Ladies and gentlemen, let me officially call this meeting to order tonight. Mendy March 2nd, 2024. I'm going to ask Reverend Conner's best. Mayor Conner's, if he would, to give us an invocation and lead us in the pledge. Would everybody please stand. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we're coming for you to thank you for the many wonderful blessings that you continue to give to us each and every day. We thank you that you allowed us to rise early this morning and to see you magnificent work at hand. Tonight Lord, we ask you to remember our farmers, remember the industries and the new industries that keep coming to Dukeland County under your blessing. We ask you tonight, Lord, to bless the commissioners with the wisdom and knowledge that is needed to carry out their fairs of this wonderful county. And then Father, we ask you to remember our county manager and assistant county manager as they travel from one place to another, cover them, protect them and give them to God as that is needed. And as we go forth in Dutland County, we'll let us go together in unity, one mind, one set for the better of our community in the mighty name of Jesus Christ, let all the God's children say amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag in the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation, under God, individual, liberty and justice for all. Thank you, sir. Mr. Jeremy, this manner pointed out for the record is March 4th. I don't know what you said, must be something different. I thought I said March 4th, but... You said second. Second. Okay, well that stands to be correct it is marks before obviously I can't even read my numbers there you are before we go any further as long to let everybody know that Brian is on with us through the computer system. That's all I'll say at this point, Brian. If you got anything you want to tell the group, that's up to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you letting me attend remotely tonight. Okay, thank you. All right. Do any commissioners have anything in with the entity agenda? Yes, sir. No, the agenda? Yes sir. No sir, no sir. Madam Clerk. No sir, I have nothing to add. No sir. Stand in assist, the manager. No sir, but thank you. County manager. No issue. All right. With that said, I didn't think of motion to accept their agenda as it is reported. It's a bit of a move. Got a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Here and none. I'll then favor say aye. All opposed, same sign. Here. All right. I would entertain a approval of the minutes for the February 5th Board meeting. Got a motion in a second. Any further discussion? My paper says, so I decided I better read it to where it was. Okay. She corrects that to the 19th. All right. Any further discussion? Here and none, all in favor say aye. All opposed, same sign. Carried. I'd also entertain a motion for the joint meeting held on February 20th at James Brown, with the Economic Development Commission Board. They got a motion in a second. Any further comment? All in favor say aye. All opposed, same sign. Okay. All right. Hopefully everybody's had time to look through the consent agenda. But it's pleasure to board. I got a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Here you're done. All in favor say aye. All opposed same side? Carry. Okay, that moves us right into our first item, public comming. You have anybody signed up? Yes. Okay. Nobody has signed up. Okay. Nobody has signed up, but this is your chance. If you want to speak, feel free. Thank you. That moves us right on in to item number two. And that's taking road concerns. First off from the commissioners. Any road concerns? All right. Now taking road concerns from the generalers. Any road concerns? All right now taking road concerns from the general public. You're free to bring up any road concerns that you may have. Anybody back there in the back? Have a road concern? All right. Here in none that moves right on into number three. I call on Melissa Kennedy to come up to host a public hearing. Good evening Melissa Kennedy couldn't be here tonight so I'm gonna hold the public hearings for. I come before you to request a public hearing be held to receive public comments from the board and or the public to regarding a request from RetroPadric to name a lane at 732 North NC 111 Highway, Buleville NC, North Gumball lane in accordance with the Dukeland County address and in road name and ordinance. So at this time I'm going to open that for public area feel free to speak up from the public. Any concerns you may have? Here are no concerns from the public. I'm going to close the public area and now ask the pleasure to board. So I have a motion to approve this road name any public comments. Here none all in favor say aye. All opposed same side. Carry. Okay. Okay. Now we need to hold another public hearing regarding a request from Jimmy Groganus to name a line off of Laura Lane. He would like to name it David Norris Lane. Okay, I'm gonna open back up for another public hearing concerning this road, name it. Anybody from the public more speed Here and none I'm close public here and come back to the pleasure to board I Got a motion on the circuit to approve any further discussions Here none all in favor say aye Road name is accepted. Thank you. Thank you. That brings us to item number five Mr. Hatcher Good evening, Mr. Chairman members of the board. It's with great pleasure that tonight we will bring you the Dupland County Unified Development ordinance at this time. