STANLY) COUNTY Maten An Lards Saccenn. Stanly County Planning Board December 11,2023- - Meeting Minutes  Call to Order Chair. Jay Eckman called the meeting to order on December 11,2 2023 at 6:30 p.m. int the Gene Stanly County Planning Board members attending David Underwood, Jay Eckman, Michael Williams, Joel  McIntyre meeting room at 10001 N. First Street, Albemarle, North Carolina.  Mauldin, Kevin Brickman, TJ Smith & Tim Fesperman  Absent: none  Stanly County Planning Staff Attending: Bobl Remsburg, Planning Director &1 Bailey Cline, Planner 2 Chair Eckman asked if there were any conflicts ofi interests with the items to be heard due to financial or personal  relationships. There were none There were none.  Chair Eckman asked if there were any other additions to the agenda that the board needed to consider.  Chair Eckman asked fora ai motion to approve the proposed agenda.  Motion: David Underwood Second: Tim Fesperman Approved: 7-0  Chair Eckman asked for a motion to approve the minutes from November 14, 2023.  Motion: Michael Williams Second: David Underwood Approved: 7-0 Motion: TJ Smith Second: Kevin Brickman Approved: 7-0  Chair Eckman asked for ai motion to approve thei meeting dates for 2024.  Chair Eckman shared thei first item on the agenda was CR 23-04, ai request by Alil Darwich to rezone a portion of two adjoining parcels located at 244261 NC: 24/27,Albemarle, NC: and 24414 NC 24/27, Albemarle, NC totaling 5  acres from County, RA to a Conditional Zoning District.  Chair Eckman invited county staff to share the details of this request.  Planning Director, Bobl Remsburg gave as summary oft the request for an. Auto Sales lot to be located on the 5 acres by Mr. Darwich. Community members were present and shared their concerns with thel Planning Board. Since Mr. Darwich was not present at the meeting and thel Planning Board stated that they did not have enough information to  make a decision thei item was tabled until the next. Planning Board meeting.  1    David Underwood made a motion to table thei item until the next Planning Board meeting.  Second: Kevin] Brickman Passed: 7-0  Chair Eckman introduced the second item on the agenda, a request by Burleson! Development for the  addition of three lots in Garmon Milll Estates, Phase 2. Chair Eckman invited staff to share the details of this request.  Bob Remsburg shared the following:  Iam going to start off by showing this. Statute 160D-801 does state the following: Decisions on approval or denial of preliminary plats may be made only on thel basis of standards explicitly set forth int the subdivision ordinance or UDO. Other portions of] NCGS 160D provide that thes standards to be applied are those in effect at thet time oft the acceptance oft the application or any newer adopted standards. Whichever the applicant chooses. This is called permit choice, Ijust wanted to make that clear because I think that is the situation that we are going to run into this What we have is a request from Burleson Development Group for an addition of three lots in Garmon Milll Estates Subdivision, Phase 2. These three lots are served by easements offofGalloway Drive. Those were already in the plans and put inj place and this was kind ofp put inj place through ai recombination and subdivision ofthose existing lots that were there. The new. lots will be from 38,057 square feet to 1.8 acres in size. Iti is considered ai major subdivision because iti is a change to ai major subdivision that you all had already approved which is Garmon Mill, Phase 2. That plan was inj place and approved.) Idrove through it the other day, thei roads are paved and thel lots are being prepared: for development and quite ai number ofthel lots are sold already according to the signs on1 the lots. It could not be a minor subdivision although iti is only dealing with three additional lots, we have ai rule that says you So, some of you were on the board when we made a change to that rule. It used tol be that every. January 1st the clock reset but the current rule says that ifyou do a subdivision of property and generally iti is a minor subdivision ofp property, you can't subdivide that minor subdivision for 12 months. So, because oft that and our interpretation of that, the Burleson! Development Group could not come back and doi it as ai minor sub before April of2024. As you alll know thei rules have changed and that would: not necessarily be acceptable at this point because of the size oft the lots. However, Burleson Development Group seeing that rule was potentially going to change put in the application prior to that for this as a major subdivision change andi itt took a while. Somej people were asking why we were doing this in December when the application was received in. June, we were waiting for the approval of thel Firel Marshall. Wel have now received that. It does meet the subdivision requirements that werei inj place at the time oft the application which was. June 20, 2023. These lots willl have Stanfield water and individual septic systems and there is as small conservation area along the creek and with that it meets the construction criteria points. Mr. Remsburg displayed maps oft thej property showing the recorded lots and the requested additional lots. These meet the minimum lot sizes that were: in place prior to the changes that took place in September. What was inj place in. June allowed for 30,000 square foot lots. Again, the smallest loti is 38,057 square feet. Iti met the code as  evening with this case.  cannot do ai minor subdivision within 12 months oft the division ofaj property.  