like I said, not farmer Joe, developer Joe now is putting in a

[1:50:50] road with water and electricity in the rideway at his expense to

[1:50:55] [clears throat] split up the farm ground. And per our regulations, if

[1:50:59] you're going to split something up and you want if you're splitting it up more

[1:51:03] than once and there's land that's not going to touch a county road, you're

[1:51:07] putting infrastructure. I can't bring up a planet here to tell you guys, oh, they

[1:51:11] don't have road, they don't have water, it's going to get shot down.

[1:51:16] » So, that's where I'm at in all of it. And I know our boards went back and

[1:51:20] forth on it. And I really have just been wondering where you guys sit on it on

[1:51:25] what's fair. I mean, I can see both sides of it and

[1:51:30] it's hard to regulate the future. you know, sometimes

[1:51:36] if you buy that 20 acres, >> then you assume that 20 acres, I have

[1:51:40] the same right to do whatever because I bought that 20 acres. It goes back to my

[1:51:44] land rights. Um, but as far as Yeah, I don't know the answer on that. I And I

[1:51:50] get it. I don't have never really thought of it before that way. If you

[1:51:53] look at the if you're divided up, I mean, three I think is really fair.

[1:51:59] » It is. >> I think it's really fair, but I'm just

[1:52:02] thinking about my own situation. If my kids want to build a house on a property

[1:52:06] that is nice enough to accommodate, then which one do I choose?

[1:52:11] » Exactly. And it's kind of like say you do that for your kids and one of your

[1:52:15] kids wants to keep it out. Your other kid doesn't live in town. Says, "All

[1:52:19] right, with it. I'm selling it. Let him split it up. Let's do whatever." So then

[1:52:23] your kid got that piece. Then he needs to split it up three more times. So, and

[1:52:28] then again, and then say your kid next door, you got three kids and the other

[1:52:31] one that I don't want either. So, then you've got possibly six lots on a car

[1:52:37] road and you pretty much made uncontrolled growth. So, it's

[1:52:41] » there's just there's no way to do it. >> My question my question will be is uh

[1:52:48] this any of this land you always say county road. So every everyone that got

[1:52:52] a split has got access to the county road

[1:52:55] » to a certain extent >> to a certain if not you're going to land

[1:52:59] off the back instead of that would be where you would record an access

[1:53:04] survey. No this time it's you

[1:53:11] can

[1:53:17] do that but see that would be a total subdivision. Yeah,

[1:53:21] » because you're splitting too many times. >> How many times can you split

[1:53:24] » once? Right now we are at over 40 acres. You can split it up once and then 10 you

[1:53:30] can split it once provided it meet sanitation code and everything. Cuz I

[1:53:35] get a lot of requests from people that have 10 acres don't want to get half of

[1:53:39] their kids. >> Yeah, right.

[1:53:40] » Cuz they're not and they want their kid next door because they know their kids

[1:53:44] will wind up with the house anyway. Only thing I see I mean if I were on 40 acres

[1:53:50] if someone gets landed >> well and that's where per our

[1:53:54] regulations I can't where it would be instead of you providing access with the

[1:54:00] survey where if we split it up more than what's allowed you were putting in a

[1:54:05] full-blown road with water and electric in the right way

[1:54:10] » and for what you you did all that and you destroyed your ad.

[1:54:14] » That's right. cuz you might as well figure you're going to take out a

[1:54:17] quarter of a mile 20 ft wide >> and our our regulations you have to have

[1:54:21] a 60ft driveway for a road even for the private standard. So you're taking

[1:54:26] » 60 ft too. >> Yeah. 60 ft 20 ft driving surface and

[1:54:30] then the rest is on >> what would you deal with it all the

[1:54:34] time? >> I don't know. Trust me, I hate telling

[1:54:37] people I'm sorry I can't help you but I don't know do it.

[1:54:40] » See that's something else we don't have. I don't know what's in the book or not.

[1:54:44] We need stuff that before they come to you that people know what they can do.

[1:54:48] » Well, and even when I tell them what they can and can't do, it still isn't

[1:54:52] the fair, you know, they don't listen number one or if they want to listen,

[1:54:56] they it's they get it's not a fair system for it to happen

[1:55:01] cuz like I only have one kid, you have three. It would be completely different

[1:55:06] for you splitting up your land versus me.

[1:55:10] So, the one time split works perfect. It's hers. You have two other cases that

[1:55:14] are going to be bad like Bruce said. Which one do you pick?

[1:55:17] » Yeah. >> Without creating a subdivision whereas a

[1:55:21] survey is a simple probably 2500 maybe. >> Is that what So

[1:55:28] when you get into planning and to me and to all of that you're jumping up into

[1:55:33] the 8 to 10 grand range. >> Okay. that split split a 40

[1:55:38] or uh you'd have to would you have to plat it

[1:55:42] » if you want to do it more than once you want to have more than one split. Yeah,

[1:55:46] there's >> again what subdivision

[1:55:48] » there there's a reason why some counties don't do splits because it's easier for

[1:55:54] them on the whole McGill to say everybody replaces

[1:56:06] that mainly dealt with access. So we have public streets uh lack of public

[1:56:13] right away with or landlocked areas required easements locks meet minimum

[1:56:19] requirements no more than a quarter to one lock depth. I mean we try to be as

[1:56:26] fair as possible in it. The answer is I'm not going to make anybody everybody

[1:56:31] happy and I'm not going to make everybody angry. There are going to be

[1:56:34] some that are going to be happy, some that are going to be mad.

[1:56:38] The best that we can do here is is try to figure out a ratio number that

[1:56:46] protects property rights but still allows you to have some access over what

[1:56:51] you want with land. I will tell you that mother county for instance has lot

[1:56:57] splits but only agriculture and it's one and done one and one. That's it. You

[1:57:03] take a 80 and drop it into 40s. So, but say you did that with the land

[1:57:08] and then I bought a 40. What's my rights on that 40?

[1:57:12] » Well, so and that's where we're going to come in and say, well, this is the one

[1:57:16] and done. You bought your property. We're going to say that if you want to

[1:57:20] split this again, it's going to be a unfortunate thing. I mean, it sounds

[1:57:25] like that we're trying to >> trying to make everybody happy without

[1:57:31] » But we're trying to detour the people that are going to abuse the system.

[1:57:36] » Yes. >> And not pay for. So, is there a way you

[1:57:38] put a timeline on that that that 40 becomes

[1:57:42] » you split it after a certain period of time where

[1:57:45] » it's a possibility that we can put it >> where if I'm a developer, I can't do it

[1:57:49] this year and then next 6 months I split this year and keep splitting it. So

[1:57:54] there are some counties that use it can be done no more than one time in 10

[1:57:59] years or more no more than one time than 21 years because we use the rule of

[1:58:04] perpetuities as our guideline. Um >> that's interesting. I've heard a lot

[1:58:09] about this. But this is something that's a major part of your code

[1:58:14] that May deals with regularly. And I I counted it up last week when I was

[1:58:22] sitting here prepping for this meeting about how many emails back and forth

[1:58:26] we've had about lot splits and how many conversations we've had about lot

[1:58:30] splits. And I will tell you it's getting quite high up there.

[1:58:35] » It is. Well, an example, a subdivision I get, I'm not going to say their names,

[1:58:39] was the one we did for estate planning by Red Fox.

[1:58:43] They wanted to do more lots to split off for all their grandkids, but they could

[1:58:48] only do those four because they weren't financially prepared to put in the road

[1:58:53] and the water lines and everything for that land that was probably never going

[1:58:56] to get used, just split up amongst the family. But they were nowhere near

[1:59:01] financially prepared to do that. And I can't take that to hearing without all

[1:59:06] the infrastructure in place per our regulations. So they got stuck and we

[1:59:11] split up four times and I think shaft did a couple cricket kids I think. But

[1:59:16] that's what happens. But the the answer to that is the same thing I told you. We

[1:59:23] have a response to it. Replay.

[1:59:28] And there's going to be times when what we want to do with our land

[1:59:34] is going to protect us down the line by having to pay it now because doing a lot

[1:59:39] split now. That way you're going to just kick the can cuz that's what a lot is. A

[1:59:46] lot split is for all intents and purposes it is kicking a replat can down

[1:59:51] the road. It's somebody else's problem. I did what I was supposed to do. I've

[1:59:57] only got three kids. Let's split this bad boy up into four.

[2:00:04] Now my kids have their individual lives. I did what I'm supposed to. Now Johnny's

[2:00:10] got three kids. So he has option A, sell. Sell the property, give cash. Cash

[2:00:18] ding. Option B, I replant my property now into

[2:00:24] beach property for my kids.