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Austin Brinkley with Insight Planning, who has a short presentation for the board. Thank you, Chris, and thank you, Chairman, for having me tonight to present your UDO. So just to give you a timeline of how we got to where we're at here tonight, back in December we presented the first draft of the UDO to your planning board. The planning board met in January to review and discuss independently amongst themselves. We came back in February to review that second draft and then tonight we are presenting the final draft for your hearing and adoption. So just to give you a brief definition of what a UDO or unified development ordinance may be, this is a single document that combines subdivisions, zoning and other regulatory language that concerns land use into one singular document and make it more clear and concise to eliminate language that may conflict with it and make it easier for implementation. ordinances. This UDO is combining those seven separate ordinances into one here. As you can see here, these are the separate ordinances listed out your airport land use and high restriction. That's just incorporated by a reference. We didn't take the text of that and put it in here. There is a section reserved that refers you to that document. So what we achieved here is we did produce a user-friendly document that's going to include comprehensive definitions that will apply to the entire ordinance. It's not a comprehensive rewrite, but it does bring your existing language into uniformity and into compliance with chapter 160, D, of the North Carolina General Statutes, and then again it just provides you clarification of certain components with how that language applies to what exists in your wounds. And so your UDO is structured as follows with individual articles beginning with purpose and organization going through your administrative procedures, development approvals, your subdivision regulations, and then certain things like manufacturer homes, adult business, junk yard, your solar energy, your flood damage prevention, and the airport land use and high restriction. So the purpose and organization, this is the article that starts your UDO off. It just, it's an article that really establishes your legal authority. The purpose for the UDO, it establishes your planning jurisdiction and it touches on a comprehensive land use plan, which the county does have. Talks about split jurisdiction and how those issues will be handled. What subdivisions are going to be exempt from your subdivision standards, non-conformities and then how the building code applies with this authority. So your definitions, this article does contain all of your definitions. Your flood definitions were left inside of Article 11 to make it easier whenever you have a community action visit. We do have new definitions in there that are statutorily required. Some were amended to provide clarity but most of these definitions you already had in existence. So looking at your administrative mechanisms that establishes your boards, their composition, duties and responsibilities, and it sets the role for your administrative staff where your county planner serves as the administrator of this UDA that talks about things such as conflicts, events, your rules and familiar relationships. And you do have a planning board, a board of adjustment, and the board of commissioners here in Dupland County. So the review process, again this goes through each separate type of approval that may be issued under the provisions of your UDO, the process that's going to follow that review process. So whenever you have an amendment to it, it establishes more tutorial. What has vested rights, what permit choice applies to, any kind of development agreements, appeals, variances, quasi-judicial procedure, and how the UDA is to be enforced whenever your administrator finds a violation of. And so types of development approval, a little bit more specifically, include your subdivision, which is going to either be approved by the administrator or the planning board, construction through the administrator, special use will be approved by the Board of Adjustment, same as variances. Site plans will go through UDO administrator or your planning board. The flood-planned administrators responsible for flood review. The Board of Commissioners would be a responsible party for approving any kind of development agreement and then the overall operation would be your UDO administrator. Standard approval time is 12 months unless specifically indicated otherwise. And so your subdivision regulations really makes up a large portion of your UDO. This sets forth the requirements for the subdivision of land, the installation of infrastructure, any kind of design standards, and what types of guarantees may be required, and the process is going to go through from, you know, conception stage to recording your final plan. So one addition has been made to the document that's before you tonight that was not in the document reviewed by the planning board as a minor addition which wouldn't require it to go back to the planning board. Chris and I talked about it and we realized there really wasn't anything in there to address easements. So we've provided a definition for an easement specifically to include language where structures can't be located within the boundary of a recorded easement. It also put in restrictions on your access easements as far as establishing structures observing setbacks from those easements so you can protect that dedicated area that's on the plant. And so these are your statutory exemptions provided by 160D. You have a combination, recombination, a 10 acre exemption, public acquisition exemption, a lot of two acres not divided into more than three and then your probated will exemption. You do have a private easement exemption where lots can be created on a 30 foot easement, a maximum of three lots that'll be approved by the administrator, a service subdivision which this is a special type of subdivision to create lots for utility purposes, cemeteries, wheel sites, communication towers, things of that nature. There'd be a lot of restrictive covenants involved in those type of divisions. You have your type A expedited minor where the track to be divided is greater than five acres. No parts been divided within the 10 previous years. It doesn't qualify as any of the other exemptions and then no more than three lots are being created. These are statutorily required per 160D 802. Again, that would go through your UDO administrator