of June 20th.  The Board had no questions for Mr. Remsburg.  Chair Eckman invited Mr. Burleson to speak in favor of his request.  Mr. Burleson shared the following:  2    Ithink Bob pretty much covered everything front tol back on there. We werei meeting the criteria set forth by the county in June when the application was submitted and basically it took thel Fire Marshall about that long. It think we were right ahead oft thel November meeting but it was too close to when you guys were meeting so that is the reason we are here tonight. It took some time to get that because I think thel Fire Marshall was out on leave. Iam  basically herei ifyoul have any questions for me. Mr. Burleson "There will be culverts." Mr. Burleson "To what?"  Chair Eckman "So, the easements, are there bridges going over the creek there?"  David Underwood "How: many entrances and exits are there?" David Onderwood "The whole subdivision."  Mr. Burleson "One. Right at the front. But they are all state maintained roads now or willl be once they except maintenance ofit.Wel have to wait until the development is 70 percent built out per NCDOT, they want us to get all the construction, traffic and concrete trucks off ofitt then repair any damage and then they will take over. They  approved this design as well." Mr. Remsburg "Yes."  David Underwood "So, for ai major subdivision we only have tol have one exit?" Chair Eckman invited others concerning this request to come and speak.  Kelly Hart shared the following:  lunderstand everything that has been said and you all know that I havel been herel before about this subdivision.. I have major concerns about a subdivision with 101 homes and only one way in and one way out. Ithink that is putting peoplei in very bad positions. Ialsol have aj problem with all of the septic tanks with thel blue creek that runs through here not counting all of the others in the area. There are more septic tanks in that area thanj probably the Ialso have a concern because. Ic called the Firel Marshall on' Thursday and asked him ift there was any limit on how many houses could bei in as subdivision with one entrance and exit. He said there are two and Isaid sirl I1 live right there and there is only one exit into that development. Hes said no ma'am there is one from Reneel Ford Road and one from River Road. Is there one: from! Renee Ford Road? No, there is not. Where there used to be a driveway that Iassume he was speaking of going into the development, it now has power poles going down the middle ofit. You could not get in there that way no matter what you did. It think iti is ai mistake to add more problems on top ofwhat  rest of Stanfield with the subdivisions that havel been approved right in that very area.  is already ini my opinion, al big problem. Thank you. Kristie Kay shared the following:  Ilive on Mattiel Lane which is kind of behind where I think Phase 2 is] I believe but I am not sure. Ia am not sure what lots he said on that one page that they were 1.81 but when you go to the Stanly County GIS they are 2.84, 2.57 and 1.96.I Idon't know if those are the lots they are talking about adding but we have suffered significant water runoff from the clearing that has already been approved and happening. Our yard is completely flooded. Ihave videos and pictures and have sent them to al Mr. Hoenycutt, whose information Iwas given when I visited the Burleson Development Office in the Market area ofLocust. Ihave not received any information. They have not done anything tol keep the water runoff from just demolishing the houses behind this development. I have hen  3    houses that have flooded, a goat pen that is flooded, we have just a river ofi mud running down the middle ofc our yard andl I don't know what clearing another 7 acres isg going to do. That creek is not built to withstand that much water when we get a massive amount of rain. Idon't know what thej plani is tol keep that. That creek runst through our road. We have a culvert that wel have already had to upsize and replace when they did thel homes on River Road and Renee Ford Road, that development there. I don't know how much more the creek can withstand with more clearing. There is nowhere for this water to go. It is not going into the creek now and when we went down there yesterday after the rain, the creek was almost empty but there was ar massive amount of water that was coming through our yard and iti is not being diverted to that creek anymore, Idon't know what happened back int there that has blockedi it from going where it is supposed to buti it is running through our yard and taking away foundation, tons of soil just running down and through the yard. Another 7 acres, Idon't know what moret that area can withstand ift they just keep taking and clearing and not doing anything about that water. Kristie Kay gave the board pictures ofher property. She indicated on September 22nd that four of the perk testing  sites were full of water.  