[0:00] - I'm going to call to order this work session for October 8th. We have two planning petitions. We'll
[0:11] - just take them in order. Ordinance 2026-39. And I don't know who is presenting, but probably
[0:22] - Ms. Nestor-Gellin. Hello again.
[0:34] - needs to be made presenter tst thank you there we go thank you i knew you were there thanks so much
[0:48] - all right so we can start with the text amendment thanks for having me back here at the work session
[1:02] - I'm going to go ahead and share my screen and I will try to summarize this as best I can. Okay, so on
[1:11] - the CDO on the list of changes, we have our nice revisions page where this is a one-stop shop where
[1:20] - you can see all prior revisions and current updated revisions proposed to the CDO. The main
[1:28] - changes for this text amendment is because the state laws that passed effective July 1, we want to make
[1:36] - sure our code aligns with those changes. Specifically, they've made a lot of changes to things like
[1:43] - indoor shooting ranges, allowing firearm sales at sporting goods stores, increasing the zones that they're
[1:51] - allowed to sell those in, changing some definitions associated with that.
[1:57] - We are making those changes because we have to. So I want to go to some of the other changes. We did
[2:04] - also do a few staff changes. We continue to clean up the code, make sure it's clear for people. And
[2:10] - I just want to be transparent in the state code changes and the staff changes. So one of the things
[2:17] - that we've noticed as staff is that we have the subdivision standards in the two pagers for all the zones.
[2:25] - we've added this language excluding administrative subdivisions for buildable area requirements and
[2:31] - the reason is because though we strive to have all developments and subdivisions in the county have
[2:38] - buildable area administrative subdivisions are unique in that they're not really creating developable
[2:44] - lots they're shifting lot lines typically and so what you have is a
[2:49] - usually people have built over lot lines and they're in a tough spot in that they need to make sure
[2:55] - their structures are on their property and they can't always comply with the rest of the code and they'll
[3:01] - get variances later but the administrative subdivision section they can't always comply with that buildable
[3:07] - area because you may be starting out with a half acre and a half acre and they just don't have it so
[3:13] - we want to still keep it flexible because the purpose of those administrative subdivisions are to
[3:19] - fix encroachments oftentimes. The next change that we have is to our use table. So we've changed temporary
[3:28] - or seasonal activity to be permitted with standards in the residential zone. Those do have standards
[3:37] - associated with them. And then we've also changed on page 101 of the sporting goods stores requirement
[3:47] - that we have to allow it in the limited business and general business districts. Then I do want to point
[3:55] - out we are making a change to allow bus terminal in the heavy industrial district. This is a change
[4:02] - because we've heard that the city has purchased a property on profile parkway and there is the zoning
[4:09] - there that's heavy industrial does not currently allow for bus terminal.
[4:15] - We want to get ahead of that and we think that use is reasonable in that zone based on the comprehensive
[4:24] - plan. Then the indoor shooting range by state law, we are required to allow that in the APR district
[4:32] - with standards and those standards are also listed below. The next change that we have related to this
[4:41] - is we are adding the sporting goods stores
[4:45] - standards and they're associated with the retail sales standards. So we've just added that language
[4:53] - in there to be clear. And then the change regarding the indoor shooting range. This is straight from
[5:01] - the state code, so we're required to expand the numbers of this permitted in and then they also gave
[5:09] - us the language for which we have to abide by. So this now is aligned with
[5:15] - state code changes. The next bigger change in the code is to the wireless communication facility section.
[5:24] - The state has changed it so that we can no longer regulate based on height. So we are differentiating
[5:32] - the process for wireless communication facilities, cell towers, based on concealment or zone. So now
[5:40] - if you're doing a new concealed
[5:44] - tower you're allowed everywhere except for we still have the right to regulate airport zones because
[5:51] - of the height restrictions. But non concealed wireless support structures in residential rural residential
[5:59] - or institutional public zones are required now to have conditional use approvals.
[6:05] - since we cannot differentiate again based on height. It used to be if they were concealed or 60 feet
[6:12] - or less, they could go in any district. But now if you have a 200 foot tower in a rural residential
[6:18] - zone and it's not going to be concealed, then we're asking for conditional use approval, which will
[6:25] - mean that neighbors will be notified upon application. We do have an update to our imagery here where
[6:31] - we're just
[6:32] - you know, update their code to accommodate or to show some of the newer cell technologies. So there's
[6:40] - small cell facilities now, oftentimes in the right of way. So that would just be highway code. But a
[6:47] - lot of times what we're seeing are these large monopole non-concealed towers in the county. I do want
[6:54] - to mention in our research with the Plan Commission that if they propose a tower at 200 feet of height
[7:01] - or greater,
[7:03] - They have to go through the FAA no matter where they are. So we do think that that additional burden
[7:10] - timeline cost will still drive the development hopefully to stay at that 199 foot threshold that we've
[7:16] - previously had and been able to administer. And then there's just some other pictures. Here's an example
[7:23] - of a concealed wireless tower. And there's some other examples elsewhere in the code as well.
