►
From YouTube: Planning & Zoning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
I'll
just
stay
on
the
call
and
just
cut
my
camera
off
and
mute.
My
camera.
E
Good
evening,
everyone
welcome
to
the
april
7th
meeting
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
planning,
and
zoning
commission
will
hear
public
comments.
Only
on
items
that
appear
on
the
agenda.
Presentations
by
the
public
shall
be
limited
to
no
more
than
10
minutes
for
the
main
spokesperson
for
a
group
of
three
or
more
and
no
more
than
three
minutes
for
other
individuals.
Additional
information,
as
always,
can
be
conveyed
to
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
in
written
form.
E
F
F
G
C
Commissioner
b
benneck
here
and
who
am
I
missing-
oh
commissioner
rodriguez.
H
F
I'll
second,
with
the
one
note
that
misbidix
did
make
a
revision
on
the
february
5th
meeting
minutes
regarding
the
hotel
overlay
map
motion.
So.
E
We
have
a
motion
in
a
second,
mr
faircloth.
G
I
J
F
E
E
Is
mr
allen
here
he
is
here.
Our
next
item
will
be
a
quasi-judicial
public
hearing,
which
is
variance
petitioner.
Mr
derrick
allen,
agent
for
the
owner,
south
slope.
Investments
llc
is
requesting
a
variance
to
the
development
standard
found
in
section
7
11
2
b6,
the
unified
development
ordinance.
The
petitioner
is
seeking
to
use
the
public
right-of-way
for
access
and
maneuvering
the
property
located
at
175
biltmore
avenue
and
identified
in
the
buncombe
county
tax
records
as
pin.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair
of,
might
wanna
mr
allen
is
your
client
present.
K
I
do
not
see
him
here.
I
know
he
was
attending
something
else
this
evening
and
he
would
pop
on
as
he
could.
I
told
him
I
did
not
think
I
would
need
any
testimony
from
him.
C
Okay,
so
we
might
want
to
begin
with
swearing
in
and
it
looks
like
it'll
just
be
me.
C
H
C
Right.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission.
If
you
give
me
just
a
moment,
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
and
get
started
on
this
presentation.
C
C
C
Okay,
great
so,
as
you
can
see,
the
property
is
currently
zoned
cbd
that
stands
for
the
city's
central
business
district,
which
is
asheville's
downtown
zoning
district.
The
property
is
developed
with
a
one-story
building
a
commercial
structure,
and
it
has
some
associated
parking,
as
well
as
a
service
area
to
the
rear
of
the
property.
C
C
So
there
are.
This
is
important
because
there
are
a
number
of
triggers
in
the
unified
development
ordinance
as
properties
are
redeveloped
or
renovated.
That
could
require
site
compliance.
So
just
for
an
example,
a
renovation
of
a
building
that
exceeds
75
of
the
tax
value
will
will
trigger
site
compliance,
and
so
the
petitioner,
this
this
building
has
been
vacant
for
some
period
of
time.
There
was
a
business
that
was
that
had
actually
opened
just
at
the
start
of
the
pandemic,
and
unfortunately
it
was
bad
timing
and
they
had
to
shutter
that
business.
C
So
any
future
businesses
that
go
into
this
property
should
there
be
a
substantial
renovation
or
if
it
goes
vacant
for
an
extended
period
of
time.
Any
of
those
things
will
require
that
site
compliance
and
the
petitioner
would
like
to
retain
this
parking
and
not
have
it.
Have
the
property
be
redesigned
at
some
point
in
the
future
for
site
compliance
that
eliminates
that
parking,
and
that
is
that
is
the
basis
of
the
request.
C
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
udo
doesn't
want
you
to
maneuver
in
and
out
of
a
parking
space
from
the
right
of
way
and
just
as
a
frame
of
reference.