[2:00:29] This is the the common what you see in front of you is our compromise.

[2:00:35] » It it truly is our compromise. Once again,

[2:00:38] it is not going to make everybody happy. May not make everybody mad. Bruce only

[2:00:44] has three kids, so he I mean, >> yeah, that's what I think. The

[2:00:47] administrative split is that

[2:00:53] » I mean, explain that. That's >> which is the administrative split.

[2:00:58] » Administrative splits are done specifically uh without flag. It's

[2:01:04] taking an 80 and dropping it into a four. You what you would do is it's a

[2:01:09] straight meets and bounds split that you have general authority to do. We do them

[2:01:15] on on well so pasture A doesn't have a center pivot.

[2:01:22] Pasture B does uh I don't want them both to be taxed at pasture B's center pivot

[2:01:29] improvement. I do an administrative split split pure A pasture B together so

[2:01:34] I don't have to stay talking the same way a lot of times those they happen

[2:01:40] without they get recorded and done even >> they're done done take it up the

[2:01:46] register files and we're done. What do you think about time?

[2:01:52] » It would be okay. But then again, are we going to track it through register of

[2:01:56] dates? Are we going to track it through GIS? What is going to be the

[2:02:00] coming back to who's going to I I can babysit it, but it's not really my

[2:02:04] full-time job. So, I mean, I was thinking I just want

[2:02:09] to know what you guys thought about all this. I like he said, we spend a lot of

[2:02:13] time. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm not worried about

[2:02:17] worrying about the whatifs on this one, >> you know, because we're talking about

[2:02:20] somebody trying to manipulate the system.

[2:02:23] [clears throat] >> You got to have a little bit of

[2:02:26] integrity and believe people are doing it for the right thing. If it's

[2:02:29] somebody's doing that, you're going to know because it won't be just once.

[2:02:32] It'll be probably several properties and then we have to address it.

[2:02:37] » You know, I don't know exactly when it was split. I don't know. Sometimes when

[2:02:40] they come to me and I look at it on the map, I don't know if it was done legally

[2:02:44] or legally, but it's kind of hard to deny a building permit for a nice

[2:02:50] structure that's going to be built just because they might not have split it up

[2:02:54] there. It puts me in a spot. >> Sure.

[2:02:59] » Cuz we want the tax value, but we want to play by these rules, too.

[2:03:03] » Yeah. >> And we were doing one of three. Is that

[2:03:07] what we were? That's where what our final version. Didn't we wind up with

[2:03:11] one and done? >> So one one split you're done. But you

[2:03:15] can take one parent and split it up into four separate tracks. So three sub

[2:03:20] subtracts into one. So it's a four to one.

[2:03:25] » So we end up with four. >> Yeah. You take a 40 and drop it into two

[2:03:30] or four 10. >> I think that's

[2:03:33] that's 10. We could our old regulations back I

[2:03:40] started with years ago what was it 10 g 10 all day long you

[2:03:47] could split 10 all day >> the minimum lot area for a new is a 10

[2:03:52] » 10 that's what I thought

[2:03:56] » you can't go two two two

[2:04:00] stops if he does that if Josh does that 10 stops

[2:04:06] um Bob for buying it and then making his splits out

[2:04:10] » because he can't split it if it's under that 10.

[2:04:13] » But you're starting with 10. So that doesn't really

[2:04:18] people get technical to it, right?

[2:04:23] » Yeah, it is a 10. Technically, it's a 10 to start with.

[2:04:30] » It says right there, minimum line area. And I put this in specifically for you

[2:04:35] of the new lot is 10 acres. >> That's how I put that in there just for

[2:04:41] you. >> I see one page 46.

[2:04:48] I mean I think I know some people argue about 41's pretty fair.

[2:04:53] » It's all the way at the bottom there. enforce whatever we go with. But I just

[2:04:59] said just to me it can create that control growth which goes back to what's

[2:05:04] important to subdivision regulation. If we're going to let you split it and

[2:05:07] build whatever you want, >> did you do the short

[2:05:12] plan is four lots or less off of a county road. Yes.

[2:05:16] » And that's basically what we're creating.

[2:05:18] » Just repeat what you just said. >> A short plan is four lots or less off of

[2:05:22] a county road. And what you do, like I said,

[2:05:26] traditionally, if you want to do four lots, you can do it along the county

[2:05:31] road. You want to do five lots, you're putting in a road.

[2:05:36] » Okay. >> I'm thinking of one that we got right

[2:05:40] now. >> Well, and they're putting in a road for

[2:05:42] the remaining lots. So, that makes it qualified as OPW.

[2:05:46] » Yes. Before I forget it, you go. >> That's downstairs.

[2:05:51] Thanks. Am I good? You're good. All right.

[2:05:55] Okay. Any other questions about article seven?

[2:06:03] » I I don't think so. >> Okay. Article 8, wind energy conversion

[2:06:09] system. Do you mind if we take a 5? I'll

[2:06:14] » make a motion to take a five minute recess.

[2:06:18] A second.

[2:12:08] Just go.

[2:12:18] I know these places. >> Did you say use

[2:12:27] mainly the county could round about way? [laughter]

[2:12:34] » All right. So, do [clears throat] we call meeting back to order? Sorry about

[2:12:37] that. We just finished seven, correct?

[2:12:42] » Yep. We are beginning on article 8. Article 8 is the wind energy conversion

[2:12:47] systems. >> So, we have to have this article in

[2:12:51] there because we already have wind energy conversion systems. Regardless of

[2:12:56] whether or not we allow or disallow, we have to have some regulations for

[2:13:01] something that we already have in the county. Regardless,

[2:13:06] » so we're going to go through this. Uh, I'm going to try to keep it out. The

[2:13:11] bigger parts that you're going to want to know are on starting on page 50.

[2:13:19] These are our our development plan standards.

[2:13:24] Going down to the bottom of the page, we've literally outlined what our

[2:13:28] development plans are at the bottom of page 50. Going down to the title, how

[2:13:33] this application is supposed to look. uh location of any operation facilities.

[2:13:41] The big part here that everybody would want to know about is the reclamation

[2:13:45] plan. What are we going to do when this is over?

[2:13:49] [clears throat] Project descriptions. We outline. We try to be as precise in this

[2:13:54] particular one as possible because it's the one thing that we

[2:14:00] believed given the current climate that would be

[2:14:05] most have opposition petitions to. And so we wanted to make sure that all the

[2:14:10] information that we could possibly give as well as engineers and things like

[2:14:14] that can look at this and give us a good idea of what is going to be good and

[2:14:19] what's going to be bad. the site plans going down.

[2:14:23] Specifically, we want to talk about nuisance issues.

[2:14:27] And this starts on the bottom of page 52, but really is enumerated on page 53.

[2:14:36] And so, we want to talk about things like off-site infrastructure.

[2:14:40] Do you need an office in town to maintain this? Is there going to be a

[2:14:44] place where you're going to have maintenance vehicles?

[2:14:48] overview of the existing environment. Is this up in by Headler where we got a

[2:14:53] bunch of burr, less of a little bit more harsher environment? Not necessarily.

[2:14:57] Some of it's going to be farm, some of it's not going to be farm. We're going

[2:15:00] to have or is this going to be where what are we doing with this noise?

[2:15:07] This comes down to your take that you're using. How many decb are they going to

[2:15:11] be running? Cuz unlike most things, it's supposed to be going

[2:15:19] 24/7. So the noise is going to be constant. So

[2:15:23] we want to know what is your rated level of decibel level for this turbine.

[2:15:28] Things like that. We want to know about groundwater, surface water is if you're

[2:15:34] going to put this tower here and you're going to put enough footings in and

[2:15:38] wires and everything else. Is it going to upset our groundwater table, surface

[2:15:43] water? What is it going to do to the probably the most important resource

[2:15:47] that we have here in Crawford County? We want to know about ISO, fire hazards,

[2:15:53] communications, everything that we can think about. And then we go into this

[2:15:58] decommissioning and reclamation plans, what you can do,

[2:16:03] what do the things that affect the cities and the counties, roadviews,

[2:16:08] bridge plans. And we put in things here specifically that says if you're going

[2:16:13] to have this, we have a bond. We have other things that we can use

[2:16:20] as a financial incentive on people to comply with us.

[2:16:28] We have performance standards. Now these are not just things but every one of

[2:16:34] these projects is going to be done by conditional use.

