* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:03] GOOD EVENING. I [1. Call Meeting to Order] CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF NO, THE WORK SESSION OF THE ADDISON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER, UH, TODAY, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18TH, 2025. UH, WE HAVE A QUORUM CURRENTLY AND WE'LL CONTINUE [1. Discussion regarding items on the agenda for the February 18, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Minutes from December 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Election of Chair and Vice Chair 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Annual Report 2025 Planning and Development Work Plan Unified Development Code (UDC) Recommendation for Adoption] TO THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, UH, WITH THE FIRST ONE BEING TO DISCUSS THE, UM, APPROVAL OR IF ANYBODY HAD ANY COMMENTS TO THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 17TH 24 MEETING. SORRY FOR THE RASPY BOYS COMMISSIONERS. ANY COMMENTS? I GAVE SOME GRAMMATICAL EDITS TO CORY THAT SHE WILL HANDLE. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING, UH, IN THE MEETINGS WE HAD AT SEVERAL ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED ABOUT GETTING POTENTIALLY MORE INFORMATION ON, ARE THOSE, IS THIS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DISCUSS THOSE? WELL, THAT'S, THIS IS THE DECEMBER MEETING, I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO LIKE A UDC MEETING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE LAST MEETING WE HAD, THIS WAS FOR DECEMBER'S MEETING, THAT WAS NOVEMBER. SO IF IT'S ABOUT UDC OR STUFF, I'D SAY WHEN WE GET TO THAT PART, TO, TO, TO TALK ABOUT THAT, YEAH, WE CAN DISCUSS THE J THE UDC ITEMS AT THAT ITEM. BUT THIS IS JUST A REVIEW OF THE DECEMBER 20, 24 MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. OKAY. MOVING ON. OKAY. OKAY. THE NEXT IS ELECTION OF A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR FOR THE 2025 YEAR. UM, WE WILL START WITH CHAIR ELECTION. UM, IF THERE'S ANY INTERESTED PARTIES, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I WOULD OF COURSE BE HONORED TO CONTINUE, BUT, UH, OPENING UP FOR ANYBODY AND FOR DISCUSSION, I'LL, I'LL RE NOMINATE YOU. ME, . ONE SECOND. WE'LL DO THAT FORMALITY AT, WE HAVE TO REDO IT ALL, BUT THIS IS JUST FOR OUR DISCUSSION PURPOSELY HERE. OKAY. ARTIE. THANK YOU. UM, VICE CHAIR POSITION? ANYONE? UM, I KNOW TOM WOULD CONSIDER IT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE IS THOUGH. OH, I JUST SAW HIS CAR. YEP, I SEE HIS CAR OUT THERE. ANYONE ELSE THAT'S INTERESTED? IF TOM IS NOT INTERESTED, GET YOUR MIC. SORRY. IF TOM IS NOT INTERESTED, THEN I'LL THROW MY NAME IN. BUT I MEAN, YOU'RE WELCOME TO THROW IT IN EVEN IF HE'S INTERESTED. OKAY. DO YOU WANNA MAKE A SPEECH AT ALL OR CHAT ABOUT IT OR LIKE NO, I WAS NOT PREPARED. . UM, DO YOU FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY HERE KIND OF KNOWS YOU? I JUST DIDN'T KNOW 'CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW. OH, I, YEAH, I CAN. OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU KNEW ALAN 'CAUSE YEAH, I MET THEM THE LAST TIME. OKAY. TOM WE'RE DISCUSSING VICE CHAIR. OH, YOU MISSED CHAIR CONVERSATION. SO DID YOU WANNA BE CHAIR? NO. OKAY. , UM, CHELSEA'S THROWN HER NAME IN FOR VICE CHAIR. I SAID YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME INTEREST IN IT. SO WE'RE KIND OF DISCUSSING THAT CURRENTLY. I SAID THERE SHOULD BE A GOOD KANSAN DOING IT NO MATTER WHAT. , I DON'T A GOOD KANSAN. YEAH. I MEAN, 'CAUSE I EITHER THROW OUT YOUR SPIEL OR OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION. IT'S HOWEVER YOU GUYS WANNA HANDLE IT. , I WASN'T PREPARED. YEAH, YOU YOU WERE PREPARED. I WAS NOT PREPARED AT ALL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY SPIEL IS GONNA BE, BUT, UM, I, I REALLY DON'T. I MEAN, I'VE BEEN ON PLANNING, I'M PLANNING ON PLANNING AND ZONING TWICE NOW PRIOR TO, I MEAN, PRIOR TO THIS TIME AROUND. SO I, I'VE SERVED FIVE YEARS ON PLANNING AND ZONING, SO, AND ON CITY COUNCIL FOR 12 YEARS. SO I KIND OF, I KNOW A LOT OF STUFF AROUND THAT'S GOING ON AROUND TOWN. SO I ACTUALLY LIKE PLANNING ZONING PROBABLY BETTER THAN . I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. SHOULD I BETTER THAN COUNCIL? YOU WANT YOUR ELECTION RE BIT JUST GOT CUT IN THERE FOR YOUR REELECTION. YOU'RE RIGHT. I'LL JUST BE HONEST WITH YOU. BUT I MEAN THAT'S 'CAUSE IT'S SORT OF WHAT MY, WHAT I SORT OF, MY BUSINESS IN TO SOME DEGREE IN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AND ANYWAY. SO, I MEAN, TOM HAS A LOT MORE OF THE HISTORY THAN, THAN I DO. SO I WILL DEFER. OF COURSE. THAT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE. BUT I, I DO KNOW A LOT OF THE, I KNOW A LOT OF THE HISTORY BEHIND STUFF, SO, BUT I GUESS TO ANY OF THE MEMBERS, DO YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR EITHER ONE OF THEM WOULD HELP YOU DECIDE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. OKAY. YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THIS WAY MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT SHOULD BE. . YEAH. SO MY QUESTION IN GENERAL, DOES THE VICE CHAIR HAVE ANY DISTINCT RESPONSIBILITIES FROM THE CHAIR OTHER [00:05:01] THAN JUST COVERING? THEY FILL IN WHEN I, LIKE IF I'M ABSENT, YOU HAVE TO RUN THE MEETING. YEP. OKAY. GOT IT. UM, THAT'S REALLY PROBABLY THE ONLY THING. AND I THINK DIANE HAD TO DO IT ONCE AND IT WAS ONLY 'CAUSE I WAS REMOTE AND THEY WOULDN'T LET ME RUN IT FROM REMOTE. GOTCHA. UM, IN THE LAST YEAR. OTHERWISE THAT'S REALLY ABOUT IT. YEAH. THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR IN, UH, THE, UH, CAPACITY OF THE COMMISSION DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EXTRA DUTIES LIKE YOU MAY TRADITIONALLY SEE FROM A MAYOR OR SIMILAR. UM, SO IT'S REALLY JUST PRIMARILY RUNNING, RUNNING THE MEETINGS. OKAY. DO WE NEED A NOMINATION? YES. OR A DECISION OF A VOTE BETWEEN? I WILL NOMINATE CHELSEA. I NEED TO MAKE TALK. NO, ONCE AGAIN, DO WE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE VOTE? THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT, I GUESS. AND I WANNA VOTE TWICE. SO HOW DOES THAT WORK, LESLIE? LIKE I DON'T, I MEAN, MEAN, SO DURING THE MEETING, UH, YOU'LL TAKE A NOMINATION IF THERE'S, THERE NEEDS TO BE A SECOND OR THE MOTION DIES. UM, IF THERE IS A SECOND, THEN YOU WOULD GO FOR A VOTE. YOU STILL NEED MAJORITY IN ORDER TO PASS. SO IDEALLY, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK JIMMY NOMINATED CHELSEA FIRST. UM, IF THERE WAS A SECOND AND THEN YOU VOTED AND IT ONLY RECEIVED THREE VOTES FOR APPROVAL, THEN THE MOTION WOULD FAIL. IT WOULD BY DEFAULT BE DENIED. SO THEN HOPEFULLY IF YOU MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO NOMINATE TOM AND IT GETS A SECOND, HOPEFULLY FOUR PEOPLE WILL VOTE TO APPROVE. I DON'T, I MEAN, SORRY, I DON'T MEAN I DON'T WANNA, I MEAN, ON THE ALTERNATIVE, I DON'T WANNA DO THAT AT A MEETING 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD FOR THIS COMMISSION. SO I'LL FLIP A COIN WITH YOU. WELL, WE CAN . I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S, I THINK IT'D BE WEIRD TO HAVE SOMEONE MAKE A NOMINATION AND THEN IT NOT, IT JUST, YEAH, IT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT TO ME. THAT'S, I MEAN, YOU CAN, BUT I DON'T KNOW. THAT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. UH, SORRY CHELSEA, I DIDN'T MEAN THAT. I HOPE THAT YOU DO NOT, UH, GET VICE CHAIR. IT WAS MORE OF JUST THE ROBERT'S RULE OF ORDER. THAT'S HOW IT WOULD WORK. BUT IF YOU GUYS WANNA THUMB MORE OR WHATEVER, THAT'S FINE. I'LL ACTUALLY JUST DEFER TO TOM . MM-HMM . OKAY. SO YOU SECOND. OH, I WILL SECOND THE NOMINATION. YEAH, THERE WE GO. OKAY. I KNOW, I'M JUST DISCUSSING WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO. OKAY. GOT THAT OVER. I THINK. UH, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT. LESLIE, I TAKE IT YOU'RE PRESENTING. YEAH, I'LL PRESENT REAL QUICK. UM, SO, UH, EXCUSE ME, LESLIE AND I, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. SO WE PRESENTED THE 2024 ANNUAL REPORT AT THE JANUARY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING. UM, THERE WAS SOME VERY MINOR EDITS TO THAT, UH, INCLUDING UPDATING THE GOALS, WHICH ELIMINATED A GOAL TWO FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. UM, THE UPDATED REPORT WAS IN YOUR PACKET, UM, AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO PULL IT UP, BUT OTHERWISE EVERYTHING ELSE REMAIN THE SAME. I DID HAVE QUESTIONS, SO CAN YOU EITHER PULL IT UP OR HELP ME FIND IT REALLY QUICKLY HERE? UM, ANNUAL REPORT. OKAY. OH, MAYBE IT'S NOT THE ANNUAL REPORT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THERE WAS A DOCUMENT IN HERE THAT'S THE SCHEDULE OF IF IT'S IN PROCESS, NOT, WHICH IS THAT PART OF THIS. OKAY. THAT NEXT ITEM. OKAY. SORRY. I JUMPED THE GUN. OKAY. I DON'T THINK I HAD ANY COMMENTARY THAT I COULD REMEMBER IN HERE. LET ME LOOK REAL QUICK. I DID HAVE ONE VERY QUICK ONE. UM, IN THE, ON PAGE THREE OF THE REPORT IT REP, IT MENTIONS, EXCUSE ME, I'M LOOKING FOR IT. UM, SOME PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2023. UH, 26% DECREASE. YEAH, THERE IT IS. OKAY. UM, SO IN THE VISUAL AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE FOUR, MY APOLOGIES, UH, THE CASE SUMMARY, UM, THE DESCRIPTION READS, UH, AS SHOWN IN THE CHART ABOVE THE 28 CASES REVIEWED THIS YEAR REFLECTS A 26% DECREASE FROM 2024. I'M GUESSING THAT SHOULD BE 2023. THAT'S LITERALLY ALL I HAVE. CORRECT. GOOD CATCH. MATH WAS RIGHT. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING WITH 26 WAS I'M OVER HERE DOING THE MATH TO 27. I'M LIKE, NO, 26 IS RIGHT. YES, THAT'D BE CORRECT. WHAT WAS THAT? I WAS THINKING THAT'S WHAT I WAS OVER HERE DOING THE MATH TOO. OKAY. UM, GO AHEAD TOM. I WAS GONNA SAY, CAN I, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A GOAL, BUT ON THAT GOALS PAGE ABOUT WE'RE GONNA DO PERIODIC SITE VISITS AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF, WHAT I'D BE INTERESTED IN ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE STICK IT IN THERE, [00:10:01] WE JUST DO IT, BUT WOULD BE PERIODIC, LIKE SORT OF FROM YOU GUYS REPORTS, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND LIKE WITHOUT NAMING NAMES, LIKE WHAT'S THE HOT THING? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU GETTING IN FRONT OF YOU? LIKE WHAT TYPE OF REQUESTS ARE YOU GETTING? IS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE, YEAH. IS IT PEOPLE WANTING TO BUY THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT AND SWITCH IT OVER? IT'D BE, IT'D BE HELPFUL TO ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MIGHT BE COMING DOWN THE ROAD. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. WELL, AT SOME POINT I THOUGHT THERE WAS A LOG THAT YOU ALL WERE KEEPING, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'VE SEEN IT VERY MUCH AND I'M DATING BACK TO MORE LIKE A COUPLE CHAIRS AGO AND THAT IT GOT IMPLEMENTED AT ONE POINT IN TIME, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE REALLY SEEN IT. THAT IS CORRECT. SO TOM, THAT WAS A REQUEST FROM TOM SERS WAY BACK WHEN, UM, AND IT GOT STARTED AND THEN IT, UH, GOT DROPPED BY OTHER PRIORITIES, UH, LIKE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE UDC. UM, BUT YES, SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. SO WE ARE, WE DO HAVE IN THE PIPELINE AND ONLINE INTERACTIVE LIKE ZONING AND CONSTRUCTION MAP THAT WILL BE ON THE WEBSITE. SO, UM, IDEALLY LIKE INFORMATION WILL BE, SO WHEN, WHEN WE SEND OUT THE NOTICES TO THE PROPERTY MANAGER THAN 200 FEET FOR A ZONING CASE, WE WILL THEN PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE SO PEOPLE AREN'T HAVING TO WAIT 72 HOURS BEFORE IN ORDER TO SEE WHEN A CASE IS COMING FORWARD. UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, SO TO DIRECT, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, TOM, WE COULD DO, UM, UH, LIKE MONTHLY REPORTS THAT JUST ARE GET SENT TO YOU VIA EMAIL THAT JUST SHOW THE PRE-APPLICATION WE'VE HAD THAT MONTH. MOST OF THE TIME ZONING CASES THAT COME BEFORE YOU ALL WILL HAVE HAD A PRE-APPLICATION WITH STAFF, UM, ANY MAJOR CASE ANYWAYS. SOMETIMES WE HAVE MINOR ONES THAT DON'T. UM, IS THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU YEAH, I'M, I'M, YEAH, I'M KIND OF MORE THINKING OF, THAT'S WHAT I'M MORE THINKING ABOUT IS WE CAN SEE, I'D LIKE, I'D JUST LIKE TO BE IN THE KNOW ABOUT KIND OF WHERE A TREND IS GOING, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WELL, AND I THINK THAT COULD GO OUT WITH THE NOTICE EMAIL YOU SENT TO US AND THAT'S JUST DONE ONCE A MONTH. YEP. YOU NOT TALKING MORE FREQUENTLY THAN THAT, ARE YOU? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. I'M JUST, I I JUST THINK IT'D BE, I THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL FOR EVERYBODY TO KIND OF SEE THAT AND UNDERSTAND. YEAH, WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. WE'LL WORK ON SOME FORMATTING AND SEE WHAT WORKS BEST, BUT, UM, YEAH, WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. ALRIGHT. I, UM, I, APOLOGIES. I FOUND ONE MORE THING AS THE DESIGNATED TYLER ON THIS COMMITTEE OR THIS VERSION OF THE COMMITTEE, I DID WANNA STAND UP FOR TYLER SUMMERS. HE, HE, ACCORDING TO THE CHART, HAD PERFECT ATTENDANCE, BUT HE'S NOT CALLED OUT ON THE TOP OF THE REPORT FOR HAVING PERFECT ATTENDANCE. LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER DE FRANCISCO AGAIN, SMALL NITPICK. UM, I, HE, I'LL DOUBLE CHECK THE NUMBER I OKAY, COOL. BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE CHART IN THE REPORT HE DOES, UM, I DO NOT BELIEVE HE HAD PERFECT ATTENDANCE. OKAY, GOTCHA. THEN. SO EITHER THE CHART'S WRONG, BUT WE'LL CONFIRM THERE'S TWO PS MISSING, BUT I CAN'T, WHEN DID HE RESIGN? HE RESIGNED IN NOVEMBER. DIDN'T COME TO NOVEMBER MEETING, RIGHT? NO, HE RESIGNED. SHOULD BE GRAY OUT OR N EIGHT OR SOMETHING IN THE CHART ON PAGE. YEAH, GOOD CALL. WHATEVER PAGE I'M ON. SEVEN, NINE, THANK YOU. SEVEN OF NINE. IT IS JUST BLANK FOR THE NO PRESENT, NO ABSENCE, NO GRAY, NOT APPLICABLE. WHATEVER YOU WANNA PUT THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE IN THERE TOO. I THINK HE RESIGNED RIGHT BEFORE, BUT I DON'T RECALL HIM MISSING MUCH. SO I A HUNDRED DOESN'T SURPRISE ME. I JUST DON'T KNOW. THAT CHART'S CLEAR. AND IF IT WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT, LIKE YOU SAID, IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED ABOVE. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WE CAN, UM, MAKE THOSE COMMENTS AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH FOR APPROVAL SO YOU ALL CAN POSTPONE IT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING IF YOU LIKE. OH, YOU CAN'T MAKE IT SUBJECT TO THOSE CHANGES. YOU CAN ALSO DO THAT IF YOU WANT. SO GUYS WANT, I MEAN, IF IT, OTHERWISE YOU GOTTA PUT IT OFF ANOTHER MONTH TO GO TAKE IT TO COUNCIL, WHICH I WOULD, I MEAN THAT'S TOTALLY FINE TO ME. IT'S, AND YOU'RE GETTING INTO APRIL AND MAY BY THEN. IT SEEMS KIND OF WASTEFUL TO DO AN END. YOU CAN MOVE APPROVAL WITH WITH THESE A COUPLE OF NOTES ADDED TO IT. YEAH. YEAH, THAT'S EASY. LET'S DO THAT INSTEAD. DO YOU, DID YOU KEEP YOUR LIST OF WHAT YOUR EDITS THAT YOU WERE ASKED FOR? UH, LEMME MAKE SURE SAY THAT. 'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO REPEAT THAT , MAKE SURE THEY'RE WRITTEN DOWN. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROBABLY MAKE THE MOTION OH. TO, TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING. OKAY. OKAY. SO I KNOW THIS IS NEW TO YOU, SO, BUT IF I'M BEING OVERLY NO, NO, THIS IS, TELL ME. NO, TELL ME. I GOT IT. OKAY. UM, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE 2025 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WORK PLAN, WHICH IS WHERE I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. [00:15:01] NUMBER ONE GOAL, AM I MISREADING THAT OR UNDERSTANDING IT DIFFERENTLY? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S NOT SOMEWHAT ONGOING. WHAT ONE, SORRY. THE FIRST ITEM ABOUT THE UDC, AM I INTERPRETING THAT WRONG? OH, I UNDERSTAND. YOU WERE SAYING IT SHOULD BE INITIATED OR YOU'RE IN THAT PROCESS THAT SAYS NOT INITIATED. I'M LIKE, WE'RE ALMOST DONE WITH THAT. SO I, WE DID THIS IN A DECEMBER AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S OUTDATED NOW. OKAY. SO YOU'LL MAKE THAT ONE EDIT. YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE YEAH, IT STARTED, THE INITIATION STARTED WITH, TECHNICALLY WITH THE JANUARY 29TH MEETING. SO THIS IS OUTDATED IN THE MONTH AND A HALF WE'VE PROGRESSED, BUT YEAH, YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER IT ONGOING WHEN WE WERE DOING ALL OF OUR REVIEWS LAST YEAR, NOT THE ADOPTION PURPOSES. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S WAS, IT'S JUST THE NUANCED. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS SCHEDULE? OKAY, MOVING ON. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION. SO LESLIE, DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN PUT IN FRONT OF US FIRST OR DO YOU WANNA GO OVER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR WHAT DO WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO FIRST? UM, I WANTED TO JUST MAKE ONE NOTE THAT OUR CONSULTANT IS IN ROUTE. UH, UNFORTUNATELY HE GOT A LITTLE, I THINK A LITTLE DELAY DELAYED 'CAUSE OF THE WEATHER, BUT HE'LL, UM, BE HERE IN TIME FOR THE REGULAR MEETING. UM, AND THEN I DID WANT TO ALSO NOTE THAT WE RECEIVED, UM, AS OF 45 ISH MINUTES AGO, WE RECEIVED TWO, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS, UH, TO STAFF. UH, BOTH OF THEM SHOULD BE ON YOUR DAIS AND HARD COPIES. THEY'VE ALSO BEEN, UM, EMAILED DIRECTLY TO YOU, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY DIGITALLY AS WELL. UM, BUT ONE OF THEM WAS FROM JIMMY NEIMAN ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT I BELIEVE WE ADDRESSED HIS COMMENTS. I'LL LET YOU ALL INTERPRET HIS COMMENTS. UM, BUT HIS COMMENTS RELATED TO, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER SET OF COMMENTS. IT'S THE STAPLED VERSION FROM A RESIDENT, UM, UH, LEE AND ROSE, EXCUSE ME, LEE AND ROSEANNE HOPWOOD THAT ADDRESSED SEVERAL CONCERNS. UM, IF YOU ALL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT OR WANT TO WALK THROUGH ANYTHING, UH, BE HAPPY TO DO THAT AT THIS TIME. UH, EXCUSE ME. THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD BE PRESENT FOR THE MEETING AND WOULD LIKE, AND THEY REQUESTED TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. WILL YOU KIND OF GO OVER THE COMMISSION WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE IN REGARDS TO ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES FOR A MOTION TODAY? MM-HMM . SURE. SO, SO TONIGHT, UM, STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT YOU ALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE UDC. SO YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMEND. THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN JUST MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL, OR YOU CAN MOVE TO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, EXCUSE ME, WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS. AND THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD, AND OR MODIFICATIONS WOULD GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. AND WE HAVE A SERIES OF WORK SESSIONS, UM, SCHEDULED AND THEN HOPEFULLY ADOPTION, UH, WITH COUNCIL AS WE MOVE, AS WE PROCEED THROUGH THE COMMISSION, UM, AND OBTAIN A RECOMMENDATION. SO AS FAR AS RESPONDING TO ALL OF THESE CONCERNS, UM, THE COMMISSION CAN ASK STAFF AND OR, UM, OUR LEGAL COUNSEL ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE RELATED TO THEM, UM, TO POLICY, UH, OR NOT POLICY, BUT OUR, UH, COMMISSION STANDARDS OR MEETING STANDARDS. ASK THAT THE A OR EXCUSE ME, THE RESIDENT NOT DIRECTS, UH, QUESTIONS AT STAFF OR OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, BUT YOU ALL AS THE COMMISSIONERS MAY DO THAT. UM, AND DO WE NEED TO DO THAT IN OPEN FORM OR ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THAT CONVERSATION? UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYTHING IN HERE THAT IS SUBJECT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THIS POINT. SO CAN WE HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THE ITEMS ON THIS? OKAY, GOOD. I'LL, I'LL START US OFF IF THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. UH, MY, MY BIGGEST CONCERN, UH, WITH LEE AND ROSEANNE HOPWOODS, UH, SUBMISSION IS PARAGRAPH NUMBER THREE, UH, THAT STATES THE ZONING REGULATIONS MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. UH, AND THEN IT HAS [00:20:01] A FOOTNOTE IN THE SECOND OR THIRD PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT THAT STATES THAT, UM, ZONING REGULATIONS MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MUST BE DESIGNED TO, AND THEN SHE HAS SOME BULLET POINTS, BUT IS IT A TIMING ISSUE THAT SHE'S CONCERNED WITH? UM, OR ARE WE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE? SARAH, CAN YOU PLEASE USE YOUR MICROPHONE? THANK YOU, LESLIE. UM, I DON'T THINK, I MEAN, IT'S A, IT'S A VALID QUESTION TO RAISE, UM, AND I DON'T WANNA MINIMIZE THAT, BUT THERE IS NO LEGAL ISSUE HERE. UM, JUST THINKING OF THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THE ZONING, IF, IF ALL THE CHANGES ARE ADOPTED NOW, THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT IS MOVING FORWARD. THE UDC, I MEAN, NOT THE UDC, THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE PASSED ALSO WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH ANYTHING THAT'S IN THIS UDC. UH, IF SOMETHING WERE TO COME UP IN THE FUTURE, WELL, THAT'S ALWAYS GONNA HAPPEN WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE. CORRECT. SO COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, YOU KNOW, THEY USUALLY, THEY CAN GO 10, 20 YEARS WITHOUT EVER BEING MODIFIED. AND SO IT'S A LOOKING FORWARD GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. UM, WITH THESE ADOPTIONS, AGAIN, WHAT THE LAW SAYS, IT HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE MAY OR MAY NOT PASS A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE. AND THAT'S PRETTY TYPICAL, RIGHT? SO, UM, I I DON'T SEE ANY LEGAL REASON WHY WE WOULD WANNA PUT THAT OFF. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THIS POINT OF VIEW SINCE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ARE DONE SO INFREQUENTLY AND WE'RE JUST ABOUT TO APPROVE ONE. UM, I THINK IT'S A VERY REASONABLE POINT OF VIEW TO SAY, WHY DON'T WE JUST WAIT TILL THAT'S DONE, TILL WE, SO WE DON'T BRING A CONFLICT THAT MIGHT NOT BE ADDRESSED FOR 10 YEARS. SO IT'S NOT AN, SO A COUPLE THINGS. ONE, UH, MOST OF OUR CODE, WHICH WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT EXISTS TODAY RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT, WAS LARGELY ADOPTED WITH THE ORIGINAL ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF ADDISON BACK IN THE SIXTIES. MOST OF IT'S BEEN CARRIED FORWARD. WE HAVE NOT HAD A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO OUR ORDINANCE SINCE THE 1960S. SO REALISTICALLY WE NEVER, WE'VE HAD THIS, UH, WE'VE HAD TWO COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. WE'RE TECHNICALLY UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE SECOND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADDISON HAS EVER HAD IN ITS HISTORY. WE'RE WORKING ON THE THIRD. AND SO IN MY MIND, WE'RE THERE, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE ONE COMING BEFORE THE OTHER, AND WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE, UM, POTENTIALLY UPDATING ONE OR THE OTHER IN SOME CAPACITY. UH, SO MOVING FORWARD, UM, WE CAN ALWAYS MODIFY THE UDC AS NEEDED AND WE CAN ALWAYS MODIFY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS NEEDED, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DOING. WE SHOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO RESPONDING TO MARKET CONDITION CHANGES OR CONDITION CHANGES IN WITHIN ADDISON. UM, LARGELY ANOTHER POINT IS WHERE YOU SEE THIS STANDARD, UH, REALLY BECOME, I WOULD SAY CONCERNING IS WHEN YOU HAVE A ISSUE OF SOMETHING SIMILAR TO A SPOT ZONE. SO YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT HAS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ENCOURAGES LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES, AND THEN YOU HAVE A ZONING APPLICATION TO PUT A REFINERY AND MAYBE THERE'S A LOT OF INCENTIVES OR FOR WHATEVER REASON TO APPROVE THAT REFINERY AND WE APPROVE IT. WELL, THAT'S NOT IN LINE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THAT'S WHERE THAT IS KIND OF PROTECTING. BUT TO, TO OUR, UM, CITY ATTORNEY'S POINT, ADDISON HAS BEEN LARGELY DEVELOPED IN A SIMILAR STYLE FOR THE LAST 30 PLUS YEARS, AND SOME COULD ARGUE BEYOND THAT. UH, SO OUR 2013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WE'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING, AS WELL AS MOVING INTO OUR ADDISON, ADVANCED ADDISON 2050, IS NOT DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT IN THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT OR LAND USE WE'RE SEEING. OKAY. SO, UM, A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THIS. I, I AGREE WITH ALAN HERE. I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THIS, BUT I UNDERSTAND PERFECT. BEING THE ENEMY OF GOOD, YOU KNOW, CAN, CAN SLOW PROGRESS. PERHAPS ONE WAY WE COULD ADDRESS THIS IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ASK STAFF AND YOU COULD SUMMARIZE HERE AND AGAIN IN THE MEETING, HOW EASY IS IT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE COMP TO, TO BOTH THE COMP PLAN AND THE UDC AFTER PASSING SO THAT IF AND WHEN THE COMP PLAN DOES PASS AND THERE IS A CONFLICT, YOU KNOW, HOW ACTIVE CAN THE CITIZENS BE IN REQUESTING SUCH A CHANGE? YEAH. SO A CHANGE CAN COME FORWARD AT ANY POINT. UM, MOST OF THE TIME, I WILL SAY THEY'RE, A LOT OF TIMES THEY'RE STAFF DRIVEN. UH, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE, THERE'S NO, UM, REQUIREMENT THAT THEY'RE STAFF DRIVEN, AS WELL AS IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE'S ACTUALLY, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES OUTLINED AND PROCESSES FOR SOMEONE TO REQUEST A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. UM, AND SO THERE'S AVENUES THAT ARE SET FORTH, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE [00:25:01] WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A ZONING CHANGE. SO THEY COULD APPROACH STAFF, WE COULD HAVE A CONVERSATION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT'S FEASIBLE. UM, AND THEN IT ULTIMATELY WOULD COME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND THEN TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. IF CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT, IT WOULD THEN BE APPROVED AND THERE WOULD LIKELY BE AN EFFECTIVE DATE SET IN WHICH THAT MODIFICATION, WHETHER IT WAS THE UDC OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WOULD TAKE EFFECT. RIGHT. SO THIS NEED NOT STAY IN PLACE FOR ANOTHER 60 YEARS. I HOPE NOT. COOL. SO YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT. AND SO TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, SAY I FEEL SO SYMPATHETIC AND CAN'T SUPPORT RECOMMENDING THE PLAN, BUT WE HAVE THE EXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONSULTANT AS WELL AS SIX YEARS OF WORK BACKING ALL OF THIS UP. YOU KNOW, WHAT, DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IT COSTS TO MAINTAIN CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR ANOTHER X NUMBER OF MONTHS TO, UH, TO WAIT FOR THE COMP PLAN TO MAYBE BE PASSED? WELL, IT DEPENDS. GOTCHA. OKAY. BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO PAY PER MEETING, UH, FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES. AND THEN ALSO IF THERE WAS MAJOR AMENDMENTS DURING THAT TIME, WE'D HAVE TO PAY FOR UPDATED DRAFTS. SO IT WOULD BE, THOSE WOULD JUST BE ADD-ON SERVICES AT COST. OKAY. WHATEVER THOSE ARE. BUT IT WOULD BE A COST. YES. COOL. WE'RE, WE'RE AT THE TAIL END OF OUR SCOPE OF OUR ORIGINAL CONTRACT. YEAH. AND I KNOW, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE READY TO JUST KEEP MOVING ON. SO, UM, THANK YOU. I MIGHT ASK THAT QUESTION AGAIN IN, IN THE GENERAL MEETING, JUST SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A WAY TO MODIFY THESE THINGS THAT WAITING 60 YEARS. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. UM, SARAH, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT? I'VE BEEN REVIEWING IT. I HAVE BEEN REVIEWING IT SINCE WE'VE BEEN SITTING HERE. UM, WELL YOU PROB YOU'RE JUST SEEING IT NOW. SO, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO HAVE YOUR OPINION ON THESE THREE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED HERE. SO I HAVE LOOKED AT, UM, I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY, UH, FOUR SEPARATE ITEMS, UM, RIGHT, THAT THE, UH, THAT THE CITIZEN SENT IN. UM, I THINK I'VE COVERED WHAT WITH THE FIRST QUESTION ON THE FIRST ONE. UM, ON THE SECOND ONE, I THINK, UH, THAT THE LANGUAGE IS SUFFICIENT. I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T HURT TO GO AHEAD AND ADD. UM, AND THIS IS WITH REGARDS TO, UM, UH, INSPECTIONS FOR LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE INSPECTIONS. UM, IT, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT YOU CAN DO IT WITH CONSENT AND EXIGENCY OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT. UM, THE WAY THAT THIS WAS WORDED, I CAN SEE WHERE THEY MAY HAVE CONCERNS. I THINK IT, THEIR EMPHASIS ON CERTAIN LANGUAGE MAKES IT SEEM A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, UNCLEAR. UH, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT THE DIRECTOR IS THE ONE WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE, THE PREMISES, BUT IT ALSO GOES ON TO SHOW HOW THAT THE DIRECTOR IS, CAN GET A WARRANT. RIGHT? SO A WARRANTLESS INSPECTION IS NOT GONNA BE PROPER. AND, UM, WE'VE NEVER REALLY HAD THAT ISSUE HERE. UM, I THINK IF THEY REQUEST CONSENT, THEN IT'S THE DIRECTOR THAT CAN, OR THEIR DESIGNEE THAT CAN REQUEST THAT CONSENT OR DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S AN EXIGENCY. AND IF A WARRANT IS NEEDED, THEN THEY KNOW HOW TO GO THROUGH THAT ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT PROCESS. AND THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE, IN THE CODE. SO SIMPLIFIED YOUR OPINION IS WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO MODIFY THE DOCUMENT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY, UM, YEAH, I THINK IT'S CLEAR, BUT THAT, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. WHETHER Y'ALL WANT TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IS GONNA BE A POLICY DECISION FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER. I'M ALL FOR LESS WORDS, NOT MORE. THANK YOU. IS OH, I'M SORRY. YOU WOULD, THERE WERE THE OTHER, UH, THE OTHER ITEMS. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO PROVIDE AN OPINION FOR THOSE? SO I DON'T HAVE A A, A GOOD OPINION ON THE THIRD SECTION. UM, JUST BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW THAT STATE STATUTE FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN ISSUE. THE, THE, UM, THE GOVERNMENT CODE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DOES STATE THAT HOME RULE CITIES CAN IMPOSE, UM, MORE STRICT REQUIREMENTS UNLESS IT'S, UM, UNLESS THE STATUTE OTHERWISE SAYS SO. UM, AND I I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT THE STATE LAW YET, BUT I CAN DO SO, UM, HERE PRETTY QUICKLY WHILE WE'RE GETTING READY FOR THE MEETING. UM, AND THEN ON THE FOURTH ONE, THE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT FLOODING AND HEAT RESULTING FROM THE FEBRUARY'S, THE, THE, THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE RESTRICTIONS, UM, THAT'S NOT REALLY A LEGAL ISSUE. UM, SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING POLICY-WISE YOU GUYS NEED TO CONSIDER. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. SO I HAD A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. UM, SO IF WE WANTED, YOU SAID WE COULD RECOMMEND WITH LANGUAGE CHANGES. SO IF WE WANTED TO RECOMMEND A LANGUAGE CHANGE HERE THAT WOULD THEN BE TAKEN UP BY THE COUNCIL, IS THAT, DO I UNDERSTAND YOUR, [00:30:01] WHAT YOU'RE SAYING CORRECTLY? THAT IS CORRECT. SO, UM, HYPOTHETICALLY YOU WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATION TO SECTION 1.9 0.5 B TO STAY TO SAY X. AND THEN IF THAT'S APPROVED BY MAJORITY VOTE HERE, THEN IT WOULD PROCEED FORWARD AS THE MOTION. UM, AND CAN THAT LANGUAGE, I MEAN, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ADOPT THE PERFECT LANGUAGE AS A GROUP HERE ON THE SPOT, SO WE, IT WOULD BE, IT MIGHT BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO SAY THE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE THIS. SO CAN WE RECOMMEND WITH, UH, STAFF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LANGUAGE TO THE COUNCIL? CAN WE MAKE THAT? YEAH, I DON'T SEE WHY NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THAT DOESN'T PROHIBIT COUNSEL FROM APPROVING AS IS, EVEN IF WE RECOMMEND WITH A CHANGE. I MEAN, THAT COUNCIL MADE THE ULTIMATE DECISION. THAT IS CORRECT. SO, UH, YEAH, COUNSEL COULD ACCEPT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS OR NOT RECOMMENDATIONS STANDALONE FOR THE DOCUMENT OR THE RECOMMENDATION WITH, SORRY, THEY COULD, UH, ACCEPT YOUR CONDITIONS OR NOT, AS OF WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. SO THE PLAN BY ITSELF IS ONE RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN IF WE CHOOSE TO DO ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY, THAT WOULD BE A STANDALONE ITEM WITH THEM BASICALLY, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH, SO IT WOULD BE, UH, IT WOULD BE A SIMILAR TO, UH, LIKE A RESTAURANT SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION THAT THEY DON'T HAVE OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED MUSIC. SO THEN COUNSEL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THAT EXTRA CONDITION OR NOT. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET WHERE I DON'T WANT IT TO GO TO COUNSEL AND IT HAS TO GET BOUNCED BACK TO US. I MEAN, IF ULTIMATELY IT'S THEM TO DECIDE, NO. SO ONCE YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDATION, COUNSEL WOULD NEED TO DISPOSE OF IT IN SOME MANNER. AND SO AT THAT POINT, IF THEY WOULD DENY IT, THEN WE WOULD LIKE, WOULD KIND OF START THE PROCESS OVER AGAIN. SO LESLIE, ARE YOU ABLE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ABOUT THE CHIEF UH, CITY SURVEYOR COMMENT? YEAH, SO THAT PARTICULAR TERM WAS REMOVED FROM THE LATE LATEST DRAFT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A STAFF MEMBER WITH THAT TITLE. UM, WE USE, UH, FOR OUR ENGINEERING SERVICES, WE ACTUALLY USE A THIRD PARTY ENGINEERING SERVICES TO DO OUR INSPECTIONS. AND, UM, IN MOST CASES WE WOULD PUT THE DUE DILIGENCE ON THE DEVELOPER TO THEN PROVIDE US JUST TO CERTIFY THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT. WE DON'T HAVE A SURVEYING TEAM ON STAFF AND I DON'T, IT'S VERY UNCOMMON MUNICIPALITIES HAVE A SURVEYING TEAM THAT WOULD COMPLETE THAT WORK. AND THEN CAN YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE FOURTH CONCERN ABOUT THE, UM, THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT, THAT YOU ALL HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT IT DURING THE LAST WORK SESSION. YES. YEAH. SO AT THE LAST WORK SESSION, WE DID HAVE A, A CITIZEN SUBMIT CONCERNS ABOUT THE CREATION OF POSSIBLE NON-CONFORMITY, SPECIFICALLY IN OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITH THE ADDITION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, STANDARDS. UM, IN EAST ADDISON, HISTORICALLY THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY IMPERVIOUS STANDARDS AND IN, UH, WEST ADDISON THERE WAS A LOCK COVERAGE STANDARD. HOWEVER, I DON'T KNOW, BASED UPON OUR RESEARCH, IT MAY HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. I DON'T THINK IT WAS IN, I DON'T THINK IT TRANSLATED DIRECTLY TO IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO, UM, ANYWAYS, WHAT THAT, WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE THEN ADDED THOSE, UH, STANDARDS TO THE UDC WAS IT CR CREATED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A LOT OF NON-CONFORMITY, UM, AND COULD HAVE RESULTED IN SOME CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY WHEN, FOR EXAMPLE, A HOME IS TRYING TO ADD A GENERATOR WITH A GENERATOR PAD, THEY'D HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE TO DO THAT. UM, THE INTENT OF REMOVING THAT WAS NOT TO REMOVE ALL OPEN SPACE OR GREEN SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL YARDS. UM, IT WAS SIMPLY TO CREATE, TO ELIMINATE THE CREATION OF NONCONFORMITY, WHICH ONCE AGAIN, MOST OF THOSE STANDARDS WE DON'T HAVE TO TODAY. YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY THAT WAS, THAT WAS, YOU SAID EXACTLY RIGHT. WE WERE, WE WERE GONNA FORCE A BUNCH OF NON-CONFORMING USES IN TOWN, ESPECIALLY ON THE SMALLER LOTS FROM BY BY DOING THAT. I BELIEVE YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK THE ORIGINAL CODE WAS, IT WASN'T IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT WAS STRUCTURAL COVER AS A PERCENTAGE. SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT WAS. SO EVERYTHING'S IN COMPLIANCE RIGHT NOW, AND BY TAKING THAT AWAY, WE'RE NOT FORCING HALF THE HOUSES, AT LEAST ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN FROM POSSIBLY GOING INTO BEING NON-CONFORMING LEGAL USE, I GUESS. BUT, BUT DOES IT MEAN THAT I CAN, I CAN PAVE MY YARD SO I CAN PARK ALL MY CARS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE NOW? WELL, 'CAUSE I, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT . SO NO, MY [00:35:01] NEIGHBORS WOULD HATE ME, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD WORK. NOT NECESSARILY. THERE ARE STILL STANDARDS WHICH DICTATE LIKE, UM, APPROACH AREA DISTANCES AND APPROACHES AND DISTANCES BETWEEN DRIVEWAY APPROACHES. UM, SO THERE ARE STANDARDS IN THERE THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM DOING SOME OF THOSE THINGS. HOWEVER, TODAY SOME OF THEM ARE, IT'S NOT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT IS EXISTS TODAY IS MY POINT. 