For January, I will note that we do have a quorum present, and I thank my fellow commissioners for attending this evening.
With that, we'll go ahead and have a roll call.
Chairman Hayes.
Here.
Commissioner Wolfman.
Here.
Commissioner McEw.
Here.
Commissioner Myers.
Here.
Commissioner Sproul.
Here.
Commissioner Gromo.
Here.
Commissioners, did I get everyone?
Commissioners Teeth, Local, and Gosinar absent.
If a good stand for a Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
All right.
Looks like we have four items on our agenda.
We'll look over the minutes.
We've got one preliminary final plot, two public hearings, and then there's a couple
discussion items as well.
Well, first item on the agenda is to review our minutes
from our December 9th, 2025 meeting.
I will trust that all the commissioners
have had a chance to look at those
and I'll entertain any corrections or comments
in regards to those.
Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion
to approve those minutes as presented.
So moved.
Got a motion by Commissioner Wolfman.
Also, go ahead Brian.
I'll second.
Second by Commissioner Myers.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed to name sign?
Motion carries.
Next item got a perimeter and final plot for Goldenfield
subdivision 3rd edition.
Okay. So there's two subject to submission of the
certificate of plotting mylar filing fee and recording fee and then acceptance of
public improvements by the city?
Is that it, Greg? Anybody have any questions for
Greg in regards to that? Hearing none, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion to, in
regards to this, from your final plat, including two subjectives,
motion by
Commissioner Wolfman. Second by Commissioner Grunlow. All those in favor
signify by saying hi. Post same sign. Motion carries.
Next time I'm on the
agenda looks like it is a public hearing. So the recovery home text
amendment article one definitions.
So anybody present to testify in support of
the petition? We do need to announce 5.1 the public hearing for the accessory
building size height locations.
Okay. Public hearing 5.1 the zoning ordinance
text amendment referencing accessory building size height location set backs
articles 4 through 12, 14, 17, 19, and 22 that public hearing for the accessory
building tax amendment is postponed to a later date. The city makes that request
to postpone it to a later date. The request is made by the city of
afternoon. Will it be republished? Yes.
Very good. Thank you, Greg. Now I'll go
ahead and move on to the text amendment for the recovery home text
amendment.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
Go ahead and take a seat.
Please state your full name for the record.
Greg Kester.
What is your place of employment?
By the city since August of 94.
What is your current position?
City planner since August 2019.
Could you give a brief description of your job duties?
Zoning and subdivision ordinances,
comprehensive plan, annexation,
subdivision improvements, right-of-way utility permits,
floodplain regulations,
ADA compliance on public right-of-way.
And you're familiar with the city of
of Epineum zoning regulations?
Yes, I am.
And the requested text amendment relates to
the city's zoning regulations, correct?
That is correct.
And those are contained in Appendix B
of the municipal code, right?
That is correct.
Okay, go ahead and testify in a narrative fashion.
Okay, this is a text amendment for recovery homes.
The definition of community residents
residents would be amended to include a recovery home under the same guidelines as the group
homes or specialized residential care, removes the person whose primary reason for placement
is substance and alcohol abuse, defines a small community residence as no more than
six persons, a large community residence, which is between 7 and 15, and for the small community
residents, they are allowed in an R1 and R2 up to, well, they would be allowed in all
our districts, but the large community residences would only be allowed in R3C or R3D, which
to our multifamily apartments.
And it gives a definition of personal recovery.
A lot of this information was taken from the Illinois Department
of Public Health website.
And then it includes, adds a definition of the recovery
home, facility licensed by the Illinois Department
of Human Services Division of Behavioral Health
and CERT Recovery, alcohol and drug-free living
environment for persons in recovery,
from substance abuse for individuals who recently completed substance abuse treatment.
At another licensed facility, the facility has rules, peer-led groups, staff activities,
and or other structured operations directed toward ongoing recovery.
So the reason why we're bringing this text to men for you is we have one recovery home
in operation and the entity that is sponsoring them or supporting them or
whatever are looking at other recovery homes and this would allow
those and
people in recovery from alcohol or substance abuse they are a protected
class so you got to be careful with your zoning regulations just like the
The folks living in the troop homes or specialized residential care with their disabilities, they
are a protected class, so you got to, for lack of better terms, you got to treat them like
everybody else, so that's why we're amending this, but still have some control over where
they go.