[2:16:38] This first statement on page 54 talks about our inherent

[2:16:45] authority to control what's going on in Crawford County and us to give rules and

[2:16:52] different things that we want to talk about offside infrastructure

[2:16:56] extensions. What we're going to do, how we're going to deal with all these

[2:17:01] different things that come up with these wind energy things. If you get to page

[2:17:07] 57,

[2:17:12] this is their decommissioning and reclamation of the main towers. How we

[2:17:16] want to see it. We say if you're not producing 20% of the average amount of

[2:17:21] electricity produced by such turbines. So if you're not doing at least 20% of

[2:17:26] your original, that bad boy is done. [cough]

[2:17:31] Get out of here. You're either going to fix it, you're going to do it. You're

[2:17:34] going to leave ground z. It has to at least be five feet down. Means that a

[2:17:41] standard plow, standard drag nail is not going to hit. If you're dragging down

[2:17:46] beyond 5 ft, we're going to have some conversations anyway. We want to know

[2:17:51] where subsurface measurements and ground issues are there. And we want to put it

[2:17:56] on our GIS. We want to show everybody what all this stuff is.

[2:18:02] Additional conditions talk about our setbacks.

[2:18:07] Height of it shall not exceed 600 ft. 50 ft from the edge of the rice layer

[2:18:13] rose plus. So I mean is that's 600 ft plus an

[2:18:20] additional 50 ft. So 650 ft away from any public road.

[2:18:27] » Can I just stop you? How come you didn't talk about decommission? Well, we did go

[2:18:31] over I just glanced over. >> Okay. Uh my problem that I see one that

[2:18:37] we had experience with was they was going to use a they said

[2:18:43] the security bond but never it's hit. How come here? Here here we got cash

[2:18:48] currency. Uh how come we don't use cash currency? Because if you know that

[2:18:53] yourself these things are going to change. They're going to change hands.

[2:18:57] So >> security bond is a

[2:19:00] » security bond is not really worth the paper it's written on. That's

[2:19:04] » change. No. Okay. I've been down that road a little bit.

[2:19:07] » We talk about letters of credit. >> Letters of credit aren't worth what

[2:19:12] they're written on. Security bonds are insured FDIC approved

[2:19:18] » back. This here is about 35 40 years ago. No

[2:19:22] » that about the experience I had. you know, but I can't say why can't they use

[2:19:27] a cash bond? >> So, a cash bond, a shy cash bond is the

[2:19:32] same thing. They're still backed. You're prepaying something. The difference is

[2:19:36] one is an insurance policy and one is not. That's why the FDIC comes into

[2:19:42] bonds themselves. We do not allow letters of credit

[2:19:47] because they change. That shy bond does not change from owner to owner. they

[2:19:54] have to post that bond at that project and that bond will stay there until the

[2:20:00] end of that project. Letters of credit can change from time to time to time and

[2:20:07] it's only as good as the credit of the person that you're writing for. That is

[2:20:10] where we said as fiduciaries of the county and of the county trust

[2:20:17] that we could not depend on somebody's credit rating solely as a basis for

[2:20:22] these decommissioning. Good.

[2:20:29] Okay. We had additional monitoring and review

[2:20:34] requirements that we added into this. Um but going back down into the setbacks

[2:20:40] um height of it distance equal to twice the wave energy height from a

[2:20:46] residential structure twice.

[2:20:51] we put in a 1.1 multiplier uh from any property line

[2:20:58] at least another 300 feet from any property tower because and this was a

[2:21:03] contention that we were asked about and and here's how I propose it is if a

[2:21:08] tower falls and hits another tower I don't care

[2:21:14] that's their problem a tower falls and goes over a public

[2:21:19] ride way or a tower falls and goes on somebody's house, I definitely care

[2:21:25] about that. If you're going to put it so close that

[2:21:29] if that malfunctions and damages your property, that's on you. What we're

[2:21:34] concerned about is our public center and public property trust

[2:21:42] only in public runways. So, you can't just keep on dating for no

[2:21:47] apparent reason. maintain limited liability as well as

[2:21:53] their own.

[2:21:57] These are the things that we thought were necessary to be in here as the bare

[2:22:03] minimum. Conditional use permits can always have

[2:22:08] more if there is reason to give more for public safety, health and welfare.

[2:22:14] We have next domestic land owners. We change domestic when domestic is based

[2:22:21] upon how much power it puts off. What type of power it puts off.

[2:22:27] 120 kow is the uh maximum. High towers are different. But that's what we do is

[2:22:34] we base it off of how much kilowattage it has and how big it is.

[2:22:50] I thought there was something in here about third party engineers.

[2:23:12] There was a proposed

[2:23:17] review.

[2:23:20] » We require the adequacy of each application to be approved by an

[2:23:25] engineer which is provided or the cost of which is provided by

[2:23:30] behalf of Kent. But we choose who we're going to use as our own engineer.

[2:23:36] These are our basic rules that I have proposed. We had

[2:23:41] multiple changes to these rule rules. Uh commissioner specifically I remember

[2:23:47] Michael came in with a large list of things that we wanted to consider and

[2:23:52] that we went through and talked about. Uh we had individual thoughts. We heard

[2:23:56] public comments about this. We had obviously public hearings about these.

[2:24:01] We had as much as that information that we possibly could. This conversation was

[2:24:06] even put into the public survey. We had as much thought into this one as we

[2:24:12] could. This is what we came up with as a conglomeration of what we felt were the

[2:24:17] needs of the sit and of the county's interest at all.

[2:24:24] questions.

[2:24:31] Any questions? Nope. Question. Come on. After after hearing

[2:24:38] this, it made me think on the reformation part of it. We need to add

[2:24:43] in there that they are responsible for hiring an inspector of our choice and

[2:24:50] pay for it to monitor that because like Carl's been talking about how how do we

[2:24:58] uh enforce it? Well, that'll be a way to we have to hire us an inspector to

[2:25:04] inspect that project on recation.

[2:25:10] We have it on the on the the application but we don't have a lot of reformation

[2:25:21] also we can put it in 13 about the commission when I won't know when it's

[2:25:28] not producing 20%.

[2:25:39] Okay. And Josh will come back to this, but I'm I 100% agree that we need to

[2:25:44] have language that addresses the current project we have.

[2:25:49] » Correct. >> And that's I

[2:25:52] I appreciate that. I'm sure this will come up here a little bit later.

[2:25:56] The idea now going off our previous statements, we have the current

[2:26:01] moratorum and we've had conversations related to the comprehensive plan about

[2:26:05] the outright allowance of new projects.

[2:26:11] That is a motion and a suggestion that needs to be brought back for uh to be

[2:26:20] admitted into this particular if that's the area or the way that wants to

[2:26:25] happen. is what we would add is a separate

[2:26:29] article at the very beginning or not an article but a separate section

[2:26:34] to change the intent and scope of this completely

[2:26:42] very onset

[2:26:48] and add an additional section is no future projects.

[2:26:55] and that we limit that these regulations only apply to the current

[2:27:02] uh wind and energy systems that already exist

[2:27:06] in Crawford County at the time of the adoption regulations.

[2:27:12] » But that is a recommendation that has to come back from the public.

[2:27:15] » Well, so to be fair with that, I think we have to get to the article that

[2:27:19] addresses zoning. Yeah, >> I think that's the

[2:27:24] » the piece that all the rest of these will fall in after.

[2:27:28] » And and I will say that a lot of this goes one way or the other based upon

[2:27:34] full meets and bounds. I mean,

[2:27:38] I'll get to that when we get to that. >> That's fine. I'm just like I said, we'll

[2:27:41] be back to this one.

[2:27:48] solar energy collection systems. Um, a lot of these are going to mirror

[2:27:54] that of what you have except for the setbacks.

[2:27:59] Setbacks were presented and talked about specifically

[2:28:06] and a lot of conversation and this one also came with Mr. Boy's

[2:28:12] recommendations. He did extensive research to to bring in

[2:28:18] his ideas and we presented them in these work sessions to really give a full idea

[2:28:25] of what the neighborhoods or what the idea of other Kansas counties really

[2:28:34] would be expecting. So if you go to page 70,

[2:28:42] the setbacks for this are rather maximum and like we said with article 8, this

[2:28:51] can be changed and amended with your recommendations, but how you recommend

[2:28:55] it. But the setbacks for the height ray should be no more than 35 ft. Boundary

[2:29:01] setbacks. All projects shall be set back 300 ft from the boundary.

[2:29:09] Fencing 6T minimum secure perimeter fencing with appropriate screening.

[2:29:13] Screening shall be required to protect from player noise, lighting, signal

[2:29:18] and these are minimums size of project no less than 25 hours.

[2:29:24] These are your basic setbacks. And that setback boundary setback is

[2:29:30] your biggest setback because it is well take green bush for instance.

[2:29:37] Uh I went and measured it about 3 months ago right at about 25 ft from the

[2:29:43] boundary line just

[2:29:47] um and that's generally going to be your minimum setback is at 25.