for approval. Type B minor would be all lots having frontage on an existing DOT right of way, creating no more than five parcels. And there being a five-year restriction between this type of division and any further division on Resonant Lops. That was really placed in there to prevent circumvention of your subdivision rules. Minor subdivision being 10 or fewer lots with 120 feet of frontage on an existing right-of-way. That would go to the planning board. Then same with a major subdivision. It wouldn't qualify for anything previously listed and that on an existing right of way that would go to the planning board then same with a major sub-vision it wouldn't qualify for anything previously listed and that would have to go to planning board as well. And so the review procedure this established by this UD your minor in service they're going to submit a final plat to the planning board seven days before they meet to discuss Your major subdivisions would go through a sketch and preliminary approval process Prior to getting to that final plat and that review would be conducted on a Submitted schedule that's developed within your planning department And so performance guarantees you're going to see these nine times out of 10 with your major subdivisions. In the event, somebody has a plat they're ready to record. The infrastructure is not in place yet. It allows them to place that guarantees to the county has a way of ensuring that the improvements are going to be made and you hold that fee until the time of such completion. This language comes from 160D. We included the development types that were in your existing ordinance as far as multifamily goes in its application. DeCondo's, Duplex's and townhouses and we, the same plain unit development language this always been in it was transferred to the UDO as well. So your manufactured home and travel trailer part this sets forth your standards for types of do for how these types of development are to occur. There was really not many edits that were made to this article to get it compliant with what the statutes require. One thing, the home park operator can sell the lots, but only when the entire park is being divided and all infrastructure within the park would be meeting standards of a subdivision essentially. They would have to legally be converting the whole park into a manufactured home subdivision in order to sell off any individual lots within the manufactured home park. Your adult business regulations this article is very short but it sets forth standards for how adult businesses are to be dealt with. It requires a special use permit for the establishment of an adult business. Because of the sensitive nature of such uses, we have the language structured to where the Board of Commissioners would serve in the role as the Board of Adjustment to perform the quasi-judicial review for proposed adult businesses. Junkyard and salvage yard there was really not many edits necessary needed to bring this into compliance with the statutes. Solar energy facilities again we did not have to make many edits to find this to be compliant with the statutes. This article was already completely incomplied to do to its recent sea of when it was adopted. And then the airport land use and high restriction again that was in compliance and is incorporated by reference as previously mentioned. And so to conclude, your UDO is compliant with state standards. It sets forth clear user friendly language and processes for the administrator to implement and enforce. The county does not have any zoning. The only form of zoning you have is your airport land use and high restriction. The adoption of this UDO does not establish any kind of zoning. In the future, if the county ever decided it wanted to implement it, we would recommend that you would need a comprehensive update to this UDO to include your zoning regulations. And so at this time, the board can take three actions. You could approve, you could continue it and refer it back to the planning board or you could deny the request with specific changes. And if you have any questions I can take them at this time. There's a commissary to have a question for you at this point. I just want clarification, nothing has changed in our ordinances per se as far as regarding measurements, lot size, anything like that. This just gets us into complied say. Yeah, there was no changes made to minimum lot sizes. Your lot sizes remain the same. So, it's not going to have the effect of creating multiple non-consuming lots within the county. In easement size they're saying all of that. So your easement does reduce in size to 30 feet. Chris, what is the current size of the 50 feet? The current is 50. Do you claim what wish to be for the party. Any other commotion in the way? I may have missed it in the reading, but is there anything that speaks to tiny homes? Does it fall up on the mobile home? How does that work? Tiny homes. It's just, you just know the homes, because of our lot size requirement due to the lack of sewer and water in the county. We need that lot size to adequately have enough space to have a whale system and a 70 system. So a tiny home comes through, it could be 800 square feet or it could be 2000 square feet. We're going to look at it just the same. This still has to mean state standards for building co-repartments. So the only thing that changes is the 30-foot decimates house. Yes, so that is. So basically, why did I need you to ask? Because I know we went through this six months ago. Yes, your new merit change, yeah. That went from 50 to 30 30 but everything else was just What what's the two still requires 45 correct? So when they want to build a road they will have to maintain they will have to get 45 feet with if they want to build a road Do you? 30 feet was to actually Because they'll have to go to the board of adjustment if they try to receive a variance to have that fourth lot on an access placement. So then they have to have it on access placement so they have to show the hardships and the hardships