What
it
really
wants
you
to
do
is
to
create
an
off
off
street
parking
lot
like
this
to
the
south,
or
even
this
one
to
the
north,
where
you
come
in
from
the
right-of-way
and
you
use
the
drive
aisles
in
the
parking
lot
to
maneuver
in
and
out,
and
that's
primarily
for
public
safety.
C
C
I
also
included
in
your
packets,
some
historical
imagery,
beginning
with
2020,
so
there's
the
current
conditions
today
and
then
going
back
in
2015
and
then
further
into
1998,
where
you
can
see
that
those
same
parking
spaces
are
pretty
much
in
the
same
spot
in
the
same
condition
that
they
were
that
they
are
today-
and
I
think
this
is
important
because
while
I
couldn't
go
back
further
than
1998,
the
satellite
imagery
was
just
too
grainy.
C
You
couldn't
read
it,
but
seeing
the
parking
in
place
in
1998
would
suggest
that
it
even
predates
1998
and
goes
back,
and
while
I
can't
confirm
that
it
more
than
likely
means
that
it
existed
before
the
adoption
of
the
udo
which
was
adopted
in
may
of
1997..
C
And
if
that's
the
case,
then
it's
it's
highly
likely
that
this
that
this
parking
was
is
lawfully
non-conforming
and
I
think
in
the
staff
report.
I
offer
a
few
points
for
a
few
points
of
analysis
for
the
board's
consideration.
I
think
I've
covered
most
of
that.
I
think
a
couple
things
that
I
haven't
gone
over
yet
include.
C
C
The
subject:
property
is
relatively
small,
just
0.15
acres,
but
the
petitioner
owns
property,
these
properties
to
the
north.
So
there
is
some
additional
shared
parking,
but
of
course
there
are
other
businesses
that
rely
on
that
parking
as
well,
and
then,
lastly,
the
condition
or
the
commission
may
choose
to
condition
approvals
whether
it
has
to
do
with
the
adaptive
reuse
of
this
building
or
if
there
are
other
conditions
that
the
commission
would
like
to
be
considered
or
tied
to
this
variant's
request.
C
C
I
don't
know
if
closing
the
east
side
would
even
provide
enough
room
for
that
maneuvering,
but
because
the
right-of-way
is
open
and
is
being
used
today,
the
city
wouldn't
support
a
closure,
and
I
think
that's
actually
where
this
request
originated
was
requesting
to
close
that
right-of-way.
But
when
the
city
resisted
that
a
variance
became
the
other
option.
C
I
I
don't
know
if
the
petitioner
went
so
far
as
to
formally
request
the
closure
or,
if
they
just
investigated
the
closure-
and
I
don't
know
if
it
was
just
for
one
side
or
for
the
whole
thing.
However,
I
don't
know
that
the
city
would
support
even
closing
just
one
side,
because
it
is
two-way
traffic.
Sure
unnamed
right
away.
F
Okay,
hopefully
mr
allen
can
just
kind
of
answer
that
when
he
gets
when
he
takes
his
turn,
thank
you.
J
Is
this
a
city
owned?
This
is
city
owned,
right
away.
C
It's
it's
not
city
maintained,
so
it's,
but
it's
publicly
dedicated.
So
it's
a
publicly
dedicated
right-of-way
that
has
been
opened
and
in
use
for
some
period
of
time,
so
adjacent
property
owners
as
well
as
people
in
the
public,
have
relied
on
that
right
of
way.
So
that
that's
the
main
reason
the
city
doesn't
doesn't
want
to
close
it
once
it's
opened
it.
You
know
it's
and
it's
in
use,
it's
more
beneficial
to
keep
them
open
or
we
believe
it's
in
the
pub
the
public's
interest
to
keep
them
open
and.
J
So
what
sort
of
services
from
the
city
use
that
road,
like.
C
C
K
Just
a
few
things,
first
of
all,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
indulgence
of
telescope.
First,
my
family
appreciates
that
second,
shannon
just
pretty
much
killed
all
of
my
speaking
points
on
this
and
did
a
really
thorough
job,
and
I
agree
with
almost
everything
that
she
said.