[2:29:53] The maximum that I saw was 300 feet. That is the maximum setback that I saw.

[2:30:02] Um, and obviously there's a wide range in there.

[2:30:09] And it's up to you guys to send back information on how you want to deal with

[2:30:13] this, but whether or not uh how you want to handle these projects and whether or

[2:30:19] not there's something in the middle you want to consider or along those lines.

[2:30:22] What I'm telling you what's in here is the proposed was the maximum of what

[2:30:27] we've seen throughout the state. >> Okay.

[2:30:31] » Questions, comments about article 9. >> Um,

[2:30:36] in article 9, you know, going back to the protect public health, safety,

[2:30:41] welfare, is there a list of associations that are involved

[2:30:46] in that or what's that look like? I mean, uh, protect public health, safety,

[2:30:51] welfare. on page 61. Okay. >> I mean that's the overall theme of this

[2:30:56] whole document. But >> yeah,

[2:30:58] » who's involved in that? You know, KH, EPA, who who typically gets involved in

[2:31:03] things like this and gives approval >> beyond us.

[2:31:07] » It's you guys. >> It's us. Okay.

[2:31:10] » The >> is there something we can stipulate that

[2:31:12] we have approval from those organizations?

[2:31:15] » Well, so KDH doesn't necessarily approve projects.

[2:31:20] um they approve and look at causes and nuisances that are surrounded around

[2:31:26] them. Okay. >> There's other organizations that you

[2:31:31] look at and when you do a review process, I told May that we ever had

[2:31:35] this, the first time she got one of these applications, I would come down

[2:31:39] with her and we would go over it together and we would talk about what to

[2:31:44] mean and how this means.

[2:31:48] Kansas Water Office. There are a lot of different entities that have their

[2:31:52] fingers into this pie whether or not the Southern Power Pool is going to be

[2:31:56] coming into this, the Kansas Corporation Commission. So, they're actually your

[2:32:00] main governing body here because on a scale of this, it's a utility scale. If

[2:32:08] it's producing energy at that utility scale, it becomes the purview of the

[2:32:12] corporation commission.

[2:32:15] They're going to have certain approvals and things like that to hook into

[2:32:19] transmission lines um to connect to the southern power pool to do those types of

[2:32:25] things, but they're going to be your main regulatory body one way or another.

[2:32:29] » They will come in before us. Correct. They need that approval before they come

[2:32:34] to the >> Well, they need to at least provide some

[2:32:37] of those plans to ACC before they do it because if you don't have a transmission

[2:32:40] line, you're kind of stuck. how you're going to come to a substation,

[2:32:44] » right? >> They're going to get in there with AMG

[2:32:46] and other places, uh, whoever owns the substation at that point in time to be

[2:32:51] able to really get into those things. Before one of these would be granted,

[2:32:57] even at the application stage, there's going to be so many moving parts

[2:33:04] and dominoes that have to be stacked up before one of these even gets close to

[2:33:10] getting to a PNZ year. Okay.

[2:33:14] » And frankly, you'll know about a project before it even comes to your guys's desk

[2:33:20] because there will be so many parts about it that you will have to deal with

[2:33:24] on an individual regulatory and how you guys handle things specifically or

[2:33:29] roaded bridge is consulted because we need to know which bridges are going to

[2:33:33] be there. Do they have weight limits? What are the weight limits? Are there

[2:33:37] real water connections? fire and maintenance,

[2:33:42] health, ambulance, all the small little parts that you guys are already going to

[2:33:46] control have to have individual parts into this before it even comes to your

[2:33:52] desk or on the PNC. And so that's where you're going to get

[2:33:57] into this is there's so many moving parts here that one of these projects is

[2:34:04] going to be is going to be infallible or not

[2:34:08] infallible. That's wrong. It would be to the point where it' be noticeable from

[2:34:14] any point of view and you'd have to really look at because

[2:34:21] these projects are huge but they consist of so many moving parts that you just

[2:34:27] can't

[2:34:30] and I guess to add a little bit um back [clears throat] to 61

[2:34:36] or which is a little bit different way of saying it but

[2:34:39] preserve the community aesthetics and property values.

[2:34:42] » Y >> kind of dictates where could potentially

[2:34:47] fit and where it absolutely doesn't fit. >> So the

[2:34:50] » I like that in there. >> Preserving the community aesthetics and

[2:34:53] property values. Put that in there specifically because you don't want to

[2:34:56] put a solar field right next to a residential

[2:35:00] um a residential neighborhood. Those

[2:35:06] panels move up and down, up and down. You're catching the sun. At a certain

[2:35:10] point of day, they're going to be facing that neighborhood

[2:35:15] at a certain point of day. And so, unless we're going to regulate how far

[2:35:18] they're going to tilt to catch this or something,

[2:35:22] preserving the community and the aesthetic,

[2:35:26] I'm not going to put a solar field right in the middle of a subdivision. I'm not

[2:35:31] going to do it because it doesn't make sense. And preserving the aesthetic will

[2:35:36] also deal with that general welfare portion of this because if you're

[2:35:42] constantly being bombarded with nuisance issues because of it,

[2:35:47] we're going to have problems regardless.

[2:35:52] So can I ask you going back to the statements I made earlier just like the

[2:35:57] one you just made now how can you do that and further we was

[2:36:02] talking I don't know which one uh about conditions or put it in there

[2:36:08] that you can't do that but you know you just got to be saying that you can't put

[2:36:13] it in a a like a residential area. So what's the difference between this

[2:36:20] versus what I was complaining about earlier to you? You can't do that. You

[2:36:24] can't do that. I was looking for teeth, but here we got teeth that we can we can

[2:36:29] tell them they can't put it in a residential

[2:36:31] » because a municipal waste system is a completely different type of public

[2:36:36] service than an optional solar uh field.

[2:36:41] So municipal waste the way that it's written is something that is required

[2:36:47] and the state can jump in and say you have to have this waste system.

[2:36:55] This is an optional system and when it is optional we have more abilities

[2:37:01] municipal waste cuz we were talking specifically about municipal waste.

[2:37:08] Landfills and waste are two different things.

[2:37:12] And when I talk about municipal waste systems specifically,

[2:37:17] 99% of all waste systems are actually mandated by growth and by

[2:37:21] [clears throat] the state. Um I when was the last time you guys had to deal with

[2:37:28] a uh underserved wetland system or add a new cell to a

[2:37:34] water district?

[2:37:40] One of my cities right now I'm dealing with $4.5 million water project because

[2:37:47] every pipe in that entire town was pre902 and is lined with lead and

[2:37:52] asbestous.

[2:37:56] So we are replacing every single pipe in the town. But along with that, because

[2:38:02] we now have a new sewer system, our wetland cells are no longer

[2:38:10] adequate. And so when we are doing this $4.5

[2:38:16] million project for a town that has a tax base of $523

[2:38:22] people.

[2:38:25] We are now asked to do another $718,000 wetland cell project mandated by the

[2:38:32] Kansas Department of Health and Environment. And we'll find the town

[2:38:37] $10,000 per day that we are out of compliance

[2:38:45] because you can only charge $10,000 per fine.

[2:38:51] Most mo municipal waste systems that is how it's mandated. Nobody does it

[2:38:57] intentionally and unless you have a water treatment facility. You say our

[2:39:01] water treatments facilities garbage and we're building them and that's what

[2:39:06] true >> that's the optional portion would be the

[2:39:09] difference. And the other thing I got uh is about defense. You know, a minimum

[2:39:15] number is the maximum 6t. >> Next, you know, even you and I can jump

[2:39:21] over that if you want to get in there.

[2:39:30] I mean the standard

[2:39:34] » because we do a smaller fence if it's a smaller array. Take green bush for

[2:39:39] instance. Those are very shallow and short arrays. A 6ft fence which what

[2:39:45] they have is perfectly acceptable for that type of array.

[2:39:50] If they're putting more industrial cuz that is a tiny

[2:39:54] tiny solar field. An industrial solar field will have a

[2:40:00] minimum 12 array because that panel has to have enough

[2:40:07] wobble back and forth to collect. And if they have a higher array,

[2:40:13] we want to make sure we have a higher fence. For those smaller systems, we

[2:40:17] have a minimum for a reason. But because it's a conditional use pyramid, we

[2:40:22] adjust to the height of the system itself. It's a higher array. I'm going

[2:40:26] to put a 12T fence there. >> You have the authority to

[2:40:28] » Yeah. >> to adjust that.

[2:40:30] » You put a 20 foot there. >> Well, same with the screening cuz that's

[2:40:33] my question is appropriate screening. If that can be dictated what that looks

[2:40:39] like or >> Well, and that's it. Is here the

[2:40:43] screening itself. It's appropriate to protect against these things.