Christina and Dustin Barnhardt shared the following:  Wel live at 12432 Mattiel Lane and we are also right behind the Garmon Mills Development. Right now they have taken al lot oft trees out. We go out on our back porch and we: no longer see al lot of woods, we: see a development right outside our back door. We don't really want 1001 homes behind us with septic tanks because we doi notl know what thati is going to do to our house and land. Like her, Ia aml kind of confused about where the lots aret that you: are speaking oft tonight but Idol believe thati iti is right behind myl house. Att thet top of our neighborhood offofRL Lane and Mattie Lane, thel home that was built changed the direction of water and we have al lot ofwater runoffto our home and around our foundation. Iam afraid thati if they go out in this field behind us and cut out aj plot for al home to goi ifit is going toi run offi into our property because our property cannot handle anymore water. The buffers, if they put a house in this field behind us then we will not have anything separating us from any new homes. They talked about our natural preservation area near the creek yet where they have the stakes up forl lot 101i itis less than 100 yards from our property line. There is no buffer. We are neighbors with Mrs. Kay, the lady who was previously upl here. The water runoffi is really ai major concern for all oft us here. There is not going tol be any buffer between us and these 500,000 dollar homes and we: are a neighborhood of modular homes. We do not want to feel like we are included in this giant neighborhood that we didn't really wantl behind us. They are taking out all oft the trees, Ii mean this neighborhood was here before and iti is going tol be like we are. joined to this other neighborhood and thel homes are way higher than the homes that are currently there. Ifyouj put something on this property right behind us then this home is going to tower over us.. Even with aj privacy fence, we are not going to have any privacy. They are going to look directly overi it. They can see our backyard and in our windows. It isj just al lot. I don't necessarily think this whole neighborhood should have been approved for this many homes in this location. West Stanly is being overtaken' by development. Our schools cannot handle the amount of children that will be livingi int this neighborhood already. Stanfield alone had 1001 new students over the past year. We already are suffering with teachers and bus drivers. I mean how much more can we take on the West Side without help? We are going to need schools, we are going to need teachers in these schools, we are going to need bus drivers to bus these Wel know it has already been approved and there are going tol be! 90-1001 homes, do we: really need 3r more? Especially over that creek. No water is hardly going in at all, we do not want tol be flooded out. We work really hard to have our home and our property and toj protect it and wej just don't want to see it destroyed.  kids.  4    Jennifer' Tice shared the following:  Ireside at 124201 Mattie Lane. One of the properties in question backs upt to my property, lot 101. My concern with losing the countryside and thei field this development is the damage that has been caused to my neighbors, happening to my property. How do II know this damage will not be caused to my property asl I am watchingi it done to my neighbors? Also, you can see from Christina's photos which were actually taken at mine and her property line, one oft these properties, lot 101 willl be built right over top of mine. Although thisi is one of the lots that is considered to be bigger in size, this house would bel built directly over top of mine. This is a two story house, 4-500,000 dollar house that note even a 61 foot privacy fence would create privacy. Ia am asking that thel board consider mine and my neighbors please to vote against any further properties being built. This creek can't handle this. We are wiping out the natural scenery and there is nowhere else fort this water to go. Thet trees, the grass, the bushes, they all consumed al lot oft that water. It also diverted into the creek which now iti is not. I am: really concerned about that happening to my property with lot 101 being built over top of mine. Which lot 101 is the one inc question where they would have to do a culvert. IH have watched a culvert built. Ib have watched my neighbors not be able to cross over their road because we do live on aj private road and we are considered to fix what is ours. We came together as a neighborhood to help fix this culvert. That creek is not going to withstand another property  being built right there. Thank you.  Chair Eckman asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak for or against.  Mr. Burleson "I will bel happy to address some oft the concerns that came up. I have not seen the pictures or whatever you guys are looking at. Iv will say about 3 of the lots were the only ones that were cleared and the entire lot was: not cleared. It was. just where the home site was at, just thej pad oft thel house. So,when we are talking about clearing, not sure where that is coming from because we have notl hardly taken out any trees. We did not start clearing any until probably the beginning ofl last week, you can go out there and look. You can take aerial photos and look. As far as the creek and any kind of flooding, we had to get permits from Army Corps of Engineers and Department of] Environmental Quality sO we are following all those and we are routinely inspected. We are inspected every month. We are: following all oft that. Over the weekend we did get about three inches. It was al lot at one time. Ilive on top ofal hill and I had water running into my garage yesterday and iti is sloped away from the housel but at times it was coming down so hard. So, days like that are not normal but I am happy to look at whatever pictures you guys are looking at and] I would be happy to address anything like that. We are meeting all thei requirements so you guys have any further questions after that Iwilll bel happy to answer any oft those questions.  