[7:31] - And then on page 174 of the packet, there is some information on what we're allowed to ask during the
[7:40] - conditional use process upon reviewing a cell facility. There are some things that we're not allowed
[7:48] - to ask for, such as wireless coverage, capacity, speeds, things like that. We're not allowed to ask
[7:56] - those questions. So just clarify that for the BTA.
[8:02] - And then finally, in this chapter, we made some clarifications on setbacks. One of the things that we
[8:09] - have found in reviewing these is that they want to locate in an area near the property line. And so
[8:16] - one of the things that we're still able to regulate is for them to establish a fall zone. Now the fall
[8:23] - zone is if the tower were to collapse or fall over,
[8:27] - How is it engineered to collapse and what is that distance from the cell towers base that it would fall?
[8:34] - We're able to regulate that they have to push that tower back from the property line by the fall distance
[8:41] - or the fall zone. And also we can regulate a regular zoning setback. So if they bring us an engineered
[8:49] - plan that says the tower actually collapses in on itself and there's a zero foot fall zone, we have
[8:56] - to accept that.
[8:57] - So in order to still keep some proximity between the property line and the cell tower, we're establishing
[9:05] - a zone setback for whichever zone they're in. And then we're also asking that any generator, which could
[9:13] - be diesel operated and cause some noise, be the furthest away from the property lines as possible within
[9:20] - the equipment compound area. So this combined with the language above states
[9:27] - the setback rules. And then moving on, we do have some changes to our sidewalk section. This is a change
[9:35] - driven by staff. We want to make it very clear for people that are applying specifically for subdivisions
[9:44] - when a sidewalk is and is not required. So we are taking out the language under D here, and it is a
[9:52] - little bit redundant with what was item E.
[9:56] - And then also we've clarified item a, so we're trying to keep it to a mileage delineation because that's
[10:05] - a little bit more clear for people applying as to when things are. Being prompted as a requirement and
[10:14] - then finally.
[10:16] - Most of the remaining changes are state code requirements and they're in the removal of a member also
[10:24] - to the definition section. So I'll just bring us back to the total list of revisions and those are enumerated
[10:32] - here and just very much the language that the state has provided us with. So these are the remaining
[10:40] - changes and I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, thank you so much.
[10:46] - No, thank you for the very thorough description. And sorry, we have to update the code in some of these
[10:54] - ways, but that's inevitable. So. Yep. Did the best you could, right? Absolutely. Thank you. And I'm
[11:01] - really interested in the tower fall lines. And I found that fascinating. And thank you for explaining
[11:08] - that. Something I've wondered about for a while. Yeah. Yeah.
[11:14] - we have another item as well. But when do you do you want to hear doesn't matter. We can just pass these
[11:22] - through the 22nd would work for this one. Okay. If that works for you, we can do the 22nd of October.
[11:31] - Okay. Excellent. All right. Um, and, um, if you have questions in the meantime, just contact planning.
[11:39] - Um, and then let's move on to ordinance 2026-40.
[11:51] - So this is just a work session item for a error in our zoning map. During the CDO update, we had taken
[12:00] - on the prior zoning maps boundaries for things like PUDs. And one of the things that we've recently
[12:08] - found out for a specific two parcels is that the legal description for this PUD
[12:15] - did not include the parcels that we accidentally zoned PUD. So there's a required correction and the
[12:23] - plan commission is authoring this correction since it is an error. So the plan commission met and voted
[12:31] - to send this to the commissioners with a favorable recommendation that the property be rezoned to community
[12:40] - development, which is a zoning district that has
[12:44] - For instance, a development standard of a minimum lot size of 0.21 acres. The properties that we're
[12:51] - talking about are each over an acre and they are located in sort of a higher density area and they also
[12:59] - have some constraints on them. So one of the reasons for the plan commission's recommendation to the
[13:06] - CD district and not a high development district is because of the
[13:11] - location in the Sinking Creek Critical Watershed, impervious cover standards for the two different zones,
[13:21] - as well as the mapped floodway on the property, one of the properties involved. So I will just briefly
[13:30] - show a few maps here for this property to show you where it is located. So this is in Van Buren Township, you have
[13:40] - the western estates PD, which include a manufactured home park and some high density development directly
[13:48] - to the south. And then as you'll see on the zoning map, this area here is community development, which
[13:55] - is what this is recommended to be rezoned to. And then you also have the karst farm trail just right
[14:02] - up here that's accessible to folks. There were not any comments by highway or stormwater.