cannot be financial. So for those people who present it as we can't afford to build a road that's not a true hardship and the Board of Adjustment, we actually have to turn those down. It would not be approved. But if we approve this, they can get about a 30 foot and they don't have to go before the Board of the just one they only get the three lots on access easement they don't get any more that said the only thing that changed is the width of the easement but everything about easement is same but this deal can have three three lots with 30 foot easement. Great three lots with 30 foot easement. Is the max. Any other commissioner have a question? Okay now I'm going to open back up for another public hearing. So anybody from the public that wants to question feel free to question. Any comments from the public? Question. Yes, sir. Question is, could you get understanding of what they mean by the adult bendness because I've heard him mention that twice. What is that referring to? So adult businesses are going to apply to sexually oriented businesses such as adult motion picture theaters, adult bookstores. North Carolina statutes say that you have to allow for them. You can put restrictions on them. One of the restrictions being that they would have to get a special use permit so it's not anything that the administrator could permit by right. It would be something that has to undergo quasi judicial review. So you're having to make four findings of fact before you could ever issue that permit. So it's the way that it is proposed, it is regulated as strictly as you're legally allowed to regulate an adult business in North Carolina. So I hope that actually. Any other questions from the public feel free now as your time. Here are no more questions I'm going to close the public here and we're back in the open session and I will take a recommendation from the board, moving forward. And this recommendation I'm asking for is either let's speak to adoption or speak to nomadont. I recommend sending back and getting 30, for the change to back to 50 like our ordinances are now. And that's the only problem I have with it. There's a reason we were at 50. Okay, I've got a motion to not adopt this ordinance and send it back to the board for Moving away from the 30 feet easement back to the 50 feet easement to that the motion. Okay, do I have a second? Okay, so I got a motion in a second further comments Okay, so I got a motion in a second. Further comments? Yeah, I've got several people that have requested that. It'd be 30 for these that have approached me and I've been dealing with this for six months with Mr. Hatch. And so they request 30 feet. And that's what we're going to serve. If I can speak to the 30 feet just from personal experience. A 50 foot easement or a 50 foot ride-of- of way which is usually the minimum of what DOT would require would either be 50 or 60 feet. You need that much width for installation of utilities, the constructed road and many other things that are included in that right of way. The way it's being proposed with a maximum of three if I remember correctly on 30 feet. You don't typically see other municipalities or county governments requiring more than 30 feet for access easement for three lots. I've worked in Anzlo County and Anzlo I believe it was 20. I've seen several other rural counties that 30 may be the maximum that they require. Obviously, respect your decision, whatever you want to make, but I did just want the state that 50 years, a bit excessive for an access easement for only three lots. So that's just been my personal experience with those, a 30-foot easement is adequate size to support a graveled improved access for emergency services and for general access to the properties. So I just wanted to share that with you. I'll be honest with you, a 30-foot easement once you ditch it on each side. If you go if you're required to keep your drainage ditch inside that 30-foot easement, if you have to put a ditch on each side of your access road your access road is going to be less than 10 foot. So you're down to a single lane road that can get iffy. I mean our county has been there. It gives to the point the emergency services can't get in. You can't meet and it is an issue and that is why we went from 30 foot to 50 foot to come back those issues and that's why I personally want to stay on 50 feet. Yeah. I've not seen those issues. I understand what you're saying, but I just wanted to share. That's why we recommended the 30 in our proposed draft. So thank you. Mr. Hatcher, may I ask you to come to the podium, please? Yes, sir. Could you speak to us as commissioners, you know, what kind of impact you have had in people requesting the easement of 30 feet versus the 50. So we've had quite a few of the surveyors retail through their citizens requesting a reduction from 50 to 30 feet. All because of that, when someone grants that access, he's been at 50 feet down their property line, that is just unusable area that they cannot use. So if you think 50, if you got a 200 foot property line and it's 50 feet wide, that's what 50 times 200, looking at a thousand square feet of. That's what 50 times 200 looking at a thousand square feet of area that's not usable for your property plus then to they also have to gain that additional square footage on the other side of that property to maintain that usable area of a half acre of the 21,780 sum out square feet. Those were the bigger issues that we heard coming from the public as far as I'm when I do this access easement I can understand what the purpose is for the 50 but if we're just creating one or two three lots out of this this that amount of square footage that I'm losing would actually sometimes hinder someone from being able to subdivide their piece of property. Sometimes people can't get the 50 foot access easement because of their property doesn't have it and they have to share it with the neighboring property to gain that 50 foot access easement. Some property owners are willing to share that some or not. Those