[2:40:48] If I've got houses or a school nearby, I'm going to ask for edge row screening

[2:40:55] because not only is that going to give me visual screening, but it's going to

[2:40:58] give me some audio screening. It's going to give me a little bit of glare

[2:41:02] screening and it's actually going to do a little bit more. And if I put a hedge

[2:41:07] row next to a solar, like it's going to grow like gang busters and be even

[2:41:11] taller, >> right? And and so that's what we're

[2:41:14] saying when it's appropriate, we're still in that conditional use theory.

[2:41:19] We're still in conditional use where we have the ability to bob and weed as it

[2:41:25] comes at us. Cuz my thoughts are hypothetical. Yeah. Rule community

[2:41:32] neighboring properties. It's a main idea outside of the neighboring property, but

[2:41:37] just for I guess neighbor being neighborly if

[2:41:42] they want screening so they can physically see it. Is that something we

[2:41:46] dictate? We can if we come in and say, "All right, this becomes a nuisance

[2:41:51] thing for public health and we have a protest petition within

[2:41:57] 1,000 ft says at 6:00 that that panel is going to be shining right through my

[2:42:04] kitchen window." And guess what? I'm cooking at 6:00.

[2:42:08] So, I don't want it there. And we can say, "Well, we have two options. We can

[2:42:14] deny that overall we're going to have issues if they decide to find that or we

[2:42:19] can come back and say you need to have appropriate screening high enough that

[2:42:24] the visual glare will not affect the health or the private use of this

[2:42:30] resident when we send it back down for conditions and that we now see from an

[2:42:37] engineering standpoint that we need to have screening of at least 12 to 15 ft.

[2:42:42] uh we were proposed that you do that through Jasper lines or something like

[2:42:47] those but that would be how that type of procedure would look

[2:42:56] other questions comments. Okay.

[2:43:05] Okay. Article 10 special events. I'm going to

[2:43:09] tell you I took this straight out of your old book and put into your book.

[2:43:13] Want to know why? May loves her special. Um, these are the types. The only thing

[2:43:21] different is the data index does allow us to have a fee schedule

[2:43:26] that goes along with this because I think schedules are a lot better for

[2:43:30] having random things. And that would be the application would

[2:43:35] be under 106 page 74. questions, comments about our special

[2:43:41] events on that one.

[2:43:48] [clears throat]

[2:43:51] Okay, nonconformities.

[2:43:55] This talks about non-conforming lots of record, how we show them, how we meet

[2:44:01] with them. So, this is where we get our authority

[2:44:05] to act on all conformities. We can require things including up to

[2:44:11] enlargement repair, destruction of property or moving of property or the

[2:44:16] non-conforming use. We have ability to give extensions for

[2:44:22] non-conforming uses and things such as that. But it also gives us our

[2:44:26] authority. That is where our authority to act comes out of. It gives us the

[2:44:34] authority under our civil penalties and it gives them notice

[2:44:40] for us to act. So our notice requirements at least on the initial

[2:44:43] point allows us a little bit more authority at this point.

[2:44:50] This is a general statement of nonconformities. Um it's not very uh

[2:44:57] shown or not very uh added or subtracted to but it is basic standard language.

[2:45:02] Any questions or comments on that one?

[2:45:07] Okay, moving on to art 12, planning and zoning.

[2:45:13] So, part of this book gives the zoning administrator more authority than always

[2:45:19] having to go to a planning and zoning. When you give the zoning author or the

[2:45:25] zoning administrator any authority, you have to create a board of zoning

[2:45:29] appeals. Most counties, the board of zoning appeals and the board of uh

[2:45:35] planning and zoning commissioners are the same people. You have the same

[2:45:39] meetings and the same everything else. They just have a different name for half

[2:45:43] of the meeting. Uh what this does is this outlines the

[2:45:49] procedure. Um what will happen is once these are approved I will write a

[2:45:53] resolution for you to pass to implement those and to promptly appoint uh

[2:46:00] whomever or reappoint whomever at that point. Um it outlines the purpose

[2:46:08] meetings and hearings the zoning process the appeals process for both types of

[2:46:15] hearings what each does. Uh the big thing for zoning appeals is

[2:46:21] they appeal the zoning administrator and the zoning appeals board actually hears

[2:46:25] variances. Other than that most of this is going to

[2:46:30] be done by the planning commission themselves. So

[2:46:34] we have a basic planning procedure that we added to this uh procedure for

[2:46:39] meetings application process

[2:46:43] conflicts and amendments that may be done ahead of time time

[2:46:50] but this is just a basic adoption type uh process.

[2:46:55] So any questions comments or concerns?

[2:47:03] All right, amendments and reszoning. So, what this does is it outlines our policy

[2:47:08] and procedure for amendments and reszoning. gives you the specifics

[2:47:15] including publishing in the morning sun,000 ft of property line mail 20 days

[2:47:20] in advance. Florida County Commissioners hearings

[2:47:24] two3 votes super majority votes and you guys

[2:47:30] a super majority doesn't work for you in the same way. It's unanimous. So um when

[2:47:35] you have a three member board instead of additional members,

[2:47:39] these are also pretty standard um conditions and things such as that.

[2:47:44] There might be an opinion or something that Jim might want to come back for the

[2:47:50] BOCC policy or procedure of it or how they want to handle or if he wants to

[2:47:53] add something specifically. But those are your general procedures. Any

[2:47:58] questions, comments or concerns? Our last section is your enforcement

[2:48:04] violation and felony. So what we did here

[2:48:09] is we opened up how we deal with conflicts

[2:48:15] and enforcement um

[2:48:21] how we do penalties, how we issue penalties. So, your board of zoning

[2:48:26] appeals, because we have a board of zoning appeals, can hear certain types

[2:48:31] of violations themselves and determine up to fines up to $500.

[2:48:38] It's up to us to enforce those zoning laws, but that's the basic idea there.

[2:48:45] We have other things that we can do into this, including the codes. So under this

[2:48:52] section, we gave authority to the codes court that you already have to be able

[2:48:59] to hear some of these violations and regulations including zoning. This

[2:49:04] allows us to go through planning or go through and do tax statements. We can do

[2:49:11] fines. Most of this is going to be tax related. That's what this happens in. We

[2:49:17] only generally for zoning things only have financial powers of incentive.

[2:49:27] Um we have requirements of of building permits and things such as that. And our

[2:49:33] last statement is our effective date. But outside of

[2:49:38] that, that is our general rules for enforcement. Are there any questions,

[2:49:42] comments, or concerns?

[2:49:46] Okay,

[2:49:53] before we move forward, um, let's go ahead and go to the countywide zoning.

[2:49:59] So, I'm going to pull this up for a second here.

[2:50:07] in your motions of recommendation.

[2:50:12] Uh as a recommendation, motion was made by Jeff Brooks and

[2:50:18] seconded by Tracy Palos and a motion and recommendation to Crawford County Board

[2:50:22] of Commissioners for full meets and bound zoning for all

[2:50:26] uninorporated areas of Crawford County. This means expanding our zoning map and

[2:50:34] our authority for zoning under chapter 19

[2:50:42] to the full meets and bounds of the unincorporated areas. Right now we are

[2:50:46] currently zoned about 40% of the county.

[2:50:52] What this does is to give us authority to enact these rules throughout the

[2:50:58] entire county.

[2:51:04] We've talked about this one quite a bit as well.

[2:51:09] Meats and bounds in an unincorporated area. Our authority

[2:51:15] ends and begins with our home rule authority. Courts have determined that

[2:51:19] our home authority is appropriate through planning and zoning as our

[2:51:23] inherent ability to control. And so in order to incorporate

[2:51:31] uh not only the structured growth but to maintain the public welfare safety and

[2:51:38] health of Crawford County, the Planning and Zoning

[2:51:44] Commission brings to you this recommendation.

[2:51:48] Outside of that, each one of these motions of recommendations

[2:51:52] uh recommends each article separately for the county commission to consider.