[14:08] - just that if any future development were to occur, make sure to continue to use the Sierra Drive access
[14:16] - point and that Stormwater would need to do a full review for future development at any time. So again,
[14:23] - this is PUD zoning in error. So the plan commission is authoring the request to be CD zoning. The property
[14:31] - owners are in the process of selling it.
[14:34] - and they would like to have the highest and best use for which the property was appraised, which is
[14:42] - the HD zoning district. And the property is currently connected to sewer and water, but we have not
[14:50] - had a submission from them stating that they would be approved for CBU to be able to increase the sewer
[14:58] - or water capacity to the site to support a high development
[15:06] - So here is an aerial of the property. There's a single-family home and a pool on one property,
[15:13] - a single-family home, detached garage with a dwelling above in this area. And then the floodway is to
[15:21] - the west here. So zoom out. Here's the property. It does have constraints on the west side, but not
[15:28] - in the area that they're already built out.
[15:32] - We have worked with the owners of the property and understand that different buyers want different things.
[15:40] - The CD district would allow some redevelopment if they chose to do so, but they would likely need to
[15:47] - go through the subdivision process. There is some limited high-density development that they could do,
[15:54] - but they would need to have sewer capacity to do so. So that is kind of the summary of these two
[16:01] - and what the plan commission is brought for you. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those.
[16:09] - Thank you so much. Any questions? No, thank you for the detailed description. There was a bit of debate
[16:17] - about HD or CD, and they can always come back and ask for HD, and we'd have to assess it. But given
[16:24] - the floodplain, the limited site size, and of course, the Sinking Creek watershed,
[16:32] - decision. The decision was CD. So do you want to hear this on the 22nd as well? It was 29th.
[16:41] - Do you have a? Either. Um do you? Do you know? Well, I guess since it's our petition, isn't it? I was
[16:52] - gonna say we don't have a petitioner. It is us. Um the
[16:59] - the 22nd or the 29th. I'll be here on the 22nd, so doesn't matter to me. Well, either one. All right,
[17:05] - let's let's do it on the 22nd. Let's see if we can do it. I've got I know there's a couple other things
[17:11] - on our agenda, so it's going to say menu. You tell I haven't had breakfast. A couple of the things on
[17:17] - our agenda, but yeah, let's just do them all in the 22nd then and and and again if we have questions
[17:23] - will contact you directly. Sounds good. Thank you so much. Thanks for sticking around. Appreciate it.
[17:29] - All right. Let's talk about the holiday calendar, since planning is very interested in that as well.
[17:40] - Yes. Okay, so I present to you guys the resolution 2026-38, which is establishing the 2027 holiday schedule
[17:52] - for county employees. And since 2027 is a municipal election,
[17:58] - those dates are not part of the holiday schedule. However, upon your approval, those two dates, plus
[18:06] - the fact that Christmas Day is on a Saturday, you would provide three floating holidays that employees
[18:15] - can elect to use, obviously, upon approval of their supervisor, but throughout the year, how they would
[18:23] - like to best use those. Great. Thank you.
[18:27] - for you. Um one of the questions was about July 2nd versus July 5th. We will July 5th. Is that work
[18:39] - for you? Yes. Okay. All right. Um that was right after the fourth. Yeah. Um. Are you ready to approve
[18:52] - it? Yes. Okay I'm going to make a
[18:56] - motion. All right. We have a motion and we have a second. Um anything else we need to Okay. Any public
[19:08] - comment on this item? You raise your hand on teams or come to the podium. All right. Seeing none. All
[19:19] - those in favor proving 2027 holiday schedule signified by
[19:26] - when planning puts their calendar together, petitions start coming in. Now they're going to be heard
[19:33] - in 27. So we, you know, the courts always want it. The courts want it. Yeah. All right. So then this
[19:41] - will go to the courts. It'll go everywhere it needs to go. Right. Thank you so much. Another thing we
[19:49] - wanted to discuss and consider making a motion for would be a letter to the, um,
[19:55] - and the town of Ellisville Council. So I, Mr. Cockrell provided this information to highway and sheriffs
[20:08] - and had resounding agreement with it. So this is not something we're just doing on our own.
[20:24] - have is this, and I'll go ahead and read it, because it's short. The Monroe County Board of Commissioners
[20:30] - have reviewed the draft plan for the reorganization of Ellsville and Richland Township, and that's April
[20:35] - of 2026. The plan includes the following. The organized town shall provide services administered by
[20:41] - a town, including but not limited to police and fire, emergency medical services, parks and recreation,
[20:46] - land use, planning and zoning, designated utility services, and road and street maintenance. And that's
[20:52] - a quote from the plan.
[20:53] - If the referendum is approved by the voters of Elstville and Richland Township, it is our understanding
[21:00] - that police services Stormwater and Highway, Road Street throughout Richland Township will become the
[21:07] - sole responsibility of the reorganized town on January 1st, 2027. And then a note as well, we maintain
[21:13] - control and authority over county parks and trails located in Richland Township. Are you all right with
[21:20] - that, Litter? Yes. Is that okay?