are the major concerns that we've had recently with the 50 feet and asking for the reduction to the 30 feet. Again, the board's commitment, excuse me, it is the board of commissioners' decision if we would like to reduce or to maintain as we are now. You see the 30 feet easement being used to try to look at dividing up any type of subdivision coming in to get to the three lots to allow some way to get around the group ordinance that you've got today. Not if I can help it. I mean we've already got the three law don't access easement implemented today so this is not going to the way that it will be reviewed is not going to be changed. It's just going to be a reduction in the access easement. So we are I try my best to catch every little little issue there that I can to making sure that every single lot that's new lots that's created in Dupland County meets our subdivision ordinance and meets our minimum lot size requirements and meets our minimum frontage requirements when we have because on the excess Eastman you also have fringe requirements as well. It is an exempt division. So they are allowed, it exempts them from the major subdivision ordinance so they don't have to build the road. But the access easement by definition is 18 feet wide for four inches of compact gravel. The remaining 32 feet is there for the egress, ingress, drainage, utilities, anything that comes through there. Here in Duplen County, we don't have a lot of water, we don't have a lot of sewer. And so sometimes I do question if any of that leftover footage is used for any of those purposes. A dancer question. Yeah. No. To send it back to planning. What cons, what we be facing in terms of citizens needs, that's in the works, does it delay that farther, does it create any type of back drive, as was all of that decision. Mr. Commissioner Dow said we this this this started before me and I'm trying to bring it home and so we do have citizens who were hoping that this 50 would reduce down to 30. If it is decided tonight to go back to Planning Board, I'll take it back to Planning Board. I'll send an email tomorrow and say we'll take it back to Planning Board in April for this month. And, or excuse me, from March. And we can review that one item as and get the planning board's decision if they would refer to revert back to the 50 and then come to the 30. My question though for the board is if it comes back as a 30 for a recommendation or are we going to be in a cycle of going back you as the commissioners to have the ability to keep it at 50 and not send it back to planning board if desired. We could make the changes that the commissioners would like to keep it as is or if we would like to back go back and increase it or you can send it back to planning board. It's up to your sure decisions on this one. Well the motion to send the floor correct me if if I'm wrong the motion on the floor was to Not adopt that descend it back to the county board. I mean the planning board To revisit the fifty-foot because we didn't The motion is we don't want to adopt the thirty-fifth That was the motion right my motion. Yeah, so that's the motion and the second that's on the floor. I will, I will, I am willing to amend my motion. It is legally possible to keep the 50 foot easement. I am willing to amend my motion and not send it back to the plan board as long as we can retain the 50 foot easement. If you say it doesn't have to go back to planning board, I'm good with that. It will be, but I'm just saying I'm a no-butt of the way it is right now. You need to continue this hearing to a date certain. Yeah, we can make the change to the document to change story of 50. And you can adopt it at the date you continue to, you just need to be explicit and the date that you continue to hear. So essentially if you would like to continue it to the next commissioners meeting here in March that it's a simple letter change or number change from 30 to 50 and it can be brought back. So we would table it until the next March commissioners meeting if I'm correct. Can you do that? You just need to make sure it's stated and clear that it's going to be continued to that day. You don't have to re-advertise. Right. If we go back to planning board, I think we didn't have to re-advertise for this. So legal. Are we incomplied if he makes that amendment to this motion? So long as we do it, how do you recommend it? I didn't have a continued this public hearing to present the second time with the text mark. Yes, so it's a motion to continue to the next day in March for us to get changed that number. Can you explain what you were saying, Hollig Deere, this about the 45 foot, the state. So the state requires between 45 to 50 feet when you actually want to build a road. So for instance, our major subdivision ordinance, you will have to build a road when you develop that property and it has to be built to North Carolina DOT state standards for it to be adopted. That is where the 45 comes in. We currently have 50 and my understanding is the intent previously was if we if someone wanted to have the fourth lot on a private access easement that automatically becomes a major subdivision they would have to pave the road and bring it into NC DOT standards to have that fourth lot. They would have to go through the preliminary and final plat ordinance. What has happened in the past is everyone has went for a variance request and they would have to show a hardship to be granted that fourth lot on an access easement. This request going from 50 feet to 30 feet still applies to all of that. If we kept it at 30 feet, someone wanted that fourth lot, they would have to then gain another 15 feet to bring that area into compliance and build it to NCDOT standards or they would have to be granted a variance by the Board of Adjustment. Chris, here's why I have feelings I do. Yes, sir. I see too many subdivisions with three trailer houses down them. No gravel on the road. It turns into a mud hole, hill toto-hole heel-to-hole heel-to-hole this little subdivision value in it goes down