One of the things is, is you get into the actual zoning uses that they have to be
There has to be 800 feet between two recovery homes.
Relative to some of the statements you made, recovery facilities are governed by the Illinois
Human Rights Act as well as some corresponding federal laws, correct?
That is my understanding.
And it prohibits discrimination based on disability.
Is that your understanding?
That is also my understanding.
And with regard to that, it in addition as to prohibiting discrimination and also would require a reasonable accommodations for those with disability.
Yes, that is key term reasonable accommodations.
And as a result of the law and the protections provided by the law, the city has some limitations
on prohibiting recovery or, excuse me, is limited in prohibiting recovery centers.
Is that your understanding?
That is also my understanding.
And just to be clear, addiction is included as a disability within the optimal laws.
Is that also your understanding?
And that is also my understanding.
As a result of those protections and the requirements
to place reasonable accommodations,
did the city look, did you, on behalf of the city,
look to other comparable municipalities
in determining appropriate possible zoning regulations
related to recovery centers?
Yes, I looked at other community zoning ordinances.
as I also looked at some case law, lawsuits that had varying outcomes.
Any questions by the public for Mr. Custer?
This is questions only.
Everybody has an opportunity to participate in the public hearing,
but this is just questions for Mr. Greg Custer.
Any questions by the public?
Hearing none.
Any questions by the plain commissioner for Mr. Custer?
Yeah, I do.
on this recovery home of no more than six people and you say it could be allowed
in an R1 or R2 district. That's correct. So when someone wanted to build or to use
this home for recovery home would that request come in front of the plan
commission for that home or is it for the zoning board of appeals or the city
either grants it or how does that go to work? If the use changes from single
family residential to recovery home they would need to contact the
Building Officials Office. The Building Officials Office would go in and
to inspect the facility, make sure it's up to code for lodging and boarding use, and then
make sure they have their licensure
by the Department of Human Services Division of Bigger
Health and Recovery, and they would be required to have a certificate of occupancy to operate
as a recovery home. So it does not go before any, okay, the bank commission's
on board of appeals for city council. You said there was an 800 foot setback, right?
Can you expand on that a little bit? Well, if I see an 800 foot setback in an R1 or R2,
I don't think it's ever going to be built. Well, no, it's not a setback.
If I send setback, I'm just stating.
No, no, I'm just trying to understand that.
800 feet between two separate recovery homes.
Recovery homes or the community homes?
Correct.
Because this is comparable to the existing ones.
So you have a community home, and you have a recovery home
that'd be 800 feet apart or a recovery home that'd be 800
feet apart.
I assume that the six persons for one house
to try to record that they have had six bedrooms or six separate units to them and that.
I know that's, you know, up to the building code for, or the code requirements for boarding
or lodging.
Now that's, I'll just draw the one with that a little bit myself.
But it's up to six, correct?
So I could have a facility with two people, is that correct?
That is correct.
Good point.
So with these recovery homes, I know recovery homes are required for to be licensed by Illinois Department of Human Services.
I would imagine that would also apply to the community residents noted above just making sure that clarification is noted.
Well, the original text says group home specialized care, which is licensed certified or accredited by appropriate local state and national bodies.
So that was the language that kind of covered the group home or whatever so we
got specific with recovery homes as they it's the IDHS division of the behavioral health plus all the others.
So for that those state or federal licensure requirements is there anything regarding
like full-time on-site care or anything like that.
I know like the, I am, I shouldn't say I know, but it's my understanding that the developmental homes and stuff like that, they have staff there.
Now, I am not 100% sure for the recovery homes if they have staff there 24-7.
But what we've seen of the one in operation, there is someone there 24-7. I'm not sure that it's required for them to be there 24-7.
As far as alcohol or substance abuse, is there any security that those homes would invest
in for the protection of the residents in the area?
That would be up to them, if they thought it was not in the ordinance.
Not in the ordinance. Not proposed in the ordinance.
Again, we have to,
is a
city somewhat limited on what additional restrictions can be placed
because of the requirement to meet reasonable accommodations.
That is my understanding with reviewing the ordinances in other communities and the various
case law that was pointed out to me by some folks.