[2:52:00] Thank you. That's my presentation. Thank you, Josh. I'd like to make one

[2:52:04] comment. There's been a lot of talk that

[2:52:09] everybody wants to stop wind and solar in Crawford

[2:52:15] County. The best way for we can handle it is by countywide zoning because then

[2:52:21] we get a chance to look at each situation because there may be some that

[2:52:28] will come up that is perfect and there may be some that come up that are not

[2:52:33] and that way we can control but if we don't have it they can go into the

[2:52:38] county and other parts of the county that we're

[2:52:42] not zone and do whatever they want. So that's just the comment that I wanted to

[2:52:48] make to make sure everybody understands that because I've heard seen a lot of

[2:52:53] comments and stuff about it all. And I one other statement a statement was made

[2:52:59] on one of the websites that in our meetings we did not allow the public to

[2:53:06] speak. And that is totally incorrect because even when we had special

[2:53:13] meetings that were closed to the public when we had our meeting there was only a

[2:53:19] few people there. I even opened the floor up to the people sitting there to

[2:53:25] see what else they would have. And we did that even in our public uh public

[2:53:30] meetings after we we said you had to uh register to speak before time. I opened

[2:53:37] the floor up afterwards and let anybody speak I wanted to speak. So I don't know

[2:53:42] who may where they found that information out but that is totally

[2:53:45] incorrect. >> Clarification there.

[2:53:50] » There were no private meetings. All of them were public work sessions.

[2:53:54] They were private or closed to public comment during session.

[2:54:02] make sure that we're that

[2:54:08] » um No, I appreciate the zoning board time. It's been a lot.

[2:54:15] It's been a lot. Yeah. But I want to thank the zoning board as well even for

[2:54:21] coming today because I'm sure you've heard and learned more about this than

[2:54:26] you ever thought about because I know we have. So again, I just want to thank you

[2:54:31] guys for that. >> I want to tell the zoning board me lobby

[2:54:38] for being the chair. I really appreciate everything you've done and we still I

[2:54:43] feel there's still more work to do, but I think we're getting in the right

[2:54:47] direction cuz we need zoning planning close.

[2:54:52] » All right. Well,

[2:54:57] what else? I mean I know I mean you elected we need to make a decision on

[2:55:02] zoning because that drives a lot of this vote

[2:55:09] » um discussion on that.

[2:55:14] » Yes. Go ahead. >> Well I tell you what like Bobby said

[2:55:19] three words. Zoning protects the people from, you know, if they don't have

[2:55:25] zoning, like you said, then go out there and do anything and try to get by with

[2:55:31] it. I in favor of zoning. Uh I live in a zoned area all my life and never have.

[2:55:39] I've been on the zoning board. I've been up here as a commissioner. Only one time

[2:55:44] do we ever deny somebody. It was because what they wanted to bring in out of

[2:55:50] Oklahoma and that's only the one time and that

[2:55:54] same particular day was only another party that they could do it but the

[2:56:00] other was this what they was bringing in. So we want to help people. We want

[2:56:04] Crawford County to grow but we everybody thinks well we're going to manage it. No

[2:56:10] we're not. We're not going to manage it. We're going to protect you. That's just

[2:56:15] how I feel about it.

[2:56:20] What I might add is I've sat here a long time, almost 30 years, and I have been

[2:56:27] involved in offering countywide zoning on several occasions. And I'm somewhat

[2:56:34] flabbergasted that it's just us today because normally it would be not only

[2:56:41] packed in here, but packed out there. They'd be to the tune of two, 300

[2:56:45] people, angry people. But I gotta agree with Carl. Things are

[2:56:51] different now than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Uh there's something new

[2:56:58] that's coming and there's concern with alternate energy. Um and I'm not against

[2:57:04] alternate energy, but I am against it in certain spots. And I think by offering

[2:57:11] countywide zoning that it gives protection

[2:57:15] to have some teeth. I keep going back to what Josh said

[2:57:22] months ago and when we were upstairs and that's if

[2:57:27] we have zoning, we can fight to see that it goes the direction that we want to

[2:57:34] see it go. If we don't have zoning, there's not a damn thing we can do about

[2:57:38] it. It will go to court. Each case will be individual. It will cost to the tune

[2:57:45] of a half million and 7 years of fighting and your chances of winning are

[2:57:52] less than 50%. I myself don't like the odds, the expense. So, by offering

[2:57:59] zoning, we at least can look at it. We're not saying yes. We're not saying

[2:58:04] no, but we're giving it an avenue to go to where we do have some say. So that's

[2:58:12] my take. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. And

[2:58:17] yeah, that's a that's been hard cuz well the map's covered right now, but

[2:58:23] the unzoneed area is mostly mine. I see it both ways. I understand both sides of

[2:58:29] it. I've been in the zoned area. It hasn't affected me at all. To be honest

[2:58:33] with you, I've built stuff without a permit.

[2:58:36] And way years ago, May wasn't here, but nobody came knock on my door and said

[2:58:40] anything otherwise. Um, I mean, I knew zoning was probably going to be the end

[2:58:45] product of today. But if that's the case, then I think we

[2:58:51] address today the items that got us here. And I know we're doing a

[2:58:55] comprehensive plan. I know that's part of the bigger picture here. But really

[2:58:58] the the conversation for the last year, two and a half years, four years,

[2:59:03] whatever the hell you want to call it right now, has been the green energy

[2:59:06] stuff. And I think we address a few of those today. Um

[2:59:11] I just [clears throat] soon move on. We're we're at that point. We've

[2:59:15] listened to comments so many times that I've it's repeated enough that we know.

[2:59:21] I mean, I could predict what Becky would say. She would come up here right now.

[2:59:24] So she doesn't need to. So, um, yeah, I mean, that's re I've been

[2:59:32] telling people the reason we didn't do it when we were vote. There's no sense

[2:59:35] since spend the money on when we're going to reszone. Um, the additional

[2:59:40] survey, there's no sense in spending the money when I know it's going to happen.

[2:59:44] Uh, I'm not going to say I'm 100%

[2:59:47] outnumbered because I see it both ways. I am standoffish, but I I do see the

[2:59:54] bigger picture. There's some scary things out there and we got to protect

[2:59:56] ourselves. And we got to be upfront with the fact that when we did the survey

[3:00:00] from the very beginning, we said we've listened to public input. And when I

[3:00:04] look at the survey, you know, the zoning is right there. It's right on the fence

[3:00:10] for and against it. And you got seven people that obviously

[3:00:15] talked it out and supported it. And I respect your opinion.

[3:00:20] So, I really think it's it's us now.

[3:00:26] So, I make a motion that we zone the whole

[3:00:31] county or the partial of the county that's not zoned.

[3:00:36] » Carl, I'm going to second that with the understanding that we're not saying yes

[3:00:42] or no to anything. We're just saying there's an avenue that has to be taken.

[3:00:46] It does >> and looked at each case individually.

[3:00:48] » Yes, there's right places and wrong places.

[3:00:51] » That is very, very true. Having said that, I will sit

[3:00:55] and I am with the condition condition of I don't want overreach on the unzoned

[3:01:02] area. I want us to be fair with people that make zoned understand what their

[3:01:07] needs are and sounds bad but not have the teeth to control everything to

[3:01:14] because that's what they don't want and I respect that. be realistic in what our

[3:01:19] zoning regulations are and and abide by those. Now, I disagree with Tom a little

[3:01:24] bit because I think right now looking at the survey results and what we've dealt

[3:01:29] with for the last 2 and 1/2 years, I think that when it comes to article 7, I

[3:01:33] think it's seven, the one that has to do with wind energy, that we allow you to

[3:01:38] develop the regulations for the current wind project.

[3:01:42] But I think we look at I I bought this for too much. I I could see um pepper

[3:01:48] farm which I was involved in. I've been there three times in the last 2 weeks. I

[3:01:53] can't say anything bad about it other than the fact that you know some people

[3:01:56] don't like it. I can see he went farm from router Kansas.

[3:02:01] That is a long ways away. My struggle's been how close is too close to Gerard?

[3:02:08] Well, everywhere. It's it's everywhere. I can't say 5

[3:02:15] miles. I can't say seven miles. I can't say a certain route. I don't think land

[3:02:19] at this point from what we went through in the last 2 and a half years fits in

[3:02:22] Crawford County. And I've had land owners here that said, you know, you're

[3:02:26] made you were chosen to make the hard decision to decide if this is good or

[3:02:31] bad. I think for the growth we looking to achieve, I don't think the winds it.

[3:02:38] Um, if I go up to Gailsburg, I don't see the growth. I don't see anything new

[3:02:41] going on up there. It's surrounded by wind turbines. I I I

[3:02:47] think that at this point to honor the survey and the public input that we say

[3:02:53] wind doesn't fit in Crawford County. Solar it's right there 50/50. I think

[3:03:00] you did good on these regulations as far as saying, you know, it doesn't belong

[3:03:04] in certain areas. It doesn't it shouldn't be something that affects my

[3:03:08] property value or affects my way of living. Is there places in the county

[3:03:13] that they could exist and not affect anyone? Absolutely. Gerard's putting 30

[3:03:19] acres out here right now. I don't know if anybody know they started production

[3:03:22] on it because you can't see it. It's outside.