'CAUSE THE LOT COVERAGE IS NOT, DOESN'T EXIST TODAY. SO WHAT PROTECTS MY NEIGHBORS FROM THAT, SPECIFICALLY FROM ME DOING THAT? HMM. WELL, BECAUSE THERE'S A, I CAN TELL YOU THIS THAT HAPPENED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY TRIED TO PUT A DRIVEWAY OUT FRONT WHEN OUR DRIVEWAYS ARE IN THE BACK AND IT, AND THEY DO NOT PARK CARS OUT THERE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S HAPPENED ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION WITH YOUR DRIVEWAY OR OPPOSITE SIDE OF IT. OPPOSITE LIKE ARE YOU FRONT THE SIDE YARD? MM-HMM . BUT IS THAT IS TURN INTO THE DRIVEWAY. INTO THE DRIVEWAY WITH YOUR DRIVEWAY? CORRECT. THIS WAS OPPOSITE. THIS WAS ALLIE WAS THE DRIVEWAY. YEAH. AND THEY TRIED TO PUT ONE IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THE TOWN SHUT IT DOWN. YEAH. SO IF THEY'RE DESIGNATED REAR ENTRY, YOU CAN'T HAVE A FRONT ENTRY AS FAR AS A FRONT ENTRY. AND YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY, YOU'RE ASKING IF I HAVE A FRONT ENTRY, I WANNA EXPAND MY DRIVEWAY TO THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD. IS THAT, THAT'S, YEAH. SO WHERE, WHERE WILL I FIND THAT IN HERE? THAT, THAT PROTECTS MY NEIGHBORS FROM, FROM ME DOING THAT. WE'RE GOING TO CLARIFY. I WAS LIKE, THERE'S A SECTION I REMEMBER READING WHERE IT DEFINED HOW MUCH EDGES YOU COULD HAVE AROUND A DRIVEWAY. SO I, I THINK IT'S IN THERE. I DON'T WE'LL, WE'LL TRACK IT DOWN. YEAH. CAN WE DO THAT BEFORE WE VOTE? YEP. GREAT. UM, GO AHEAD ALAN. SO I, AS A NEWER MEMBER, I'VE READ THIS DOCUMENT FAR LESS AND HAVE NOT LIVED WITH IT FOR FIVE YEARS. AND I CONTINUE TO BE CHALLENGED EVERY TIME I READ IT TO FIND THINGS OF WHAT I WILL CALL THE UNINTENTIONAL NON-CONFORMITY. SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T INTEND TO MAKE SOMEBODY NON-CONFORMING, BUT WE MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY DO SO SUCH AS WE JUST RAISED HERE. IT'S VERY, VERY HARD TO KNOW. AND I WOULD SPECIFICALLY LIKE TO KNOW WITH REGARDS TO, UH, 1 62 B, UH, WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD CONSIDER SOME CHANGE OF LANGUAGE AS TO THE DETERMINATION OF NON-CONFORMITY STATUS SPECIFICALLY. UM, THE, I'LL JUST READ IT. THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING EXISTENCE OF A NON-CONFORMITY SHALL BE SOLELY ON THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY CONTAINING THE NON-CONFORMITY, UH, VALID AND COMPLIANT NON-CONFORMITY STATUS IS A AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE VIOLATION OF THE UDC. THIS PUTS THE BURDEN ON THAT PERSON TO DE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AS I READ IT. AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS A WAY FOR US TO OFFER PEOPLE A WHAT I, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT A PRESUMPTIVE CONFORMITY THAT IS, WE PUT THE BURDEN ONTO THE CITY TO PROVE NON-CONFORMITY SINCE WE DON'T KNOW IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, UH, MUCH THE WAY WE WOULD DO A CONDEMNATION PROCESS. SO THE PRO THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO COME FORWARD AND SAY, WE THINK YOU'RE A NON-CONFORMITY AND WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO SAY YOU'RE A NON-CONFORMANCE AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING THAT BURDEN ON THE CITIZEN. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT'S A LEGAL OPTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ALLOWED, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SOMEHOW, UH, MAKE IT THE BURDEN OF THE CITY TO ESTABLISH NON-CONFORMITY NOT THE OWNER TO PROTECT HIS STATUS AS I READ IT. NOW, MAYBE I MUTE, I READ IT INCORRECTLY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. YEAH. SO ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT THAT STANDARD IS, UM, IDENTIFYING IS THAT IF A NON-CONFORMING, NON-CONFORMITY IS IDENTIFIED, IT IS UP TO THE BURDEN OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION TO SAY IT IS NOT NON-CONFORMING. UM, MOST OF THE TIME THAT WOULD ARISE DURING A REVIEW PROCESS SUCH AS A PERMIT OR OTHER SITE PLAN, UM, OR VERY SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE CAME IN AND CHOPPED DOWN ALL THEIR TREES AND THEN WE WOULD GO THROUGH A CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AND IF THEY TRIED TO DISPUTE THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THE, THE EVIDENCE ESSENTIALLY TO SAY THAT THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE. RIGHT. AND I, SO I THINK I UNDERSTOOD THAT. RIGHT. AND I READ THAT CORRECTLY. SO I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE THE BURDEN OF THE CITY TO PROVE THERE IN NONCOMPLIANCE AS OPPOSED SINCE THEY'RE THE, THE PARTY THAT HAD EXISTING PROPERTY UNDER. AND, AND SO I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF WE COULD EXPLORE FLIPPING THAT STANDARD. UM, SO BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, I JUST READ THIS AGAIN, I'VE, I'VE ONLY READ IT AND THERE ARE ISSUES AROUND PRIVATE ROADS. I HAPPEN TO LIVE ON A PRIVATE ROAD, DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER IT BEFORE, FOR ME TO GO AND FIGURE OUT IF MY ROAD IS NONCONFORMING OR NOT. IT, IF I WANT TO DO [00:40:01] ANYTHING BECOMES VERY BURDENSOME. AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT I'M AT LEAST SHIELD SHIELDED, UH, AND THAT I HAVE A PRESUMPTION OF CONFORMITY. SO I WOULD LIKE SOME WAY TO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE REFLECT THAT I HAVE A PRESUMPTION OF CONFORMITY AND THE CITY MUST ESTABLISH THAT I'M NON-CONFORMING AS OPPOSED TO ME ESTABLISHING THE FACT. AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. THAT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO MAYBE GET A LEGAL OPINION ON THAT'S LEGALLY POSSIBLE. AND I THINK THAT'S JUST A POLICY ISSUE THAT, THAT Y'ALL NEED TO CONSIDER. YEAH. YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT POINT. I MEAN, HOW MANY, HOW MANY RESIDENTS ARE GONNA READ 400 PAGES AND SAY, OH, I'M OUTTA COMPLIANCE OR I'M, I'M NON-CONFORMING SO I NEED TO REPORT OR SELF-REPORT AS IT WERE. YEAH. SO IT'S VERY, VERY RARE WE GET SELF REPORTERS . RIGHT. WELL, AND SO T SO THE INTENT IS NOT THAT YOU HAVE THE BURDEN TO COME SELF-REPORT, IT'S THE BURDEN TO PROVE OTHERWISE. SO, AND, AND WE, SO THE STAFF DOES, AND THE TOWN ULTIMATELY DOES CARRY A BURDEN IF IT PURSUES IN A, UM, A CODE ENFORCEMENT AVENUE. SO IF WE WERE TO ISSUE A CITATION, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE A JUDGE AND WE WOULD HAVE TO PRESENT PROOF. UM, AND TYPICALLY IT DOESN'T GET TO THAT POINT UNTIL IT ESCALATES IN A PROPERTY OWNER AS, AS, UM, DEFIANT, UH, THROUGH THE PROCESS AND DOES NOT COME TO COMPLIANCE. WE THEN ULTIMATELY HAVE TO LIKELY GO TO COURT AND A JUDGE WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE IF WE HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT THEY ARE IN FACT, YOU KNOW, IN VIOLATION. SO THAT'S, THAT IT DOES HAPPEN, UM, THERE THAT EXISTS TODAY AND WE CON WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE THAT WAY IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S REFLECTED IN THIS LANGUAGE. THE PROCESS YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS NOT REFLECTED IN THIS LANGUAGE AS EVERY DAY. AND I'M SUGGESTING THAT IT SHOULD REFLECT THAT TYPE OF PROCESS WHERE THE CITY IS THE DRIVER OF THAT BOAT AND HAS THE DUTY TO TO TO CARRY THAT FORWARD. YEAH, SO OUR CODE, IT'S A CHANGE OF MINDSET, BUT YEAH, SO OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS DOES NOT LIVE IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT LIVES IN OUR CITY CODE UNDER LIKE THE, UM, INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS AND SO FORTH. SO IT'S A SEPARATE CODE AND FOLLOWS MUCH DIFFERENT, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEED PROCEEDINGS, IF YOU WILL. SORRY, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, I HAVE A, UH, SO REGARDING THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, I KNOW THERE'S PROTECTIONS FROM PARKING ALL YOUR CARS IN, IN THE FRONT YARD AND SUCH, BUT IS THERE ANY ENGINEERING, UH, FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE OR PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, FLOODING CONCERNS WITH PEOPLE WHO, WHO NOW CAN HAVE MORE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON THEIR LOTS EASILY? UM, OR IS THAT REALLY NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT? I'M GONNA SAY POSSIBLY. OKAY. SO WE HAVE, IT JUST DEPENDS. SO WE DO HAVE, UH, I WOULD SAY GENERALLY ADDISON IS VERY, UM, STRONG IN TERMS OF CAPACITY. WE REALLY DON'T HAVE CAPACITY ISSUES IN, IN MOST OF ANY OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE ANYWHERE. GOTCHA. UM, SO AS FAR AS RUNOFF AND STORM WATER, UM, THAT'S NOT A MAJOR CONCERN. IT WOULD BE, UM, HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT ALL OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD PAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THEIR YARD SERIOUSLY. UM, BUT LIKE WE HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE, UM, HOMES ALL THE TIME CONSTRUCT POOLS IN THEIR BACKYARD AND THE ADDITION OF THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, DOES NOT, ISN'T, DOES NOT HAVE A CONCERN. UM, OR LIKE A POOL IS PROBABLY A BAD EXAMPLE 'CAUSE IT CAN CATCH WATER. BUT, UH, LIKE A, AN IMPERVIOUS PATIO, THINGS LIKE THAT, THOSE DON'T MOVE THE NEEDLE ENOUGH TO EVEN WARRANT A, A DRAINAGE STUDY IN MOST INSTANCES. OKAY. UM, THERE ARE, I WILL SAY THERE ARE OTHER STANDARDS IN WHICH THESE ALSO LIVE NOT IN THE UDC. THEY LIVE IN THE STORMWATER SECTION OF OUR TOWN CODE THAT HAS STIPULATIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF OR EROSION FROM YOUR PROPERTY INTO OUR STORM DRAINS. SO OCCASIONALLY WE'LL HAVE ISSUES WHERE A FRONT YARD DOESN'T HAVE ANY GROUND COVERS, THERE'S NO STABILIZATION, AND THE DIRT, YOU KNOW, WASHES OFF THE YARD AND INTO OUR STORM DRAIN. SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE ENFORCE ELSEWHERE. OKAY. AS AN EXAMPLE. OKAY. I WANNA GO BACK TO ALAN'S COMMENTS AND MAYBE I'M BEING SLIGHTLY DENSE ABOUT SOMETHING AND I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE IF THAT'S IT. YOU'RE, YOU'RE GIVING NOTICE TO SOMEBODY OF BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE AND WOULD HAVE TO QUOTE SOME FORM OF SOMETHING IN THE UDC THAT THEY ARE NOT COMPLIANT TO MM-HMM . OKAY. SO I GUESS I DON'T GET WHERE YOU'RE GOING. LIKE THE TOWN'S GONNA NOTIFY, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GO NOTIFY 'EM. YOU'RE OUTTA COMPLIANCE LIKE WE ESTABLISHED WITH JIMMY'S COMMENTARY. SO THE TOWN COMES TO YOU AND SAYS, YOU'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE, HERE'S X, Y, AND Z ABOUT, YOU'RE OUT OF CODE. [00:45:02] HOW DO YOU RESOLVE THAT ANY OTHER WAY THAN YOU TRYING TO PROVE THAT YOU AREN'T OUT CODE? I MEAN, YOU CAN'T PUT BOTH BURDENS BACK ON THE COUNT THE TOWN, SO, SO THE MIKE, PLEASE. SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER I'M IN COMPLIANCE TODAY OR NOT, OR DO YOU KNOW IF YOUR PROPERTY BASED UPON THIS, IF THIS IS ADOPTED, DO I KNOW IF I'M IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT? IT, IT'S VERY COMMON TO BE AS TIME PROGRESSES IN LIFE THAT YOU GET OUT OF COMPLIANCE ON A PROPERTY. IT'S CALLED, YOU KNOW, IT'S GRAND, YOUR GRANDFATHERED IN WHAT, WHAT DO YOU CALL THE LANGUAGE? UM, RIGHT, SO LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING, LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING. I MEAN THAT'S VERY COMMON. I I UNDERSTAND IT'S COMMON AND, BUT I DON'T WANT THE BURDEN TO GO FIGURE OUT IF I'M IN, IN THAT CONDITION UNLESS THE TOWN RAISES AN ISSUE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THE TOWN IS SENDING YOU NOTIFICATION WOULD HAVE TO, I I SO THE TOWN WOULD HAVE TO THE BURDEN TO PROVE THAT I'M IN NON-COMPLIANCE. THEY ARE IN YOUR NOTIFICATION, CORRECT? NO, THEY'RE ASSERTING THAT I'M OUT OF COMPLIANCE. THEY'RE NOT PROVING ANYTHING. THERE'S NO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. THEY'RE JUST SENDING ME A THING THAT SAYS YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. LESLIE, YOU WANNA COMMENT ON THAT? YEAH. SO WE WOULD, SO WHEN, WHEN A NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR A NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE, WHATEVER YOU WANNA REFER TO IT AS STAFF HAS TO IDENTIFY THE EXACT CODE WHICH IS NON-COMPLIANT. AND TYPICALLY THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LEVEL OF PROOF ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND SO WE IN, IN THAT SENSE, WE HAVE TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND WE HAVE TO TRY TO PROVE OTHERWISE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, LOOK AT, TO MAKE SURE THERE AREN'T HISTORICAL PERMITS OR OTHER THINGS RELATED TO THAT. AND IF WE CANNOT PROVE OTHERWISE, THEN THE THE BURDEN IS UPON THE APPLICANT TO PROVE OTHERWISE. SO I, SO I GUESS I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE THEN IS IF THAT'S WHAT THE PROCEDURE'S GONNA BE, WHY CAN'T WE REFLECT THAT IN THIS LANGUAGE THAT THE TOWN WOULD, WOULD SUBMIT NON-COMPLIANCE AND WOULD PROVIDE A PROOF OF, THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR. BUT, BUT I THINK THE STANDARD, UM, I, I DON'T, I GUESS HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS AND TALK TO LEGAL COUNSEL A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD HAVE A CODE THAT SAYS ESSENTIALLY EVERYONE IS PRESUMED TO BE CONFORMING, SAY JUST THAT YOU'RE PRESUMED UNTIL THE TOWN ASSERTS OTHERWISE AND GOES THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, YOU ARE ASSUMED TO BE CONFORMING. I THINK IT'S JUST REFLECTING, I I DON'T THINK I'M JUST ASKING FOR A CHANGE IN LANGUAGE THAT REFLECTS I THINK WHAT WE INTEND AND, AND AS A CITIZEN, I'M JUST AN AVERAGE CITIZEN. OKAY. I KNOW I'M CONFORMING 'CAUSE THE TOWN JUST SAID, UH, YOU'RE PRESUMPTIVELY CONFORMING AS IS AS OPPOSED TO THIS, WHICH ALMOST HAS, IF YOU'RE CONFORMING, UM, YOU'VE GOTTA, YOU'VE GOTTA PROVE THAT YOU'RE CONFORMING. UM, SO I I I FIND IT, UM, A CHANGE, BUT IF PEOPLE DON'T THINK THAT THAT CHANGE IS, IS MATERIAL, I I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. COULD I COME AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT, UM, DIFFERENT DIRECTION, LESLIE, THE THIS UH, PARAGRAPH BE DETERMINATION OF NON-CONFORMITY STATUS. WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THAT PROVISION? THAT'S WHAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF A NON-CONFORMITY SHALL BE SOLELY ON THE, ON THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY CONTAINING THE NON-CONFORMITY, UH, CONFORMITY. SO HOW, SO THIS IS, UM, MY INTENT OF HOW THIS WOULD BE OPER HOW THIS WOULD BE USED IN A ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY IS IF, SO WE, WE GET THESE QUESTIONS ALL THE TIME, ESPECIALLY FROM BROKERS OR GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT SAYS, CAN YOU CONFIRM, CAN YOU CERTIFY THAT THIS PROPERTY IS CONFORMING? I CANNOT, I DON'T THINK ANYONE ON MY STAFF CAN OR THE AVERAGE PERSON CAN. HOWEVER, IS WHAT WE ADVISE THEM IS YOU ARE WELCOME TO HIRE A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL, SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, WE WILL DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND WE WILL ISSUE A DETERMINATION BASED UPON A SITE REVIEW IF YOU ARE CONFORMING OR NOT. 