TJ Smith' "T have questions for Bob."  TJ Smith "So, how long does it usually take to get approval from thel Firel Marshal's office? Does he notl have Mr. Remsburg "Ini fact the approval I think came from his assistant but it can take two to three months. That is not uncommon and Mr. Barnham was out for medical leave sol It think that slowed ai few things down as well. Not  assistance?"  uncommon to take aj pretty good while to get ai review from thel Fire Marshal's office."  Joel Mauldin "When were these pictures taken?"  Audiencei member "Yesterday. The actual photos, some of those are from September 9, September 22nd and then  yesterday."  David Underwood "Do you know how big ofar rainstorm it was when you took them?"  5    Audience member "Yesterday, yes. September, I don't remember. It was not as bad as what we got yesterday. But Mr. Remsburg "Mr. Burleson may correct me on1 this but Ithink on this particular plat on this diced area thati is shaded al little bitI I believe is at tree line. This area was a field so it was open and no trees along the middle partI  either way, al lot ofrain or al littlel bit of rain iti is still just flooding."  believe but along the edge there was ai tree line."  Joel Mauldin' "Is there ai floodplain designation anywhere on that?"  Mr. Burleson' "That is kind of what you see along that stream. The center oft the stream is the actual stream and  then the darker stuff along the side... *inaudible* Mr. Remsburg "But, iti is not a designated flood zone."  Mr. Burleson "Right but with stuff like we had yesterday that is where you arej potentially going to see water buti it  ist not a designated flood zone."  Tim Fesperman' "Do youl have ar retention pond on that?" Mr. Burleson' "It hasl been taken out now."  Mr. Remsburg "You all have probably figured this out but Mattiel Lane runs along this left side."  David Underwood "Is there aj power line that runs through here anywhere?"  Mr. Remsburg "Yes, up here."  Chair Eckman asked ift there were any further questions.  Chair) Eckman "We are voting on ift this meets the requirements, correct?" Mr. Remsburg "Ifi it meets the requirements for the three lots." Chair Eckman "Ineed a motion sO we can discuss."  Joel Mauldin "Is thes stormwater plan still in effect as far as the silt fencing and things such as that on new. lots that Mr. Burleson' "We haven't installed anything on the new lots sO we. haven't graded anything over there to it."  are coming up?"  David Underwood "But, there will be?"  Mr. Burleson' "There willl be yes, sO it will alleviate any, I mean, Iam certainly going tol look into the pictures that  Ijust saw."  6    Joel Mauldin  Letsj just say thel lower side ist the west, the area that youl have already developed and youl have Mr. Burleson "No, everything along the creek line the silt fence is ini for lot 43,58, 591 there is still ai fence there. We have additional measures and we have riffi raff out around where thej pipe is on our newi road. Thei retention pond is noti in, we took that out. Once everything is seeded and strawed and construction is done yout take that out. That was not even anywhere near the creek, the retention pond is on lot 63 & 64, kind ofc off the screen. This site here since iti is as septic system we are not mass grading any of this. Iti is not a mass graded site.. Just graded the Audience member "I am sorry, therei is no silt fencing, I1 live behind lot 58, there is no fencing anywhere. There are. just stakes with flags and lot numbers, there is no fencing, there is no barrier, therei is nothing. There is a ditch that runs through all oft that that leads water into that creek that I don't think they are keeping clear, Idon't know if stuffi is just rushing. They havel had massive fires, they have cleared al lot of woods. Yes, al lot of that was al bigi field but they have taken out al lot of woods as well. Theyl keep coming further and further in so I don't know ift they plan on coming all the way into my property ori ift they plan on stopping at some point but there is no silt fence in site back there. There is supposed tol be but therei is not and when he says there is one, there is not. I was out there Kelly Hart' "II know that like on mobile homes you have tol have more than one way in for 40 or more or up to 40i is what I read on thei information on your site. Is there no: requirement for houses, how many can have one way in and Mr. Remsburg "There should be, but I don't believe that there is anything in the ordinance that states that. Bailey has aj pretty good: read on that too. This does have as stubbed out road to the north near the railroad track which  already taken up all oft that silt fencing al lot there to that creek..."  