[3:03:25] [clears throat] Gerard's doing it for the right reason. They're trying to

[3:03:27] offset their utility bills. They're trying to keep cost down in Gard. I see

[3:03:32] that as a different different thing. That's a good thing in my mind, but I

[3:03:35] know people don't agree with me on that. So, uh, the wind I think is something

[3:03:40] that I'm comfortable with. The solar, it maybe needs more discussion.

[3:03:47] The data centers, I would like to figure out what that looks like for this plan

[3:03:52] cuz I think that's important. I think our water is beyond important and what

[3:03:56] it does and I don't know enough. And then the battery storage, you know, and

[3:04:01] there's other things. We just need to have the means and mechanisms to address

[3:04:04] these as they come along. And I think Zoe gives us that.

[3:04:08] » No, I know. I know. I'm just saying. But I think that to be fair, we've spent all

[3:04:13] this a lot of this time because of these projects. It would be unfair to say,

[3:04:17] "Okay, we're going to zone everything out west today

[3:04:20] or whatever." You know, we're going to zone everything. We already zoned

[3:04:23] everything without addressing the reason we did it.

[3:04:28] So, I mean, if I can make a motion, my motion would be

[3:04:34] make the regulations to for what we have in terms of wind at Crawford County

[3:04:38] within this to make sure everything's handled properly whenever we

[3:04:42] decommission and all that such. But I I think the language of approving a new

[3:04:47] new wind farm to Crawford County, I I would be against that. I think we allow

[3:04:52] I'm not against that as well, Bruce. Uh I do see a difference in that uh for the

[3:05:00] reasons you stated. >> So the motion on the table is Carl's

[3:05:11] » I just wanted to make sure there is another motion on the

[3:05:14] » Yes. What's this motion? My motion is to say

[3:05:18] that that we don't allow additional wind projects in Crawford County, but we do

[3:05:24] regulate or have regulations for the one we have in place right now.

[3:05:29] » Do we do we really need that? I mean I mean it's already said and established

[3:05:33] that that cuz you made a little bit in your presentation that we have wind

[3:05:36] turbines. Well, I think we currently I think the discussion is Carl do we

[3:05:42] article 7 >> article 8

[3:05:48] um do we as currently written article 8 would allow um would allow for more

[3:05:55] [clears throat] additional wind projects in Crawford County but I think what the

[3:05:59] motion is is to limit article 8 to the existing project

[3:06:03] » the one we have now we have to not allow any future wind projects.

[3:06:09] » I can I was Go ahead.

[3:06:14] » If you're going to make that motion, I would suggest that you also um seek to

[3:06:20] have that congruent with the AR agricultural district for conditional

[3:06:25] use to limit uh that conditional use for commercial energy projects to only

[3:06:33] solar. I I don't disagree with you. That's very

[3:06:37] good point. Does your motion still stand? Yes.

[3:06:40] » Wait a minute. I've got to think on this one.

[3:06:45] » Would you come back up here and repeat yourself?

[3:06:47] » Okay. So, article I believe it's four. Uh now my brain is getting a little

[3:06:53] mushy like everybody else. >> Your way your way for time. You're

[3:06:57] thinking outside the box. Article four under conditional uses we have

[3:07:03] commercial uh energy production as a conditional use.

[3:07:09] If we will limit any wind energy we edit that specific section and amend the uh

[3:07:17] the motion to also amend that portion of article 4 to only allow commercial

[3:07:24] development of solar projects only. >> Okay. You know, what does that do to uh

[3:07:30] uh nuclear? Uh >> we outlaw everything in the state or in

[3:07:37] the Crawford County for commercial production to only solar. That's what

[3:07:43] that does.

[3:07:50] » I mean, I'm sorry. So in other words, what what Bruce said or what you're

[3:07:58] saying is only thing that we're going to allow in Crawford County is solar.

[3:08:03] » Well, I'm not saying we'reow there's a process

[3:08:08] too. >> But if other uh green energy wants to

[3:08:14] come like the nickel area, they're doing pilot programs right now. Yeah, there's

[3:08:22] also the concern in article 8 about uh personal use wind turbines as well under

[3:08:28] 8- >> that's different.

[3:08:30] » So, we would limit it from the commercial right now and I don't have an

[3:08:34] issue with those. I think the issue and most people's issue is the fact that and

[3:08:38] I I understand they don't want living in Gerard the zone area even though that's

[3:08:44] now everything's going to be zoned they don't want them outside of Jerard.

[3:08:47] » Okay. >> And I and I respect that. That's what

[3:08:49] that is. So to clarify, Carl, what it's saying is since when is included in

[3:08:55] article 4, it needs to be admitted for that motion to

[3:08:59] » what I would do is restate it is >> that is not inconsistent with this uh

[3:09:07] with the regulations in this book. So if we disallow it specifically in article 8

[3:09:13] by just adding that language there, that's

[3:09:15] » takes out all the rest. It will take it out of all the rest of them. It'll allow

[3:09:19] for anything else to still be there for conditional use permits and uh answer my

[3:09:25] question. Either one of you if you wants to come here in Crawford County, you're

[3:09:30] saying we can't

[3:09:34] go through the process. Okay. What does solar go through the process?

[3:09:41] Okay. So, okay. Okay.

[3:09:46] I'm just saying at this point I don't think with respect to the survey and the

[3:09:50] people took the time because we said we would take stock into this.

[3:09:53] » Absolutely. And if we only approved zoning we picked one little piece and

[3:09:58] now grant this survey address the housing and all the things which are in

[3:10:01] this book and we haven't talked a whole lot about that but we address those

[3:10:04] today but if we if we really take stock into this we're here because of the

[3:10:09] green energy we need to at least address that a little bit. I am comfortable

[3:10:13] saying I don't think wind fits. We address that. We look at the rest of

[3:10:19] them. I think that the regulation we have

[3:10:23] said that you know we're not saying no. We're just saying certain areas are not

[3:10:28] fit. >> And depending on stipulations and such,

[3:10:32] we look at the mini nuclear we cross that bridge when if it ever happens. But

[3:10:37] the same with their processing once I mean we can talk around this for hours

[3:10:42] because I could make up something in my 3 years feeling like that right now.

[3:10:47] » The freshwater salt water mixture seems talking.

[3:10:53] » So my motion is basically saying that the wind project we have right now we

[3:10:57] need to have rules or not regulation but we need to cover ourselves with

[3:11:02] decommission etc which you've done well in here. It's just the fact that future

[3:11:06] projects don't fit in Crawford County in my mind.

[3:11:10] That was the motion. That's the motion if that makes sense. I'll second.

[3:11:17] Josh, I appreciate all this. I appreciate it's been%

[3:11:26] yet. >> We're not 100% yet, but All right. So we

[3:11:32] can uh so we've kind of write something we pick one article

[3:11:39] we're going to go by article now >> okay

[3:11:42] you know there's some things in these articles to me

[3:11:45] » yes >> I hate to not kick it down the road but

[3:11:48] can we look at it and three or four of us discuss it a little bit more in

[3:11:52] detail >> what I would suggest in this case is um

[3:11:58] have a set time certain to produce written instructions back for articles

[3:12:04] or things that you disagree with. >> Okay, that's fine. and uh represent them

[3:12:09] and move as a board when those >> cuz I got two or three that you know I

[3:12:14] mean I'm not saying I disagree with you that uh

[3:12:18] » these are I'll say that these are not Josh Alman

[3:12:25] uh regulations that they're suggestions and recommendations

[3:12:30] and you put a great point earlier I don't live in Crawford County and I

[3:12:35] don't know what I'm Maybe sarcastic, >> but but but it's a true statement. That

[3:12:40] is why you guys make the decisions. We make recommendations and I make

[3:12:45] recommendations to them and they tell me they go, you know, take a hike sometimes

[3:12:50] and sometimes they sometimes they they accept them. But we need the

[3:12:57] participation of all the groups to get what we need. And I appreciate

[3:13:03] you as commissioners that want to take the time to review these and come back

[3:13:08] with written statements for us to look at so we can sit down and have a clear

[3:13:12] picture >> of what you want.

[3:13:16] » Uh and I understand that's going to take time as well cuz we're all busy and

[3:13:20] that's fine. >> That's that's what I would propose.

[3:13:22] » We don't want to rush into it and you know and if I offended you I apologize.

[3:13:32] I live in >> and I admit that I live in Andover and

[3:13:36] my wife kind of put this pretty well the other day for

[3:13:41] » she doesn't travel outside of

[3:13:46] the 5 mile square radius of Andover for 90% of her day. probably more unless

[3:13:54] she's taking the kids to practice which is in Witchah just a few miles away.