Special city attorneys and the attorneys representing some of these recovery homes.
So I had one side's case law, and the other side's case law, and we're reading that, so.
Any other questions for Mr. Custer?
Hearing none.
Thank you, sir.
Anybody else present to provide any testimony?
Anybody?
Want to provide any testimony, either in support or opposition to the proposed text amendment?
Hearing none.
Would the planning commission like to hear any further testimony before I close the public hearing?
No, I don't believe so.
Okay, I'll close the public hearing for discussion once the board or planning commission.
Any comments?
It seems like Greg's done his homework.
Try to.
Reservations of being close to an R1 or R2 without something to add.
Not security especially, but judgmental of that.
I totally get it sounds like they have to treat him as neighbors basically put in 10 words or less.
All right.
I think it's pretty limited on what what are off the car here.
Right.
I would agree.
All right.
this recovery home text amendment for recommendation of the City Council to
affirm it.
Motion by Commissioner Woltman,
second by Commissioner Meyers. All
those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
All
right next item on our agenda is another public hearing 5.3 text
amendment in regards to Article 1.
Is there anybody present to test my in support of the session?
Or she proposed text amendment?
Please come forward. I'll start you in.
And just so everyone's aware, I'm going to ask him the same exact questions that I previously asked him.
Unfortunately, every public hearing has to stand on its own, so be prepared for the same questions.
Do you swear to the truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth. So if you got it.
I do.
You state your full name for the record.
Greg Pester.
What is your place of employment?
City of Effingham since August of 94.
What is your current position?
City Planner since August of 2019.
Can you give a brief description of your job duties?
Zoning and subdivision ordinances, comprehensive plan, annexations, subdivision improvements, right-of-way and utility permits, floodplain regulations, ADA compliance on public right-of-way.
Are you familiar with the City of Effingham zoning regulations?
That's contained in Appendix B of the Municipal Code.
Yes, I am.
And these text amendments relate to appendix B amendments to article one.
Is that accurate?
That is correct.
Okay, go ahead and testify in an error fashion.
Okay, so article one is our definitions for the zoning ordinance.
And they are set up in our current ordinance numbered.
So whenever we add, delete, or amend, you
add them to the end.
They get out of order or it's harder to find them.
So what this amendment does is arrange them alphabetically.
And then there are some changes to the text amendment.
I hope everybody had a chance to look at it.
So the blue underlined is add.
The red strike through is delete.
And the green is relocated or removed
to make it alphabetically.
So starting off, dive right into it, our zoning ordinance currently does not have a definition for agricultural, agriculture, and use.
So I done as I always do is I look at other zoning ordinances, even looked on the Illinois Department of Ag,
just part of ag and came up with this definition, which is the growing, harvesting, and storing
of crops, including legumes, hay, grain, fruit, and truck or vegetable crops, flora culture,
horticulture, mushroom growing, orchards, and forestry. Farm buildings used for growing,
harvesting, and preparing crop products for market or for use on the farm. And farm
Farm dwellings are also included.
The keeping, raising, and feeding of livestock or poultry, including dairy, poultry, swine,
beef, cattle, pony, and horse production, fur farms and fish and wildlife farms, farm
buildings for storing and protecting farm machinery and equipment from the elements,
for housing livestock or poultry, and for use on the farm.
Our general agricultural includes all types of agricultural operations but does not include
industrial operations such as grain elevator, canning, or slaughterhouse where an agriculture
products produced primarily by others are stored or processed.
So then we have some moving around and then going through the one thing I need to note
is on the third page community residence, the 116 should be striked out, and the community
residence does include the recovery home text from the previous public hearing, so it adds
the recovery home and includes those amendments, and then adds the paragraph D, person in recovery,
does strike out the person whose primary reason replacement is substance or alcohol abuse.
Next page, towards the bottom day care center, that was deleted because the pretty much the
same definition is under child care institution,
which if you backed up to the previous second
page I think that's where child care institution ended up.
Yep, so green in the middle of the
page is where child care institution is. And then continuing on to
type these. Motel, I just said
C, Motel, Motel or Motor Hotel, just a little clean up there. Did add us at a definition for set
setback the distance between the law or personal lines in a building, accessory building or
other structure. The setback shall be measured from the outermost projection unless otherwise
provided. And
that's about it.