roads in and that is it and then the pad where the actual house sits."  today, there is nothing back there."  one way out?"  could eventually lead back to Renee Ford Road but that would be ai far future thing." Kelly Hart "DidIhear you say that those power lines were underground?"  Mr. Remsburg "The power lines in the subdivision are underground, not the high tension lines."  TJ Smith "T have concerns with the water runoff." Chair Eckman "T need ai motion to discuss." TJ Smith made a motion to deny the request. Second: Michael Williams Chair Eckman stated the board could now discuss  David Underwood "I agree with' TJ.Ia am concerned about their property. Youl knowl I remember approving this when it was brought before us. We talked about the power lines, development, lot sizes and lot numbers.. At that time we did it based on what was happening. just like he is coming back now. Irealize that he's got every right to make as much money as he can on development but on the same token I can't see these people suffering with the houses that they havel had for al long time and the runoff affecting their homes. Can it bei fixed? Maybe. Should it be fixed? Absolutely. What caused it? Ican't say, obviously when grading Iami not there but I am concerned."  7    Tim Fesperman' "Thej pictures are disturbing with that much water. There are agencies responsible for assuring that the runoffi is minimized and the silt remains on thej property as much as possible and that is the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. They set the standards for the fencing, the silt fencing and they do get actively involved in water runoff issues. Particularly in a new development when you see thel bright orange colors. That is truly a sign ofr runoff or some type of disturbed area.Regrettully, Iam not sure that thati isi in our purview as thel Planning and! Zoning Board tol look at that obvious problem. So that puts us in a dilemma or me in a dilemma because Ihave lived your current nightmare for seven years now in a development where the creek is completely stopped up with the silt and DENR got involved and there arei not any easy answers sometimes, Ihate tos sayi it. That is a dilemma that I see. The construction folks can do and meet the plan, we can get unforeseen: rains like  yesterday. So, Idon't know what to do."  Chair Eckman "What you are: saying is there are other agencies who this falls under."  Tim Fesperman "Yes, iti is in thej purview for them. You call regardless of whether these three lots are added or not. You can call and the numbers are available from Bob or whoever but it is the Department of Environmental andl Natural Resources and they will come out, they will look at what you got and they will hold ift they find somebody at fault, accountable and mitigate them. So, that is one avenue1 that I would strongly suggest that you all take regardless ift this panel approves three lots or not. So thati is alll I got to say about that. Chair Eckman "The motion is to deny approval oft the three additional lots, is that correct?"  Mr. Remsburg "T need thej justification, Ineed to know why." TJ Smith "I said the concerns with water runoff ands septic."  Chair Eckman "A vote ini favor oft the motion is a vote to deny based on water runoff. Does that make sense to David Underwood "Under the construction criteria, storm drainage is there Bob. Is that addressing his issue or Mr. Remsburg "Storm drainage would be the engineered plans to make sure that storm drainage is appropriate."  everybody?" not?"  David Underwood "Sol based on these pictures it wasn't." something that we enforce. So that is not in our purview."  Mr. Remsburg "That may bej possible, the catch is of course as Mr. Fesperman pointed out, storm drainage is not Mr. Burleson "IfImay, Ijust pulled up aj picture from Thursday ofl last week ifyou all want to see an aerial photo with the silt fence installed. It is here and this] photo was taken Thursday by drone. Just to rebut comments that Audience member "T would like to see it. At lot 58? Because my loti is right there and there is nothing there." Chair Eckman "Okay, let's take a vote. A vote in favor of this motion is a vote to deny based on water runoff."  were made Iam trying to put some accurate information up."  8    Mr. Burleson asked for ar roll call tol be done to see who voted for and against.  Vote: 5-2 Motion passed to deny.  Tim Fesperman' "There are certain agencies that their job responsibilities and expertise and power exist to help Chair Eckman shared the third item on the agenda, ZA 23-12, ai request by Martha Ingold to rezone a 4.2 acre  mitigate these types of situations.  parcel located on Harmony Road in Norwood from RA tol R40. Chair Eckman asked county stafft to share the details of the request.  