from the Regionality of when it was built and then the home value start going down and you see never heard Just go to none That is why it is If it is a 50 foot Eastman right out the gate, you have the ability to have a DOT vote. So under current ordinance, as it stands today without adopting the new UDO, you're allowed to have up to three mobile homes on one piece of property as long as they are family. And they cannot be used for sale, you cannot sell it, you cannot lose it. And when you hit that fourth mobile home owned a property then it becomes a mobile home park if they are subdividing a piece of property into three different parcels so you'd have a road front parcel or you could have one road front parcel and then you'd have three on access easement you would have to have that access easement put into place for those to work. But having three mobile homes on one piece of property, sometimes it's always equal that it is an access easement. We were actually working on that as well. The same thing would apply to if people wanted to have multiple homes on their property. The way my interpretation of the ordinances is that we can only have one primary structure on a property. We can't have multiple other than accessory structures. The ordinance specifically states that you can have multiple mobile homes on a piece of property. So while that's as long as their family, there was a circumvention of the access easement requirement because then hey, if we've got an acre and a half a land I can put three mobile homes as long as it'll perk. So the access easement only comes into play when they tried to sub about those properties but I completely understand what what you're coming from with that. It is it is a mess but that's essentially sometimes that's just a school a very big driveway but that creates a lane, which our UDO is trying to cut back on the amount of lanes that we are trying to create in the county. I've been here six months, and we all have seen how many lanes have been created recently. With this new UDO, we will be reducing that as well. So I think there's a lot good in this UDO and I can understand the 30 to 50. I just was hoping that that wouldn't hold us up but I completely understand where the board wants to take this if that is their will. Like I said, I've been working on this before he even came on board. And then when he came on board, I approached him with it. And then, of course, there's been other citizens that have showed interest in the 30th foot. He's, and it doesn't have anything to do with mobile home parks. What they're trying to do as far as the property. Yeah, it's going to be prepared for that's where it's going. We decided to set an ordinance in place to prevent that. And I guess too, for me, it's the citizens have been waiting for quite some time already. You got the variance board in place to argue any issue that may come up down the road and then at that time it could possibly be revisited. I think the fact if we were to move forward correct it could. Texan amendments can always happen. I got you. The motion that is on the floor that we're dealing with is that this public here and be extended until March the 18th, that correct date. And then at that point, we can vote on ordinance. And it was being extended to then due to the 50 versus the 30 foot right away, correct? That's correct. That's the motion on the floor. Any more comments? So in other words, from what I understand, he just said is that it's been table without the word table. Well, I think it's been extended. He knew the table was here. The public here has been extended for two weeks. That's what we're doing here. Okay, and if the UDO, where the board comes back with the same recommendation, then it is. With it being tabled now, it would just be increased from back from the going from 50 to 30 to 50. For monster, that is just for them to review it or you want them to change. They're not going back. Could we clarify them and we put the amendment into motion. They're not going back to the plan board. So we just delay in the vote. Well, you know, it was a motion, but there was no vote call. Yeah, I mean, but he amended his motion. Well, I've meant it and that we send it back to the Platon Board to have a determination if they will review it again. I mean, because, you know, they worked on this deal in Gille before the day and that was one of the things that I requested that he looked to see if it was feasible for them to have the 30 foot as opposed to 50 foot. So that's the reason I've waited this long he's been over six months. Well he's made a friendly, a really, a minimum of his motion, and so are you now making a motion to again his motion? Yes. That go back to the board to have them review it, see what it was feasible. That was my original motion. I know we don't have to do that. Well, because I mean, you know what, they're going to come back with the same thing. But not necessarily, but you know they've already looked at it to see if it was feasible. So I have one legal question that I did not know the answer to does the planning board have to make the recommendations? Does this UDO have to come before this board pursuant to a recommendation from the planning board? Right, that's what the planning board is there for. We have the planning board in place to make recommendations to the board of commissioners with the UDO. If the board, the non-understanding, if the board wants to send it back to the planning board, they can with requests of researching the the easement or it could be requested tonight to be amended Back to the 30 feet and then be brought to the next commissioners meeting. There's two items that are on the table right now Well, I'm trying to get clarification on that. I think it goes to both Mr. Abert's questions Is it does this board not having the authority to instead of motioning to continue the public hearing, simply modifying, adopting this, making a motion to adopt the UDL as presented, but with 50 against 30. Yes, they did. The plan board's already met their