Changes to our definitions.
Any questions? Anything else you want to add, Greg?
Not this time.
Any questions by the public for Greg? Hearing none. Any questions by the point question
for Greg?
I don't believe so.
Hearing none. Thank you.
Anybody else present that wants to either test,
fight, and support our opposition to the definitions?
Please come forward, I'll start right here.
You sort of tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so I'll be good.
Okay, go ahead and take a seat.
Please state your full name for the record.
Jean Ann Hyland.
Go ahead and testify in a narrative fashion.
Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
As I've said, my name is Jean Ann Hyland.
My husband, Paul and I live in the city limits and an area that reflects how development and annexation have historically occurred in Effingham and an example of successful annexation for residential development.
Our neighborhood was annexed in the early 2000s for the purpose of building middle income residential homes and we are directly affected by zoning regulations in the surrounding buffer or non-urban districts.
districts. Because of that proximity, zoning definitions and permitted uses in those districts
are not abstract policy matters for us. They have very real and direct impacts on our homes,
our property values, and our quality of life.
To give some background and context, I was prepared this evening to speak in detail
about the very concerning language that was introduced at the January 6th City Council
meeting related to the proposed accessory building text amendment.
At my request, and for which I am grateful, this is city proposed
poem the public hearing so that residents would have more time to
understand and respond to the proposal. However, what has
continued forward this evening is the introduction of new and
extensive definition language related to agriculture and
agriculture use, which is now before you for consideration.
This definition language is not isolated.
It is highly relevant to and in practical terms intertwined with the concerns raised by the accessory building amendment that has been postponed in item 5.1.
A core concern that I have, this is fragment and review of interrelated changes.
My request to you this evening is based on process, transparency and fairness.
You are being asked to consider and potentially recommend adoption of new definition language
without being able to evaluate it in the full regulatory context in which it is intended
to operate.
Specifically, the new agriculture definition appears to support or enable uses that are
directly related to what was proposed in the Accessory Building Amendment and would
replace the current definition titled farming and truck garden. Yet that companion amendment
is not before you, is not part of this agenda and is not available for public review at
this time. This creates a fragmented decision making process where significant zoning changes
are evaluated piecemeal rather than as a coordinated policy package.
Why does this
to submit that it is not fair to the commission, this body, to be asked to make a recommendation on partial information.
It is not fair to the city council to receive a recommendation when the commission has not had the opportunity to review the full scope and
intent of the related zoning language changes.
And it is not fair to residents to evaluate one part of the proposal when the related provisions that give it practical meaning are postponed and unavailable.
Good planning depends on understanding cumulative impacts, not isolated changes.
That's my request to the Commission.
Therefore, I respectfully ask that the Commission consider one of the following actions.
Please do not recommend adoption of the new agriculture and agricultural use portion or definition at this time.
Or please postpone consideration of this definition until it can be reviewed together with the accessory building text amendment and any other related zoning provisions.
Considering these items together will allow for more informed deliberation by this body, greater transparency for the public, and better policy outcomes for the city as a whole.
In closing, my request is not about opposing agriculture or responsible development.
It is about ensuring
Hearing that zoning changes, especially those affecting residential neighborhoods near
buffer zones, are reviewed thoughtfully, transparently, and in full context. I appreciate your service
to the community and your careful consideration of responsibilities you carry in making recommendations
that shape how our city grows. Thank you very much for your time and attention this evening.
Any questions by the public? Hold on just a second, I'm sorry.
Any questions by the public for Ms. Highland? Hearing none.
Any questions by the planning commission for Ms. Highland?
I have one, I think.
Thank you for your commentary. It's very well structured.
A couple of inch on that. Is there anything particular in the definition of agriculture in Houston
that is a problem that is misworded or is there anything that we're looking at tonight
in this request that you have a problem with, I guess?
The issue is if you look at the current language of farming and truck gardening, that current
language merely states, farming and truck gardening provided that any structure or
enclosure for the shelter of livestock or poultry shall be located not less than 100 feet from any
excuse me from any street or lot line provided further that such use is not prohibited by other ordinances of the city.
That's it.
That is the definition and then when you look at this proposed definition and of all the items that are listed here
taken in context with what was proposed at the city council meeting and
the great expansion of what would be allowed for buildings and
animals of all of these kind here right up to city property.