Bob Remsburg shared the following:  This item is coming back to you. The Board of Commissioners looked at this and in talking with Mrs. Ingold, determined that she should come back to you. This is thei rezoning ofa 4.2 acre tract on Harmony Road. In our original understanding as a staff was that Mrs. Ingold wanted to mirror the north side oft the road which was 7or 8 lots andi in order to do thati it had to bel R20 or some type of conditional zoning district. But as timel had gone on and what she presented to thel Board of Commissioners was instead of7 or 81 to just do 31 lots. So, there are two ways that could be approached and thati is why the commissioners sent it back to reconsider whether it would be acceptable for just three lots to be built out oft this 4.2 acres. We can do that one oft two ways. First off we did not have it surveyed to divide offi into three lots and, ifit had been, we: might have brought it to you as conditional zoning but that has not been done. So, the other approach is to simply go to R40. Now, the minimum lot size is 40,000 square: feet but as you will see in a second shei is proposing three different lots but ifs she is zoned R40 she could do four lots. Thej proposal is for three lots and it is currently zoned RA and wants to divide iti into three parcels, iti is currently a 301 foot wide] private right-of-way. The new lots would be approximately 180 feet deep. R401 requires the lots contain at least 40,000 square feet and thel lots willl be well and septic. Wel have already discussed that there is low traffic in this area andi it is in al Rural Preservation Area and at this point there has been  no soil evaluation done on these lots. Mr. Remsburg displayed photos of thej parcel.  Iti is all zoned RA in this area and as you know Mrs. Ingold approached us after thel Board of Commissioners voted to make the minimum lot size larger in thel RA and Rural Preservation. Area. That is where we are at. It comes back to you in a different form. We could treat this as Conditional Zoning but we do not have a survey for Environmental Health sO we: figured it was best to doi it as R40 and see ift that is the acceptable way to go. You recommended denial with] R20 and the commissioners heard that but alsol heard Mrs. Ingold and wanted to send it back to you all and see ifyout thought it was more acceptable for a different lot size."  There were no questions for Mr. Remsburg Mrs. Ingold shared thei following:  Iwould like to say that] I do not have any children to inherit this property and most ofit will be given to charity and Iwant to sell the first lot and build two houses on the back lots which is on al hill and the one oft the front loti is on a  9    hill also and you could put al halfbasement in that one. There is a ditch between them and nobody has ever complained about water, the ditch or anything until this happened to me. Ihave owned this property for 20 years. I have a tree line that is two feet off of my line when II had its surveyed twice by Dent Turner, they are two feet offt the line on my side. Iknow that] Ia am not on anybody's property and no one has complained until this. So, Iappreciate you all considering my position becausel I1 lost my last child four years ago and because I could not get it divided, I was int thel hospital in April and March and] I was on oxygen for 6 weeks. Iwas very sick and they gave me up to die but Ididi not. SoIwould like for you all tol let me do what I want with my property for thet time that Ihave left. Iwas not able to do any surveying fort the firstj part of this year. My income tax could not be filed until October. Since I have no heirs on my property, Is still pay tax on my property, Ipay fort the land and myl husband was disabled. Iwould appreciate itify you all would let me do what] I want with the time I got left becausel I deservei it  and Idid notl know anything about having to get all oft this done by September.  Genna Smith shared the following:  Iam Mrs. Ingolds sister in law and I spoke at the Commissioner meeting and I can really attest tol heri illnesses at the first oft the year. Iam a nurse practitioner. Ih heard the concerns proposed before the zoning board the first time and Iknow there are concerns proposed about water tables being low but I don't] know a whole lot about water tables but until recently Iunderstand that we have been in ai moderate drought in our area. So, that will affect the water tables. Iknow we had rain this weekend but that is not what we are talking about here. We appreciate everyone for their patience and for hearing us and others throughout this process. We really respectfully ask that  you consider thel R401 request. Thank you so much. Charlotte Barringer shared the following:  We are still against it. As you can see where the proposed lot three would be, my house is less than 36i inches from the property line and her trees that she planted two feet on the other side are 151 feet over on my property. My biggest thingi is the water. Wel had 2.6i inches ofi rain and I can show you that on her lot line the water was flooding where the driveway comes across. Their septic tanks are going to be higher andi if anything overflows then iti is all  going ini my yard. She said her wells are. 300 feet deep but mine are 200. Iti is not fair.  Tommy Curlee shared the following:  Yes, our water table is down low. My well is only 2001 feet deep and II have been having trouble for thel last several weeks with mine. It didi rain yesterday sO hopefully that helps. Iwould not want to see a housing development go Genna Smith "Mrs. Ingold ist not planning to put up al lot ofh houses. She is only planning to put two houses on1 the  up and drill more wells and take thet table down. I would like to see it remain agricultural.  4.2 acres. Ijust want to clarify that."  