legal requirement by reviewing and making a recommendation. It does not have to go back to the planning board unless the board commissioners derakes and go back to the planning board. Board commissioners can adopt that as it is, or they can say this needs to change and will adopt it this way. It's already met at statutory requirement, the interview by the planning board. And so they could, Mr. Edwards could amend his motion to simply be motion to adopt the UDOS presented about 50 feet at easement instead of 30 feet. Yes, and then we can provide you with an updated copy with that and then the chair will know we should sign. To me, that makes the most sense from a efficiency, to vote on that motion, and then if that motion fails, I think we can see where we're gonna go from there. I mean, otherwise we've gotta have a ruling on this failed motion to again, your motion. So while we're still discussing this motion before we go any further, is there any reason for why we went from 50 to 30 versus You know some compromise in the middle with 40 or whatever. Why why did we drop to 30 from 50? Doing some research from my from my understanding again this came this was prior to me doing my own benchmarking, going looking at other counties. Some were 20, some were 30, and some were still at the 50. The 30 is kind of the middle point for other counties using the same type of subdivision access easement that we have. And it was also requested, we had citizens reach out, we've had surveyors reach out, that 30 is more feasible and it works, I guess you could say it works more geometry related to a piece of property when you don't have to end up losing so much of your property to an access easement that's not usable. Okay and I understand that but I also heard Commissioner Edwards with the width you would have left when you put proper drainage on each inside of your 30. Right. And another 10 feet would give you de-laccess inside those two ditches that he was, that he was referring to, that they said you didn't that with 10 feet, well if it was 40 instead of 30, that would put you in and that with another 10 feet which would be 20. So you could have, you know, pass and access. And one of his problems was not having pass an access was the way he described it. And I'm just saying that there was consideration to go somewhere in between. We might not would be locking down people that are squeezed on property to knocking them out because we're requiring 50, but yet we're getting our access opportunities for passing. And you're correct. I mean, you know, if the board would come, if the board could come to a compromise and see a 40 was more relevant and they felt that it would work. NCDOT standards is a minimum of 45. I mean, we're at that point, we're five feet short of it. Then we're only five feet short of what we already had. At the end is the citizen gaining anything with that. But I completely understand where the board is coming from. If you've got the requirements for drainage, the ordinance requires 18 feet width of 4 inch compacted stone. That is what the EGRS EGRS is minus four. So let me, let me stop you right there in just a minute. We approved the 30 food. Just say we back up and we say all right, 30 food. Then what's going to happen when they go, we go out there and there's not full food, or four inches of gravel. That's an violation. But the county doesn't maintain easements. The state doesn't maintain easements. It's put it on the plat that is the responsibility of the owner of the easement to maintain. That's great. So how did water we if we're requiring four inches, then why is that even in there if we're not going to force it? Well, one of the whether you're 30 feet to food or 100 feet. Correct. feet to foot or hundreds. Correct. Do you put anything in right and you want to put it? But if we're not going to enforce it, what good is it? And would it be more important to have some enforcement on the road upkeep? I mean, if I think what Commissioner Ed would spoke to originally when he was discussing not being able to pass he was discussing bad roads that was you know not really accessible for our 911 calls. So would we be better off to put some type of enforcement into the roads versus putting all of our effort on the width of the road. If we were to try to enforce those things more heavily we would require extra staff to take care of these things. We would need essentially a code enforcement officer to go out there and to do inspections for all of these types of easings that are put into place. But at the end of the day if you try to enforce it what do you we would hold the plant if they didn't have it in place at the time of the plat approval then we could hold the plat and not say not do you have signature on it. So it would not receive planning, planning department approval. So it could not be recorded. Well, I truly believe my feeling at least from what I gathered from Mr. Edwards, Commissioner Edwards's motion, is he's concerned about the upkeep of the small access for our 911 calls mainly. Right. And I can understand that. And then the upkeep of these access easements because they are owned by the personal, you know, they, it is required on the plat that the easement holder be the one to maintain it. So essentially is a civil matter for them to maintain it and to keep it the one to maintain it. So essentially is a civil matter for them to maintain it and to keep it the way we want it. If the board wishes that the Plain and Department has more enforceability on that, that can be happened, but is going to require extra staff. Well, it's like commissioners going to say it. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, may I speak? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I would really suggest the board approved the UDO as presented with the amendment to a 50 feet 50 foot road easement. I have seen what Commissioner Edwards is speaking about firsthand. If you wanna research it, it's called Raw Saker Road number two, where emergency services vehicles were not able to provide curbside service to the residents all the road. So I would recommend to the board to approve it I'm a little bit lost. But everything we have talked and asked for. We're going to be able to get a little bit lost. We're going to be able to get a little bit lost. We're going to be able to get a little bit lost. We're going to be able to get a little bit lost. We're going to be able to get a little bit lost. We're going to be able to get a little bit lost. We're going to be able to'm a little bit lost. But everything we have talked and asked for, where are we legal standpoints. So I did have one question on that. It's somebody second, Mr. Edwards original motion. Yes. Mr. Garza, and then Mr. Dow made a motion to amend his motion. So he would either, his motion, he would be... Read with the drawing, let's draw. Okay. His motion was withdrawn, so now we're back to Mr. Edwards' motion. Wherever that stands right now. But I know he kind of wanted to propose exactly the motion. No, but the last motion he had that the sake of the greed to was carried out, carried it back to the planning board and keeping the public here and open until March 18th. What I want to do is what our county manager just opposed. But that's not the motion on the floor guys. I'm just trying to take that. What do you do with the draw or amend that motion to say that. I will draw my original motion and my amended motion. And my motion right now is to accept the UDO with the 50 foot access easement to remain. Do I have a second for that motion? Second. Do we have any further discussion? Did that allow we would kind of manage? Yeah. That's exactly what we can't manage. That's cool. Is that correct County Manager? That's correct. Mr. Jim. Any further discussion? Here and then. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Did you vote sir? I didn't. No. Did you vote, sir? I didn't need it. Okay, so that was four eyes and one night. So, it carried. You got your number, but that's when the people did. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Sorry that it took so long, but we need your clarification. All right, that brings to item number six. Mr. Miller, are you going to turn this over to someone else? Mr. Chairman, I am. I'm going to add this is the County Manager. Carried shields to annual item number six. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, I have here before you tonight requesting approval of a $40,223,100 contract with Daniels and Daniels Construction Company, INC, for the construction of the new detention center. Subject to the Securement of Necessary Funding and the Review, Negotiation and Approval of the new detention center. Subject to the Securement of Necessary Funding and the Review, Negotiation and Approval of the Contract Terms by the Conditions of the County Attorney to authorize the County Manager to sign the construction contract with Daniels and Daniels upon final review by the County Attorney and to approve all associated budget amendments. attorney and to approve all associated budget amendments. Did everybody hear the motion request? I don't need to repeat it. But this pending funding, sourcing the funding correct? Say it can't it, this is contingent to us being able to receive the additional funding that we're looking for. Correct. That's correct. I make the motion. Okay, I've got a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. Now, discussion. For the record can you tell us how many bit what bed size this construction is? This will be the three pod and it will be a total of 234 bed facility. Okay, just make sure that that was on record. Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. to be any fun discussion. Here and none all in favor say aye. Did I hear everybody? Yes. unanimous thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to recognize Jeremiah Daniels with Daniels and Daniels as president here tonight to receive this announcement. So thank you. Thank you commission. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, sir. Thank you, gentlemen. Very much. All right. Thank you, commasiners. This is something that's been long waiting. I'm looking forward to it. We've already got started, so I'm glad to welcome out. Oh, well. You should have said that before here. We're going to let you keep working. Thank you. All right. That brings us to item number seven. Mr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask you to get advantage. Yes, thank you for announcements. I would like to make an announcement of the early voting totals for a total of early voting numbers for the Kenan's bill precinct is 1265 votes for Wallace is 617, totaling 1,882. As you all are aware, primary election is tomorrow March 5th. Our polls will be open from 6.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. I'm here to answer any questions as well as my Counterpart Mr. Bryan should you have any additional questions? Any more questions or comments At this time I would entertain a motion to go in the closed session political matters To statue 143-318.11 and personnel matters 143-318-11-86. I got a motion to have a second. I got a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Here's none. All in favor say aye. All right, we officially go in any closed session. Thank all of you for attending. Appreciate the participation tonight. Maybe we've drugged out a little bit longer than we needed to, but we need any clarification. Thank you so much. Okay, everybody, come on back in. We're in officially an open session. Okay thank you. Now commissioners you have anything you want to bring up an open session. Tonight I entertain a motion. We'll do a adjourn. We. Got a motion to the adjourn until March 18th, I believe it is. And a second. Any further discussion? Well, I'd just like to say before I call for the vote. It's been a long night. A lot more than usual. But thank you for your time. Thank the staff for their time. And Mr. Miller, I hope you get feeling well soon. That said, all in favor say aye. All opposed? A adjourn. Thank you.