That's my concern.
And it's my concern, how do you consider this definition that is so
broadly and intertwined with the text that we asked to be postponed tonight.
We were informed that this issue would be postponed.
Thank you for postponing 5-1.
But proceeding with the definition and splitting these two is not transparent to the public.
It's not fair to you.
And I don't think it allows you to understand the full context of the reason why it was recommended to change the definition of farming and truck gardening
and greatly expand it to this agriculture and agricultural use.
The only place that this language on the 5.1 accessory in building was made public.
It was posted in the newspaper via a link.
The language was not included in the newspaper.
A person had to look online or a person had to come into this building.
I was at this meeting on January 6th when this was presented to the City Council with the summary of what was in the accessory building text amendment.
several people in the audience did not understand and could not understand what Mr. Custer was talking about.
This is a complex issue affecting the zoning of how many people, if you think about the residential developments,
how many people in our community are affected by a buffer zone.
If you think about where does we say quality of homes and adding quality affordable homes is the key goal,
where does most development happen?
It happens on the edge of town, property is annexed into town and those people would be affected by the proposed language in the Accessory Building Text Amendment that's been postponed for tonight.
Why proceed with the definition that is so interrelated to all of that language?
That is not transparent. I work at Lakeland College. I am subject to the Open Meetings Act. I know what that means.
This is not being transparent to our community and to residents to understand what is going on.
I have no problem with any of the other definitions in the text if you want to recommend, take action on that,
but I respectfully ask you to either postpone or withhold any decision making until you have the full context of why
or proposing such a dramatic change as you move forward with the definition section.
Any other questions from Ms. Highland?
There was a hundred foot setback and the old one there's not in this one, is that what I understand?
Correct. Not with anything that has a structure or a roof, as Mr. Custer said,
but you could have a structure 100 feet away with the roof and a fence
fence and then any kind of animals could come up right to your property within that.
So you imagine you've got a development, you've got someone that puts something, even it just
has to have a roof, and then they inflows the fence coming right up to your property.
Now I also understand since I've requested this, I've called attention, frankly I spent
last week trying to educate City Council members on what this meant in the Accessory
building amendment and helping people understand what this impact would be.
Not just in my neighborhood but anywhere in the Effingham area affected by a buffer zone.
So it is, Mr. Custer has communicated with us last, as of last Thursday or Friday.
He was proposing additional changes to this and has assured us that he would not bring
this back to a public hearing without informing us of changes. How is that fair to the public?
How is that fair to the city council? How is that fair to you as a public body? This
is a profound, profound change in our zoning regulations that is not having a thoughtful
discussion with leadership, with the city council, from my understanding, this needs to have much more informed thoughtful discussion.
Maybe there are issues that need to be addressed, but I don't think this process is the way of doing it.
Anything further?
Any other questions?
Thank you ma'am.
Anybody else present to testify in support or opposition?
Hearing
none,
Mr. Custer,
do you understand that you're still under oath?
The city would like the definition of agricultural and use to be withdrawn from the text amendment at this time.
So as this is highly stated, we can look into this a little further and how it ties into accessory buildings and the rest of the zoning ordinance.
I bring them back as a package deal sometime in the near future after we've had, as she says, more open discussion on it.
Do you want all of them or do you want the entire text amendment brought back or would you like to just take out the one definition and allow the remaining text amendment?
take the one definition out, the agriculture and use definition out of the proposed text
amendment and leave the structure of the remaining alphabetically and in the few changes
we've made.
That's what you're requesting?
Yes.
Okay.
On behalf of the city?
On behalf of the city.
Any questions by the Plaint Commission?
I don't believe so.
And I do want to add, we do need to really look at this because right now we currently,
the way it's written is exactly as Mrs. Highland stated.
You can put a shed up and have critters, animals, livestock, what have you.
Within that hundred feet between the building can find to say a pen or a stockade or something like that.
And that's that's not good policy so we are looking at the definitions being you
know a corral or stockade a pin a coop stuff like that subject to that's just
an idea that we're looking at as an idea of being subject to the hundred foot
setback. Well are you saying that the current regulations allow that already
right now. More or less yes. Okay and the concern is that in the enclosure of that
setback requirement. And then as she brought up the accessory building text
amendment that really didn't address that issue and it needs to. Okay so the
current regulations allow it the proposed text amendment regarding
starting accessory buildings, didn't clarify it to address the concerns of the public?