David Underwood "This may be al little personal, but does she have any grandchildren?"  Mrs. Ingold "T want yout tol know I lost my first child in '83. The next year, in *84, my husband had as stroke andl I don't have any grandchildren because my last child died four years ago from ai massivel heart attack. I have no children and no grandchildren. No one has complained about the water until now. My wells are 300 feet deep."  Chair Eckman asked for ai motion.  David Underwood made a motion to deny the request becausei it is in the Rural Preservation Area and because she only wants to sell two lots but ifit allows for three, then she can sell three.  10    Second: Michael Williams seconded the motions and shared that al lot of time and resources wenti into making the Land Use Plan andi ift the board goes back on that now, where does it end. Chair Eckman "I am in favor ofletting people do what they want with their land but this is thej precedent that the  commissioners have set and thisi is the way that they want to go." Chair Eckman stated a vote in favor oft the motion is a vote to deny.  Motion passed 5-2  Chair Eckman stated that Planning Staff would consult with Mrs. Ingold to see ifs she would like toj proceed with her rezoning request. Ifs she does, it willl be considered by Commissioners at their meeting on January 2, 2023 at Chair Eckman introduced the fourth item on the agenda ZA 23-10, at text amendment requests to define "substantial expenditure": in both the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Thei item was recommended tol be sent  6:00PM.  back to thel Planning Board by the County Commissioners. Chair Eckman invited county staff to share the details. Bobl Remsburg shared the following:  We added some language because there were a couple oft things that they [the Commissioners) did not like and they had some questions sO that is whyi it was sent back. Basically, they were not happy with the 10 percent. They thought its should be more. You can play with that numberi ify you would like. This is not my call, it is yours. They also were concerned about] how long this lasts. Common law vested rights pretty much go on forever. It does not make sense that they would go on: forever and ever and ever. There should be some kind of natural drop off. That is where the language about 5 years comes in. Ift the developer is doing a subdivision and they do not do anything about it for 5: years and make no progress then no, they have lost their common law vested rights. Is stuck the number 5i in there after doing al little bit ofr research. It could be 10,5,7, whatever. Wel have all experienced economic down turns, is 5 years ai reasonable amount oft time for the economy to turn around? What is the magic David Underwood "How did you come up with 20? Iread the minutes and II know what they said, sO where did 20 Mr. Remsburg Ify you look at the Commissioner minutes I think they said 30. Itis up to you all." David Underwood "Why didn't they change it? Is that a substantial change? Whati is it right now?" Mr. Remsburg "Well, there is nothing in there right now. What it is right now is that substantial is determined by the zoning administrator. The only thing this does is give guidance to the! Zoning Administrator." TJ Smith "Are you referring to thej project that came before us? Its said on thej paper 2 and al halfy years but in reality Chair Eckman "But, that is where we talked about substantial expenditure. Nothing has to be touched but ifs she spent ai million dollars on engineering is that substantial even though she did not touch the land?"  number?Iam going tol hand this to you all for you to figure it out.  come from?"  it was 3 and al halfy years and there was nothing touched."  11    David Underwood "It was two years right?"  Mr. Remsburg "It gets confusing because you have a difference between common law vested rights and site specific vested rights. Site Specific are two years. I just stuck 20 percent in there because part ofr me thinks that 30 David Underwood "Obviously it does not matter because we told them 10 and then they turn around and want 30. Mr. Remsburg Partly because of the 5 year thing and ift there is a substantial change [to thej proposed ordinance language] then what has been advertised is not what has been reviewed by the Commissioners so it then hast to come back to you. Thati is upt to the County Attorney to determine ift this is substantial or not." Tim Fesperman "Could wej just say, we don'ti really care what you do?I Imean could we. just send it back and say Mr. Remsburg "You could tell them that you think it should not change and you think it should just be left up to David Underwood "Ift the time runs out then they could come back and re-apply under the current rules so I don't Chair Eckman "Ift they want something different then they can have something different but we debated it fora while and said what we thought was best. We thought that 10j percent was not burdensome buti it was enough to be David Underwood "We arei not trying to solve this, we are trying to appease the Commissioners right now. Ifthey want to change it, then we could send them whatever we want but let them change it. They will have the final say  percent may bet too much but thati is me and iti is not my call." Why didn't they just make it 30 since they get the final say."  keep it likei itis?"  thez zoning administrator determination."  