[3:13:59] She doesn't leave that area and I made her drive up to Kansas City by herself

[3:14:04] and it was like a foreign world for her that even though she's done it plenty of

[3:14:10] times, she doesn't do it daily. And it makes a difference when you interact

[3:14:16] with them daily and I don't. And that's what I'm saying is I'm not offended. I I

[3:14:21] appreciate that because that's the point is I don't live in, you know,

[3:14:26] Pittsburgh, Gerard, Front Neck, Arma. I don't live in Brazen. I don't live up in

[3:14:31] Hler. And I don't know what they think you guys do. So that's why.

[3:14:36] » Okay. Square. So I guess is it talking to Jim over

[3:14:42] here? A little sidebar. Um, would the commission be okay looking through these

[3:14:47] having recommendations by the 21st? Is that enough for you?

[3:14:53] » That's fine. >> But apparent in July?

[3:14:56] » Yes. Do you need do one more time? >> I'd like to take a little bit more. I'd

[3:15:00] like to at least a couple meetings, you know, with us and maybe I mean, I'm

[3:15:04] saying you go through personally and you figure out what you want personally and

[3:15:09] then we can do our meetings. But for us to sit down and go through all this

[3:15:13] again,

[3:15:19] all I did is go through and highlight areas that I had issues with and then we

[3:15:24] can compile that and agree or disagree. I think my idea will be my idea is work

[3:15:30] of May based on what I've heard so far and then you try to get it set a couple

[3:15:35] pages that we can turn into a motion to recommend back to the zoning board.

[3:15:43] We can make that the 28th. If we want two weeks, we'll make the 28th. 28th.

[3:15:47] Uh, that's right. We can vote. The goal will be to vote on the 28th uh for items

[3:15:52] we were either in approval with or or that we want to send back for further

[3:15:56] review for the zoning board. I think

[3:16:00] I think it's always like I said there's going to be

[3:16:06] pain. >> Sure.

[3:16:16] Monster.

[3:16:22] Yes, we do. How about taking 5 minutes? >> What are you guys doing? Thank you guys

[3:16:27] for taking a very long detailed look into the little orange office in the

[3:16:31] first floor. I do appreciate it. >> Thanks everybody. Don't forget

[3:16:39] want to thank everybody for sitting here and listen to everything we went through

[3:16:43] because we're we're a very close finish. So we're getting there. We're

[3:16:52] about there. We're just about there. Josh now cuz he's got to be busy

[3:17:01] change.

[3:17:17] Yeah, I know where I need to go.

[3:21:34] do that here.

[3:21:38] I used to love those. >> All right, call meeting back to order.

[3:21:44] Uh, new business.

[3:21:48] » Yes, >> Lisa. Sorry.

[3:21:50] » That's okay. Um, I would just want to see if we can schedule [clears throat]

[3:21:55] that work session, a budget work session with Tim Migrit on Tuesday at 9:00 a.m.

[3:22:02] » Tuesday the 14th. Do you not have something?

[3:22:06] » No, we had tentatively scheduled some budget stuff, but we we moved it.

[3:22:13] » I'm good. >> Okay,

[3:22:15] » I'm good. >> Okay, that's all I am.

[3:22:20] That's it. >> And then are we going to do anything

[3:22:22] with the budget budget?

[3:22:27] » We can keep going with the sheriff. I mean, if we get stuff from sheriff,

[3:22:31] we're going to I guess if we get it, we can we can plug it in.

[3:22:35] » If we get it, we can plug it in at that same day.

[3:22:38] » Yeah. >> Yeah. We can just go We'll start at 9:00

[3:22:40] and go to whenever. >> Okay. Thank you. Anything else?

[3:22:44] » Nope. That's it. >> Jim, new business?

[3:22:46] » Yes. Couple items real quick here. A request

[3:22:51] to close close a road for the uh for Camptown

[3:22:58] at the Camptown event center asking for road closing to be 600 Avenue. How long

[3:23:04] close for now? >> July 23rd through the early morning of

[3:23:08] the 26th. So that is the Thursday through Sunday

[3:23:14] morning. And that will help u as I set up for their display as they'll be on

[3:23:20] both sides of the road. Um we can actually close it back at the west end

[3:23:25] of that mile. I don't think the locals try to be still

[3:23:30] allowed to get to properties. I don't think it'll hurt anything. So or will

[3:23:35] they have to will they use that access point to get to the parking lot?

[3:23:41] » Yeah. Well, we figured out the closure closure out. The main thing

[3:23:46] is get the closure out the chairman. If there's no questions on it, we have a

[3:23:52] request. Second,

[3:23:57] I said this to the sheriff bridge

[3:24:04] man. Uh [singing]

[3:24:08] I'm going to I'm going to present this. Let's see what

[3:24:13] it's a lot. And if you want, we can hang on till Tuesday if you want to. We have

[3:24:18] already approved this expenditure. Uh this was the study for uh the 11th

[3:24:24] judicial district for the uh space up here at the courthouse for the for the

[3:24:30] uh [snorts] for the court and then over in Pittsburgh. So, we've already

[3:24:34] approved the expense. This is just the contract between the architect and the

[3:24:37] county to provide this service. And we've already approved it, right?

[3:24:42] » We approved the third their bid. Yeah, this was supposed to 38,000 and we

[3:24:46] approved that. This is just the contract. I'm open for questions. And if

[3:24:52] you want to take a look at we can approve this at this point, you know,

[3:24:57] but one thing I was wondering about uh when we was talking to them there and

[3:25:03] over here, they didn't say anything. I know we need work done over here. I

[3:25:08] mean, design work, but I thought there was the main concern that the main

[3:25:13] concern is Pittsburgh, right? So, how come they're filling this in there? I'm

[3:25:17] just asking. Yeah, I thought they were just going to come over and take a look

[3:25:20] at anything over here. It's just they're

[3:25:24] while they're doing it, I think the judge wants

[3:25:28] the main getting us a plan kind of some

[3:25:32] preliminary ideas for Pittsburgh up here, too. Yes. You want to see what

[3:25:37] space they utilize over here and there may be a great idea to do something more

[3:25:43] centrally located. They may have good ideas. Yeah. But just just look while

[3:25:47] they're here. This is really So you're looking at a motion to I approve the AIA

[3:25:53] doc. We've already approved. Okay. Mr.

[3:25:59] Chairman, I so move authorizing the chairman to sign. I'll second it.

[3:26:03] » Thank you very much. And that is all I have. Two copies of this couple copies.

[3:26:12] Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

[3:26:18] Yes. M executive session at the end of the

[3:26:21] meeting. Three commissioners council

[3:26:30] 20 minutes. That's all I have.

[3:26:34] » Okay. I don't have anything this time. >> Um the only thing I have

[3:26:42] not I forgot again. [clears throat] Old landfill.

[3:26:45] » Yes. Okay. Are we okay with them hanging that again this year if they if they

[3:26:51] will do it? >> Yeah. Know if they can do it. Might as

[3:26:54] well. I think they sounds like they will. I kind of forgot, but Tommy

[3:26:57] reached out asked if this will get done. If everybody's okay and we'll give him

[3:27:00] the green light. Give who the green light?

[3:27:03] » Oh, Dave Crystal. Crystal >> to like clean it up or

[3:27:08] » they did he once or twice and he's about the only

[3:27:12] person I can find. >> So,

[3:27:16] everybody Okay. Is everybody a motion necessarily for that? No. Okay,

[3:27:21] that's all I had. Um, old business, Lisa,

[3:27:24] » I have no old business. >> Sir, no sir. I think you guys are

[3:27:28] jumping on this. Carl right now. Okay.

[3:27:36] I make a motion to go to the executive session for the period of 20 minutes of

[3:27:40] attorney privilege three commissioners council in regards to mental health.

[3:27:43] Second,

[3:27:48] » third.

[3:43:47] Excuse

[3:43:55] me.

[3:44:00] » My arms.

[3:44:04] » Yeah.

[3:44:08] » All right. Call me back to order. Is there anything you'd like to discuss

[3:44:11] before I move on to future business? I don't have anything.

[3:44:17] Looks like uh 14th July 900

[3:44:22] to discuss budget um

[3:44:26] July 14th we have 10 a.m. public street

[3:44:32] edition. Okay. And then I guess is there a possibility of discussing other budget

[3:44:37] items between micro and >> yes

[3:44:40] » in regular meetings. possibility 9:30

[3:44:43] » a.m. work session to look at budget. >> Look at the budget. Yeah.

[3:44:48] » On the 14th. All right. Anything else? There's no further go. There's no

[3:44:55] further business. [clears throat]

20260710 Live Meeting

Transcript