The
the
only
thing
I
don't
agree
with
is
the
the
dedication
of
the
road
and
the
acceptance
of
it.
K
I
don't
think
she
said
it
was
accepted,
but
we
can't
find
any
record
that
it
was
ever
dedicated
and
I've
been
looking
at
this
particular
claims
right
away
and
that's
what
I
call
it
acclaimed
right-of-way
since
I
looked
at
it
for
green
man,
which
you'll
see
on
the
the
page
that
shannon
has
up
there
there
to
the
left
is
the
green
mansion.
K
Building
and
right
across
the
street
is
the
parking
for
the
green
mansion,
building
that's
controlled
by
the
same
entity,
and
so
I
started
looking
at
this
particular
parcel
for
them
and
before
I
represented
the
the
current
applicant,
which
is
the
subject
property
there.
That
was
the
old
foam
and
fabric
building
and
we
did
a
lot
of
research
and
I
worked
at
the
city
attorney's
office
at
the
time
it
was
the
previous
city
attorney
and
no
one
could
find
where
there
was
any
dedication
of
the
property.
K
The
only
indicators
that
this
extension
of
church
street
and
you'll
see
church
street
as
it
comes
down
there.
Could
you
highlight
that
shannon
as
as
church
street
comes
down,
I
call
this
the
the
hook,
and
so
there
is
one
of
those
relief
type
maps
from
1905
that
shows
this
hook
going
straight
into
into
biltmore
ave
before
lexington
came
across
there
and
and
that's
the
only
remaining
evidence
that
we
could
find
on
it,
and
so
we
had
a
couple
of
different
ways
that
we
were
addressing
it
both
for
green
man.
K
Back
then
this
is
five
or
six
years
ago
and
then
also
for
for
my
client,
mr
mcfarland.
Now
and
the
the
available
tools
were
claim
that
there's
no
right
of
way
and
get
the
city
to
agree
through
the
city
attorney's
office
or
ask
for
a
valid
non-conforming
status,
because
I
do
think
that
we
can
show
that
the
use
of
those
parking
places
exactly
the
way
they're
being
used
now
predates
the
ordinance
of
1998
closed
the
street.
K
All
together
and
green
man
would
join
in
that
and
that's
really
where
we
landed,
and
we
initially
got
reports
back
from
staff
that
they
would
support
that
and
then,
as
it
made
its
way
through
the
departments
and
we
were
dealing
with
cobit,
it
came
back
that
they
would
not
support
that.
For
really
some
general
policy
reasons
and
and
whether
I
agree
or
disagree
doesn't
matter
because
what
they
said
at
the
time
was
we
would
we
wouldn't
support
that.
K
But
why
don't
you
apply
for
a
variance
and
at
this
time
we'll
we'll
unwind
what's
happening
with
the
rooms
to
dance,
and
that
was
the
proposed
use.
That
was
triggering
this
entire
thing
will
unwind
the
improvements
in
the
bond
that
was
associated
with
that
and
we'll
go
back
to
you
know.
Foam
and
fabric
is
just
now
closed
and
you
guys
are
trying
to
re-let
it,
and
I
said
that's
that's
fair
enough.
K
That
seems
like
an
easy
way
to
go
and
that's
literally
how
we
ended
up
in
front
of
this
board
asking
for
this
variance
and
to
be
real,
clear.
This
variance
we're
asking
nothing
more
than
to
continue
to
use
these
parking
places
as
they've
been
used
since
at
least
1998
and
likely
before
in
terms
of
a
safety
component.
We
would
love
to
close
all
the
way
down
and
we'll
continue
to
to
pursue
that.
K
But
right
now
we
are
on
the
verge
of
opening
back
up
our
downtown
economy,
and
we
need
to
get
this
back
to
market
and
in
order
to
get
it
back
to
market,
it
needs
to
be
able
to
be
used
the
way
it's
it's
been
used
for
at
least
30
years
from
a
safety
standpoint.