figure time is that big ofa deal. Iv would like to see that as 3 years."  considered substantial."  so."  Chair Eckman' "Did they have specific numbers that they wanted?"  Mr. Remsburg "T think Mr. Barbee mentioned 30 percent but there was no consensus among them for whati it David Underwood "Would anybody have a problem with 3 years? Maybe it should say 20 percent in 3 years. If Mrs. Cline "Ij just feel like with the Site Specific and then you have the Common Law Vested rights, you) have 2 and al half years with Site Specific and then you are going toj put 3 years on a Common Law Vested right, then you have a 61 month period where you can either say it is one or the other. There is not much time between the two. I just dont think it makes much sense tol have both ifyou are only going tol have a 61 month period." Mr. Remsburg "I don't know that I would go: much longer than 51 but Ihesitate to go much shorter. 41 might be okay. I think site specific could be changed ify you wanted to because it could be: 3 years or longer ify you wanted."  should actually be."  they apply within that 3 years then all it does is extend it another 3 years, right?"  David Underwood "T could go for changing site specific andj put them both at 3."  12    Mr. Remsburg "I might need to research that al little bit." David Underwood "Why would you not want it that way?"  Mrs. Cline "I guess this would be a question for you Bob, but ift they werel both at 3 would the zoning officer not have to determine which vested right iti is and then determine ifit is substantial or site specific." Mr. Remsburg "Yes, correct. By statute for site specific you have to have two years but it could bel longer. Common law vested: rights run with thel land. Ifyou don't have anything in the ordinance then itj potentially would run: forever. The School of Government says that it would make sense fori itt to eventually run out but there is nothing to say what eventually is. Case law has not come down on this. It think 4 or 5 years is plenty but] I would  not go over 7."  Michael Williams made a motion to amend the language to reflect 20 percent in 4 years.  Second: Kevin Brickman Approved: 7-0 meeting.  Chair Eckman shared that the County Commissioners willl hear this text amendment at their. January 2, 2024 Chair Eckman introduced thel last item on the agenda ZA 23-11, at text amendment request to remove the provision ins section 405 of the Zoning Ordinance, allowing a manufactured home to be placed on a 2 acre or larger lot along with another home. Thisi item was recommended tol be sent back to the Planning Board by the County  Commissioners.  Chair Eckman asked staff to share the details. Mr. Remsburg shared thei following:  This was recommended tol be sent back also. The basic idea is that currently in the RA: zoning district only because that is the only zoning district that allows for mobile homes, you can have one of those residences as ai mobile home. That means you can have ai mobile home and ai modular home, 2 mobilel homes or ai mobile home and a site built home. That is current. What we sent up was that you could have one mobile home on thel lot as long asi it was 3 acres or larger and the other home had tol be as sitel built home. The commissioners did not like that and they want  itt to say only one home on al lot. It eliminates section 405.3. Mr. Remsburg showed the current and proposed language.  Michael Willliams "What about if you have ai mobile home on your land while you are building your home?" Mr. Remsburg "You can do that because you do not have a CO on thel house. That will stilll be okay." David Underwood made a motion to accept the amendment as stated with one dwelling per loti in section  405. Second: Kevin Brickman Approved: 7-0  13    Mr. Remsburg "The other component here is the accessory dwelling unit language in section 421. The idea is that you would eliminate that one linet that says it cannot be no more than 800 square feet and keep thel line thats says it cannot be more than 50 percent. This seems tol be what you: all wanted at the last meeting. Thei reason the 800 square feet was there to begin with was because you didi not want people to start building another home on their property but ifs someone has al large home they should be able tol have ai rather large guest home."  David Underwood "What would keep someone from renting it out?" Mr. Remsburg "Well they could, we dol have as short term rental ordinance." David Underwood "Should there bel language toj prevent that."  Michael Williams "I don't think so, if they have an extra home they should be able toi rent it out."  Mr. Remsburg "There is sort ofar movement in thej planning world that would eliminate single family districts and encourage. ADUS and rental properties. As we all know the cost of dwellings and rent is sol high, you could hear from realtors that they can't find anywhere that people can afford. They stilll have to meet setback rules and that sort David Underwood made a motion to accept the changes as mentioned to remove the requirement of 800  oft thing."  square feet in section 421. Second: Timl Fesperman Approved: 7-0  Chair Eckman entertained a motion to adjourn.  Motion: TJ Smith Second: Tim Fesperman Approved:7-0 Adjournment: 8:32PM K ChtrayEckman  8  TR  14