'CAUSE WE CAN'T, WITHOUT HAVING A SEALED DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THESE ARE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO, ON AN AERIAL CONFIRM WHETHER YOU MEET ALL THE SETBACKS OR ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. SO FROM A ADMINISTRATION, THAT'S WHERE I SEE THIS BEING USED IS IT IS UP TO THE BURDEN OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT CERTIFIES THAT THEY ARE OR ARE NOT NONCONFORMING. AND AND THAT COMBINED WITH THE PROCEDURE THAT YOU HAVE OF GOING THROUGH THE, UH, REVIEW PROCESS THAT PROVIDES THE, THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE OWNER AS FAR AS GOING THROUGH AND PROVING UP THEIR POINTS, WHETHER IT GOES TO COURT OF LAW OR NOT. SO ESSENTIALLY YEAH, I GET IT. I'M GOOD WITH THE PROVISION THE WAY IT'S, THE WAY IT'S WORDED OR THE WAY ALAN WANTS IT REALIZED THE WAY IT'S WORDED. OKAY. THANK YOU. I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF, FOR THE TOWN TO BE ABLE TO SAY LIKE JUST AGREE [00:50:01] THAT, THAT ALL THE PROPERTIES ARE IN CONFORMITY. 'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT HAPPENS ON PROPERTIES THAT THE TOWN DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT. RIGHT? LIKE SOMEBODY COMES OUT THERE AND THEY BUILD SOMETHING, THEY ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THE, AND THEY DIDN'T NEVER GOT A PERMIT. SO THE TOWN CAN'T, DOESN'T KNOW THAT I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT I GET IT NOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S, IT'S FOR WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL IT AND SOMEBODY'S TRYING TO BUY, BUY SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY AND THEY COME INTO TOWN SAYING, CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT THIS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH RIGHT. IT'S CONFORMING. SO IT'S ONLY, IT, IT'S ONLY BASED ON A TRANSACTIONAL PO BASIS WHEN THAT TRANSACTION OCCURS. PROBABLY THE ONLY TIME THAT IT'S COMING UP. YEAH, I WOULD SAY LIKE WE DISCUSSED THE AVERAGE, THE AVERAGE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT COMING TO STAFF AND SAYING, I AM NON-CONFORMING. PLEASE PROCEED WITH ENFORCEMENT UPON MY PROPERTY , THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REITERATE AGAIN, LIKE THIS HAS, THIS PROCESS RIGHT HERE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ISSUING SOMEONE A CODE VIOLATION OR TRYING TO GET THEM TO STOP THEIR NONCONFORMING STATUS BECAUSE THAT WOULD GO TO MUNICIPAL COURT WHERE THE BURDEN IN COURT APPLIES LIKE THAT. THAT DOESN'T AFFECT ISSUING SOMEONE A CITATION OR REQUIRING THEM TO CEASE A NONCONFORMING USE. ANYBODY ELSE? MORE COMMENTARY? GO AHEAD JIMMY. I'LL SAY ONE LAST THING. I THINK, I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER WRITTEN IF IT SAID THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF A NON-CONFORMITY SHALL BE SOLELY ON THE, THE TOWN PERIOD. VALID AND COMPLIANT NON-CONFORMING STATUS IS A DEFENSE TO THE VIOLATION OF THIS UDC. I THINK THAT FIXES IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PRESUMPTIVE CONFORMITY, BUT YOU PUT THE BURDEN WHERE IT BELONGS AND YOU SAY, AND THERE'S A DEFENSE OF CONFORMITY IN THE EVENT THAT A NON-CONFORMITY DOESN'T EXIST. SO IN THAT, IN THAT SENSE, AND EVERY TIME SOMEBODY'S GONNA SELL A PROPERTY, THE TOWN'S GOTTA GO OUT AND DO A SURVEY OF THE GUY OF SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY AND TO GUARANTEE THAT IT'S CONFORMING. NO, WELL IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF THAT INITIAL, UM, OPINION TO THE TOWN. THIS SPECIFICALLY IS SAYING, NO, IT'S NOT US. YOU HAVE TO SHOW IN YOUR DOCUMENTS WHETHER YOU'RE YOU CONFORM OR NOT. WHAT DOCUMENTS DO YOU SITE PLAN SURVEY OR A SURVEY SURVEY SUBMITTED THE CITY FOR THE CITY'S REVIEW? THE CITY IS, IS SAYING WE, LIKE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE INUNDATED, WHICH I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I GET IT. UH, WITH JUST HAVING THE, UH, STATE OPINIONS WHERE THEY'RE DOING ALL THE RESEARCH AS TO WHETHER THAT PROPERTY IS CONFORMS OR NOT, BECAUSE YOU GOT, MAY HAVE TO HAVE A SURVEY, YOU MAY HAVE TO HAVE MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS TO, TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. THAT'S, THAT RESPONSIBILITY FALLS TO THE OWNER. THAT'S PART OF THEIR COST OF DOING BUSINESS IF THEY'RE TRYING TO WHATEVER THEY'RE, THEY'RE SELLING MODIFYING OR WHAT HAVE YOU. AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT. NOW CONVINCE ME THAT IN THE, THE, FOR A HOMEOWNER CONVINCE ME THE SAME THING, I, I'M NONCONFORMING, BUT MAYBE I'M, MAYBE I'M NOT SO, BUT I'M NOT, I DON'T HAVE ANY SITE PLANS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE ALL I HAVE IS A SURVEY THAT WAS DONE IN 1986 WHEN THE HOUSE WAS, WAS DEVELOPED. WELL, UH, AGAIN, I JUST WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS WHERE I HAD TO DEVELOP A SITE PLAN AND MAKE THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WAS THE COST OF MY IMPROVEMENT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE AND PRESENTED IT TO THE CITY. THEY SAID I'M CONFORMING AND I'M GOOD TO GO. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO OUT AND PROVIDE A SURVEY OR TEST THAT WHAT I WANTED TO DO AGAINST ANY DOCUMENTS THAT THEY PROVIDED. THEY BASED UPON LEGAL DOCUMENTS THAT I PROVIDE FULLY AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. I, I'M SATISFIED ANYWAY. MY QUESTIONS ARE, MY STATEMENT OR MY QUESTION ON THE, ON THE HOMEOWNER IS UNANSWERED. I FEEL SO, SO LIKE TYPICALLY WHERE THIS WOULD ARISE IS IF SOMEONE WAS TO, UM, CONTEST A FENCE LOCATION OR SOMETHING OF SIMILAR FOR AN AVERAGE FENCE PERMIT, WE REQUIRE A EITHER A SURVEY OR LIKE A PLOT PLAN. AS FAR AS THE AGE IS CONCERNED, THAT'S USUALLY NOT AN ISSUE UNLESS YOUR PROPERTY HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY AND IS NO LONGER ACCURATE. BUT WE DO REQUIRE, IF YOU'RE GONNA BUILD A NEW FENCE IN YOUR YARD, YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT A SURVEY OR A SITE PLAN TO IDENTIFY WHERE THE FENCE IS GOING AND IT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE. THE TOWN CANNOT, I THINK THERE'S SOME LIABILITY THERE. AND I'LL DEFER TO LEGAL COUNSEL IF WE CERTIFY THAT WHAT, WHERE YOU WANNA PUT YOUR FENCE IS ON [00:55:01] YOUR PROPERTY LINE AND IT IS NOT THE TOWN CAN'T ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR KNOWING WHERE YOUR PROPERTY LINES ARE IN THAT, IN THAT EXAMPLE. AGREE. AGREE. I ACTUALLY HAD THAT HAPPEN TO ME. I REPLACED MY FENCE YEARS AGO AND COME TO FIND OUT I HAD A SLICE OF TRIANGULAR SHAPED PIECE THAT I WAS LIKE EIGHT FEET. I MEAN I, MY ORIGINAL SURVEY SHOWS IT LIKE IT'S WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT I'M EIGHT FEET OFF IN THE CORNER FROM FRONT TO BACK OF MY HOUSE. IT WAS LIKE A BIG WEDGE IN THERE THAT I WAS, SO I, I GAINED BACK A BUNCH OF LAND WHEN I PUT THE NEW FENCE IN AND I HAD A, I DID A SURVEY THAT HAD, YOU KNOW, BY A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND HAD TO TURN IT INTO CITY TO GET A PERMIT TO BUILD A FENCE. SO I MEAN THAT'S GONNA COME UP IF YOU GO TO SELL YOUR HOUSE. I MEAN THAT, THAT IS, ESPECIALLY IF SURVEYS 30 YEARS OLD, YOU, I MEAN THAT, THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO COME UP AND I'M KIND OF WITH LESLIE OF THAT. THAT'S BY LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THAT'S NOT FOR THE TOWN TO GO. YEAH, YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE ON UDC RECOMMENDATION ACTIONS? GOOD. MOVE ON. OKAY. AND WITH THAT, OUR WORK SESSION IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED AND WE'LL TAKE FIVE MINUTES AND WE'LL BE BACK. WE REALIZE WE'RE RUNNING A LITTLE LATE. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.