[21:23] - Yeah, I think it's accurate. I mean, I think maybe the purpose of this is I had heard from some of the
[21:30] - commissioners that they were getting questions about who's going to operate these services in that area,
[21:38] - depending on the vote. So I think this just clarifies it. And from your perspective, as the plan says
[21:45] - this, we expect
[21:47] - other than the one caveat is we're going to keep our parks because we own them and things like that.
[21:55] - And I think a lot of this comes out of there's such a broad debate about this reorganization and I'm
[22:03] - glad that people in Richland Township and specifically in Ellesville are paying attention because there
[22:11] - is an increase in property taxes and that sort of was the focus
[22:16] - of the reorganization plan and oh, it's a average home, it's $12 a month. Okay, $6 a month, okay. But
[22:25] - the problem is the reorganization plan did not consider the local income tax and under the way the state
[22:33] - legislature in its infinite wisdom has designed it, property taxes will fund less of local government
[22:42] - and local income tax will fund more of
[22:46] - in the future. And when that happens. Counties. Um. As of now in the legislation because everything
[22:58] - changes with this legislature and not in a good way out, but. As things stand now under the standard
[23:10] - schema for using a local income tax. The
[23:15] - in the city. Um 1.7% Um and the town. Which includes what they call rural and urban Ellisville. It's
[23:26] - all part of the town. Could pay as much as 1.2 in lit, and that's in addition to what they would be
[23:37] - paying because they're still county residents paying that lit. Um
[23:45] - the fire district. Um. Structurally. Um so that part hasn't been and then they had a forum last week
[23:56] - and the forums seem to be really focused on this fire district thing. So, um, be. Fire territory. Sorry
[24:07] - because, um. If the reorganization doesn't happen, they're
[24:14] - and. And part of the. Cell for reorganizing is well, look how much more fire territory costs than if
[24:27] - we reorganize and we're one unit. The problem is that. As of we think 2029. There is a point to lit for
[24:41] - is divided up that money's collected and that's a local income tax and is divided up by population.
[24:49] - There's a whole bit in there about size of square miles plus population. There's a equation actually
[24:58] - in the legislation. So worrying about that is a short term worry. It's just important that people understand
[25:08] - all of this and I think that
[25:11] - that. Um. You know, it's too bad that that it's come down to. There's really no information. I for me
[25:24] - what worries me the most. Is that. The referendum is at the beginning of November. And.
[25:36] - and I hope they can do it because. I would scare me. Um because you have to have. Have to have police,
[25:52] - um. Employed and trained and ready to go. It's a lot to ask. It's a lot to ask.
[26:05] - there were some comments made at some of the town council meetings about, well, sheriff's department
[26:12] - will still be covering originally. I don't think, no, it's not gonna happen. So it's important to do
[26:19] - that. So I'm gonna go ahead, if you're okay with the language, I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion
[26:26] - that we approve this letter to the town of Elstville and Richland Township.
[26:32] - be sent to them. What else am I missing? I just want to because I talked to some of the Sheriff's Department
[26:38] - people and I think the thought is that they will treat this new one the same way they treat Alex Hill.
[26:44] - So if there's a huge emergency or anything like that they're not going to turn their backs, they're
[26:49] - going to support the law enforcement. I wanted to make sure that was clear that this is not a
[26:54] - we're gonna take the ball and go home. This is a, you're taking this responsibility and we're still
[27:00] - gonna perform the same services we always have, right? And we have always, our sheriff's department
[27:06] - has always helped out in events when necessary and that's not gonna change. But the question is a primary
[27:12] - responsibility and the same thing with fire because there's mutual aid and fire as well. And that will
[27:18] - continue. There's nothing saying you're out of luck. Yeah, so I'm glad you said that, thank you.
[27:24] - Yeah. The Sheriff's Department feels very strongly about that. Yes, absolutely. And they do,
[27:30] - they do a lot, they're active in Ellsville. I mean, listen to Scanner, they're active in Ellsville.
[27:37] - They do a lot there. So, and we appreciate their willingness to work anywhere in the county. And I know
[27:43] - they work with BPD as well. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cockrell. Did you?
[27:52] - So I second. Sorry. Oh, no, you're fine. I just thought Jeff was like ready to explode. I was like,
[27:59] - I'm going to ask him for a motion. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any comment on this? You
[28:07] - can raise your hand on teams or come to the podium. Thanks. Seeing none, all those in favor of approving
[28:14] - this letter, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries to zero. Thank you for waiting.
[28:21] - Thank you. All right. Do we have anything else for work session? Are we good? Good All right. Great
[28:32] - A reminder that our regular meeting was recessed until Friday tomorrow, October 9th at 3 45