It didn't really address it, so.
Okay, so you're saying you'd like to address that issue of what's already currently allowed?
Yes.
Okay.
Anything, any questions by the plan, did you have anything else you wanted to have?
I'll better be quiet now.
Okay.
Any questions by the plan commission for Mr. Custer?
I don't believe so.
Hold on just a second.
Sorry.
Hold on just a second.
I just wanted to ask as you-
Hold on just a second.
Hold on just a second. Let me finish with the Plain Commission and I'm going to, because I didn't get to any questions, any questions about the Plain Commission for Mr. Custer?
No, I don't. Do you have one, Ken?
Yeah, I'm just trying to understand it. So this text amendment, we're basically cutting in half. We're going to try to approve one half of it and leave and re-send this back to re-look at this form.
my ag because we're missing a lot of members tonight and well I'm just
talking to you if you take if you take the agriculture and use new definitions
out of that a lot of it's you know the recovery home additions and just the
alphabetical cleanup so yes that that gives us the opportunity to address
Yes, our
format of our definitions in Article 1 and gives us time and effort to really look
at the agriculture and use definition and how it plays in with the rest of the zoning
ordinance.
Can you have some kind of public hearing before it ever comes back to the fine commission
that you could involve the public or a group from the city to listen to the, okay.
what you know what we can do is we can have it as a discussion item before the
plan Commission we have a discussion item before the City Council meeting we
can have an open house meeting on us on an evening or Saturday morning to go
over whatever we come up with in the future the discussion like and I'm
speaking out of turn here but like with discussion come up with some good
items or some of the points to help. I mean, there's been some good, yeah, good testimony
here tonight, so. On behalf of Greg, I do want to mention that
we used to not bring up in front of the City Council. They used to, the process was it
came straight to the Plain Commission for proposed text amendment that was always published
and notice given, but it came straight to the Plain Commission. Lately in the last
couple years Greg has been mentioning it as a discussion on him and that's how
some of the members of the public became aware of it. Now I always recommend that
the public be involved in the governance and check the agendas and
participate at meetings. At least we're you know watch it online whether it's
now live or I, you know, you can go back, I don't know how many years and look at the
videos, but Greg has been in the last couple of years bringing the proposed text amendments
to the city council for a discussion item before they even come to the Planned Commission
to get a feel and to try to attempt to get it out to the public before it comes as a public hearing.
So, I agree, but I did want to mention that. He's been making...
Yeah, I don't know if I'm making anything negative about it.
Right. Any questions by the Planning Commission for a Greg? Hearing none.
Any questions by the public? Ms. Highland?
Thank you for withdrawing my request, is that as you go forward thinking about policy change
for the Accessory Text Amendment, please think what is to the benefit of the taxpayers living
in city limits, because as it was currently written and proposed at the January 6th meeting,
my interpretation along with several people that I've talked to, their interpretation,
If benefited, people living in the buffer zone who do not live in the city limits and pay the city taxes.
Please think about the tax paying citizens when you consider-
Question, question only for this.
Please consider that.
Absolutely.
All right.
I'm not a lawyer though.
Okay.
And when, I'm going to ask you a question really quick even though you're not up here.
When you say buffer zone, you mean the extra territorial outside of the city limits?
So when Ms. Halen said buffer a lot several times, what she's referring to is that area of zoning,
correct me if I'm wrong, that area of property that's outside the corporate limits,
but still within the zoning enforcement, which is one and a half miles for the most part,
but not all.
It's always, it depends on some properties, but generally up to one and a half miles outside
of the city limits. The extra territorial, where they're subject to zoning and subdivision,
but nothing else as far as city regulations. Okay. Is that accurate?
Sorry.
Is that accurate?
Yes.
Okay. All right. Just for clarity so that everyone understands, because buffer can sometimes mean
other things. So I just want to make sure that everyone understands where you're,
what you're referring to.
As I spent the week trying to educate people on the proposed language,
I felt like I was talking to people with...
Stringing headlights when I said non-urban.
That didn't make sense.
But when I said buffer zone, it clicked with people to understand
that's property, the bus up to city property.
