[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

Monroe County Commissioners Work Session 10/8

Transcript