We
want
to
discourage
that
cut
through
traffic.
We
think
that,
because
just
to
the
bottom
of
this,
it's
just
out
of
frame
shannon
do
you
have?
K
Can
you
show
that
intersection
there,
where
the
abc
store
is
just
the
bottom
right
is
just
out
of
frame.
K
It's
okay:
most
of
us
have
driven
that
it's
where
charlotte
street
comes
in.
It
doesn't
line
up
very
well,
but
this
is
you
know,
you
know
less
than
a
block
from
that
intersection
and
we
think
that
that
full
movements
coming
out
of
this
parking
lot
or
out
of
this
claimed
right-of-way,
specifically
cutting
left
going
back
up
towards
downtown.
We
think
that's
a
terrible,
it's
a
terrible
idea
and
want
to
discourage
it
so,
the
more
it
looks
and
feels
like
an
operating
parking
lot.
K
I
think
the
safer
everyone's
going
to
be
I'll,
stop
talking
now
and
answer
any
questions
you
have.
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
different
arguments
that
support
keeping
it
the
way
it
is,
and
that's
what
we've
asked
in
terms
of
granting
our
variance.
F
Request
have
a
question,
mr
allen.
I
know
there
are
currently
there's
11
existing
parking
spaces.
By
my
account,
it
appears
on
your
site
plan
that
that
would
be
pulled
back
to
10,
that
the
one
parking
spot
closest
to
biltmore
would
actually
become
what
looks
like
some
green
space.
Is
that
correct.
K
When
they
came
in
and
proposed
to
go
in
as
the
tenant
and
they
were
getting
the
building
up
fit
permitted
through
the
city,
the
city
rightfully
determined
that
that
was
a
change
in
use
from
the
foam
and
fabric
store.
So
the
change
in
use
is
what
triggered
that's
one
of
those
triggering
things
that
shannon
mentioned
that
triggered
the
the
compliance
there's
a
there's
that
intersection
that's
even
crazier
than
I
thought
it
looked,
but
that's
what
trigger
triggered
the
compliance
piece,
so
those
drawings
were
generated
generated
from
that.
K
So
when
a
new
tenant
comes
along
proposed,
tenant
will
have
different
drawings,
and
I
don't
know
that
they'll
have
green
space
or
not.
But
you
know
if
that
were
a
condition.
I
don't
think
that
it
would
hurt
anybody's
feelings
on
on
my
client
team.
F
Well-
and
the
reason
I
ask
is-
I
was
actually
downtown
today
and
and
drove
into
that
unnamed
alley
and
went
to
park
in
one
of
those
spaces
and
was
thinking
about
you
know
parking.
Certainly
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
the
parking
what
you
were
talking
about
just
a
minute
ago,
as
far
as
making
that
feel
like
less
of
a
cut-through
street,
having
a
little
bit
more
space
on
those
two
ends,
so
that
the
sidewalk
feels
a
little
more
predominant.
F
The
parking
feels
a
little
less
dominant
might
be
a
great
way
to
achieve
that,
and
my
thinking
was
well.
If
there's
only
nine
parking
spaces,
the
one
on
each
end,
lexington
and
biltmore
go
away.
It
still
provides
parking,
but
it
also
gives
that
little
bit
of
a
buffer.
It
makes
it
feel
like
it's
a
little
more
internal,
even
though
it's
not
and-
and
this
is
where
I
start
to
defer
to
to
miss
ashley
and
miss
tuck.
F
As
far
as
how
much
can
we
apply
conditions
to
this
being
a
variant,
so
I
I
know
that
mr
allen,
you
and
your
client
would
have
to
agree
to
that,
but
this
is
at
least
a
starting
conversation
of
that.
C
So
to
to
clarify
this
is
a
variance
request
and
not
a
cz,
so
they
actually
don't
have
to
agree,
although
of
course
we
want
them
to
and
any
if
a
site
of
a
new
property
or
excuse
me
if
a
new
business
moves
into
that
site
and
they
trigger
one
of
those
compliance
triggers,
then
they
have
to
bring
the
site
into
compliance
for
everything
else.