And it's meant to be a protection of buffer from living in the country
on a farm girl.
I grew up on a farm, I raised pigs, but there's a difference between living in the city and
having city property for a reason and living in the country, and the buff or some is just
that.
It protects you from the two.
Anything further?
Greg?
So I am going to look at the agriculture and use definition, and one of the things
that I've come across is hobby farm or something like that.
So that definition that tends to cover like Celtics Dairy Farm across the airport,
Goldstein's Farm, Dairy Farm, or Reckon and Abbey, or even the grain farmers and stuff like that.
My dad lives on Dacey Avenue.
He has a house, he has a shed, and he has two mules in a pasture.
That is not an agricultural farm.
That is a hobby farm or whatever you want to, definition you want to call it.
That property is not used for agricultural purposes,
But he does have two mules he puts up to a wagon and goes around on a Sunday afternoon and gets his grandkids right.
So that property is not in agricultural use.
So just as the difference between football and
agricultural use and what's not agricultural use but may have critters.
Are hobby farms allowed within the non-term industry?
Well, that's a good question.
And are you trying to make that happen to benefit people in the non-urban industry again, not sitting past the year?
Not the intent.
The result would be that.
Result would be that you've got age.
Hold on, hold on.
Sorry.
Hold on, guys.
Sorry.
She also has to take down, so we have to go one at a time.
And I don't want to impact your ability to, but we need to stay controlled.
It's questions only to Greg, okay?
And state your name and then a question.
Okay, go ahead.
The question is in this new definition, it's so much broader now
because you've added A, you've added pigs and different things to this
that make virtually anybody that has a hockey farm B
I mean, it makes it very easy for somebody that has them again and stores they in it,
it's now okay.
My thinking is, if you're raising pay, that's a negative cost for use.
If you've got a couple of meals for recreation, and yes, you do pay a little bit of your,
a couple acres or something like that, that would not fall under a negative cost for use.
Are you suggesting that you were wanting to look at potential differentiation between
a hobby farm and agriculture use as part of your evaluation of how to differentiate?
We do need to look at that, and we need to, you know, farm the farming communities all
around this, but we also have those folks like my dad that has a house in the shed behind
it and stalls in there for the critters and a small half acre, three-quarter acre pasture.
That in my mind is not under that definition.
So what definition do we use to define that and what regulations do we put on that?
Is it still, you know, should my dad shed the 100 feet from properly?
Yes, because it has houses critters.
But does this pasture need to be 100 feet from properly?
That's a question that we need to look at.
Now, if he has four cows out there in a small area of 200 by 200,
that's not a pasture.
That's a feet.
So, there's going to need to be more definitions in, like I said, a stockade, a feedlot, a chicken coop or a coop, a pen, you know, that's not pasture.
And then, even so much going so far as how many animals you can have in that pasture, animal units, defined by the partner back.
So, for example, the cow with one animal unit, the horse is actually two animal units.
So...
You have a question on that?
Okay.
Hold on just a second.
Are you done with what you were saying?
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
I just have a question on that.
Okay.
Go ahead.
In the definition it says four animal units per acre.
I understand you're just saying there's different animal units for the size of the animal.
Yeah.
But if you have a property next to the city that has 60 acres, how many animal units can they have?
Well, it depends on the animal. So 60 acres would be 60 cows, but is the entire 60 acres pasture?
Can they have 60 cows, 60 pigs, 60 chickens?
know it's 60 cows or 30 horses.
So I mean that you know it's a good discussion and
seems like I opened Pandora's box for a good reason. Not the Pandora's box in
this case is bad it's just it's bringing up some good discussion on what
But we need the, because I mean part of the conference of plan, the 2050 conference of plan is updating our zoning and
sub-concursions, and the zoning ordinances from 1989, so we need to look at it as a whole.
And as Ms. Hyland stated in her testimony, what you do sometimes in one place really affects other places and
you need to call over, bring them together in a congealed fashion.
Now, did you have a question?
Any other questions by the public?
One final question. Was your dad on my road the other day
and did you drop by and offer my children a ride on Cedon Pease or whatever they were?
We'll need you a ride sometimes. Ridiculous.
So this has nothing to do with anything, but in April
they have a bunch of other guys get together and they take a ride and they go down
to B&B campground in Shawnee.