So
landscaping
sidewalk,
you
know
so
in
the
future.
I
I
think
those
islands
were
created
to
meet
their
landscaping
requirements.
C
That's
that's
how
I
read
that
so
in
the
future.
If
that
is
triggered
again,
then
those
those
same
landscape
requirements
will
likely
come
into
play.
Who
knows
at
what
point
in
the
future
what
other
requirements
may
come
into
play
and
you
know
that
parking
may
become
less
valuable
at
some
point.
So
it's
hard
to
say.
K
I
think
that's
a
great
point,
shannon!
That's
that
you
you
deal
with
this
every
day
that
that's
probably
the
answer
is
that
on
that
on
that
broadway
facing
side
that
that's
where
they
are
facing
side,
they
were
bringing
that
into
compliance
escaping.
So
I
bet
you're.
I
bet
you're
right
on
that.
A
And
this
is
janice
ashley.
I
just
wanted
to
add
so
to
mr
archibald,
you
you
asked
about
the
con
limits
of
conditions.
What
you
would
be
applying
conditions
for
would
be.
For
example,
you
have
your
five
standards.
You
have
the
hardships
applicant
has
said
why
it's
a
hardship
to
meet
this
particular
requirement.
A
A
Why
does
our
ordinance
prohibit
that's
coming
right
in
from
the
right
of
way
and
if
there's
something,
for
example,
if
you
were
to
see
this
as
a
safety
issue,
or
you
could
say
well,
I
think
that's
where
you're
going
with
that
that,
for
some
reason
you
thought
well,
if
there
was
a
purpose,
the
purpose
of
this
to
not
allow
it
from
the
right-of-way
could
be
mitigated
by
by
having
this
buffer,
not
maybe
exactly
the
way
it
shows
on
the
plan.
That
would
be
an
appropriate
condition
that
makes
sense.
F
Yes,
it
does
it
and
it
was
kind
of
keying
off
what
I
was
seeing
again
on
that
site
plane
going
it,
and
certainly
I
see
what
mrs
tuck
is
bringing
up
it
likely
very.
K
F
K
J
So
are
we
looking
at
a
situation
where
you
know
you've
already
renovated
the
space
you
were
asked
to
bring
it
into
compliance,
and
now
you
want
to
get
a
tenant
potentially
you
know
it
could
be
any
length
of
time.
You
know
six
months
to
ten
years
or
more,
and
you
would
never
have
to
upgrade
that.
That
area
is
that
what
you're
asking
for
today.
K
No,
no,
very
specifically
in
and
during
the
the
last
update,
this
was
one
issue
that
we
had
pulled
out
and
had
put
a
bond
in
place,
so
we'd
put
a
bond
in
place
so
that
this
would
not
be
treated
as
right-of-way
and
the
bond
would
stand
in
in
place
of
our
compliance
with
it
as
of
right-of-way,
and
we
were
pursuing
at
that
point,
closing
it
all
together,
we
wanted
to
close
off
that
side.
K
I
don't
know
who
suggested
a
moment
ago
on
on
that
east
side.
We
wanted
to
close
it
down
all
together
there
to
eliminate
it
being
a
cut
through
at
all,
all
the
other
portions
of
site
plan.
Compliance,
whether
now
or
in
the
future,
will
remain
in
place
literally.
The
only
thing
that
we're
asking
is
to
continue
to
be
able
to
use
those
parking
places
the
way
that
they've
been
used
since
at
least
1998.
That's
all
we're
asking
for
every
other
part
of
the
site
planned
compliance
requirements
would
be
met.
C
But
kim
I
I
think
if
I
understand
your
question
correctly,
if
a
new
business
moved
in
and
they
triggered
one
of
those
site,
compliance
requirements
or
triggers,
and
this
variants
were
in
place,
if
it
if
it
gets
granted,
then
they
would
not
have
to
bring
that
parking
into
compliance.