It takes him a week to get down there five days.
So what's he start doing after the first year?
He start getting, gets the meals out,
get them in shape for that long run.
So he buzzes them up and down the road
and goes south end of town.
All right, by my house and doesn't stop by.
Got my drill, Sandy, give me a ride.
Would you like to hear any further testimony?
No.
Were there any other questions for Greg before I close
public hearing?
I'll close public hearing versus discussion amongst the planning commission.
Okay. Looks like we've got things ironed out.
The motion will be to go ahead and approve the...
Recommend approval.
Of changing the tax amendment to put things in alphabetical or they will stay in.
Well, of the proposed tax amendment, less the definition of agricultural and use with
the removal of the definition of agriculture and use.
Let's keep it simple.
Tax amendment to recommend part.
Recovery home will stay.
Well, everything will stay less the agriculture and use definition that will be removed.
Everybody wants to put that into a motion.
I will go ahead and entertain that motion for that.
Got a motion by Commissioner Walton.
I'll second the motion.
Second by Commissioner McHugh.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed same sign.
That motion carries.
Okay.
There are...
Drag me might as well...
Oh, you're going to go over here.
We have a motion.
Next item we have is just discussion only and we're looking at zoning ordinance text amendments
to the zoning ordinance are still being drafted.
It may be months before you see any of these, okay, or it may just be in the one big zoning
new zoning ordinance and then, so that's that.
Anybody has any thoughts on any of these?
We should say them out loud.
Yep.
A possible tax amendments concerning which have been,
a lot of these have been discussed at prior plan commission,
zoning board, city council,
relative to vacation short-term rentals,
site plan and signs.
We've discussed them.
I don't know that we've discussed site plans very much, but we have article 27 with site plans and we have appendix A in site plans
and what we're going to do is we're going to put them together so they're in one place because sometimes slip to the back and forth
and plus we have our own little checklist for site plans so we're going to try and incorporate, put those in one article and make sense.
All
right. Anything that you'd like to add?
Questions for Greg? Comments?
Next slide.
Hearing none.
No comments.
Next discussion item is F&M 2050 comprehensive plan.
So the big thing on this is we've posted the link to the draft plan on our website.
We've emailed it to everybody that's been involved in the process up to this date.
And this is kind of our game plan for getting us to the adoption of our conference plan.
So the big meeting, I say a big meeting is January 22nd when we're going to have steering
committees, City Council, Planning Commissions, and the Board of Appeals all here for a special
meeting who obviously if you have a granddaughter's birthday that night, you may be out of
go to it, and maybe watch it later, but we're going to do a little workshop.
We'll have Stephanie and Jacob down here and kind of go through the plan,
section by section.
I'm figuring in two hours that we will have food and some beverages.
And then we're going to have a couple open houses, one on a Saturday morning,
one on Thursday evening.
and in our public hearing is penciled in for February 10th of the Plan Commission.
Unfortunately, Jacob will not be able to join us that night, but I think at that point we should have a pretty good handle on where we're at with the plan.
And then the following City Council meeting will be a discussion of the Plan Commission's recommendation.
and then March 3rd is the planned vote up or down or parts of the city council
can adopt parts of the comprehensive plan when they adopted so and you can
recommend parts to be adopted and parts to be kicked back for further review so
are you good I do want to reiterate it says it right up on top all meetings are
are open to the public and the public can participate
at those meetings.
There are some meetings where you do have to put
a speaker's card, but like Plan Commission, you do not.
All meetings are open to the public.
They know that.
And it's online.
I'm just going to say the City Council meetings,
you may want to grab a speaker's card for that,
but as far as I'm concerned, the zoning board
and the Plan Commission, you know,
If you want to come and speak on the progress of plan at one of those meetings, please,
they will have a discussion, discussion item just like we have been.
Is there a time set for the January 22nd special meeting?
6 p.m.
If you want to come a little early, that's good.
Very good.
Any other questions, comments?
Hearing none, the next meeting for the applying condition will be Federal Rate Act
I think all my commissioners for coming this evening City Council for putting all the stuff together for us
I will entertain a motion to adjourn
Motion by Commissioner Wolfman
Second by Commissioner Sparrow all those in favor signify by saying aye the post same sign motion carries