You
are
correct
about
that.
The
parking
would
be
allowed
to
stay,
but
that's
why
a
condition
might
be
helpful.
C
So
if
you
wanted
to
condition
it
to
just
the
adaptive
reuse
of
that
existing
building,
so
that
in
the
future,
if
some
big
new
development
comes
in
and
takes
that
parcel
plus
some
of
the
parcels
to
the
north
and
they
do
a
whole
new
demolition
and
re,
you
know
new
construction,
then
that
variance
would
no
longer
stand
and
they
would
have
to
find
compliance
in
some
other
way.
That's
a
possibility.
J
C
K
F
I
certainly
would
like
to
see
that
condition
added
that
it
is
specifically
for
the
adaptive
reuse
that,
if
it
was,
you
know
to
be
combined
if
this
building
was
to
be
torn
down,
something
completely
new
redone
that
this
variance
would
not
carry
over
to
that.
So.
E
E
No
problem
with
continuing
to
use
it
the
way
it's
been
used.
I
would
be
interested
to
know
if
there
there
have
been
records
of
crashes
from
folks
turning
off
of
biltmore
avenue
onto
that
location,
I'm
not
requesting
that
as
as
an
obstacle
to
to
disapproval,
but
I
think
from
a
pedestrian
and
a
vehicular
sense
safety
sense.
E
It
makes
the
most
sense
to
at
least
make
that
eastbound
only
on
to
biltmore
avenue
so
that
you
can't
make
a
right
turn
in
if
you're
southbound
on
biltmore,
and
you
cannot
make
a
left
turn
in
if
you're
northbound
on
biltmore.
But
frankly,
I
would
rather
see
it
closed
entirely.
H
Yes,
I
just
wanted
to
support
both
on
joe
and
kim's.
H
Request
that
that's
not
so,
should
there
be
in
the
future,
are
we
redesign
or
that
this
doesn't
continue
to
go
forward?
So
I
I
fully
support
what
they're
trying
to
do
both
from
a
safety
point
of
view,
but
from
a
pedestrian
point
of
view,
from
a
bicycle's
point
of
view,
so
that
I
have
no
problems
with
granting
the
variance,
but
I
want
to
see
how
that
condition
works.
C
I
think
the
condition
would
just
be
a
simple.
You
know
the
board
grants
the
variance
with
the
condition
that
it
applied
to
the
to
the
existing
building
and
the
use
of
the
existing
building.
Only
and
should
this
building
be
demolished
and
the
site
redeveloped
in
the
future
that
the
variance
would
no
longer
apply
something
along
those
lines.
F
And
my
understanding,
based
on
what
miss
ashley
said,
that
would
just
be
a
number
five
essentially
on
that,
after
the
four
hardships
correct.
F
A
So
you
have
a
motion
when
that
you
approve
it
and
that's
when
you
would
read
the
condition.
C
And
it
would
be
incorporated
into
the
findings,
the
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
that
gets
recorded.
A
K
And
to
simplify
into
because
one
thing
that
I
don't
want
to
get
in
later
on
for
this,
this
property
or
whether
I
represent
them
or
not,
is
you
know
what
kind
of
reasonable
modifications
you
can
make
to
the
to
the
building?
And
so
I,
like
the
demolished
language
that
you
were
that
you're
getting
to
shannon,
because
I
think
that's
what
we're
getting
at
is
as
long
as
this
is
the
basic
building,
then
this
variance
applies.
K
But
if
it's
a,
if
this
is
taken
down
and
there
yeah
there's
a
new
building
that
goes
in
then,
then
it
doesn't
apply
and
I'll
be
comfortable
with
that.
That
kind
of,
as
long
as
we're
clear
that
it
applies
to
this
building
and
reasonable
modifications
to
that
building,.
I
It's
not
it's
more
like
a
statement
and
just
agreeing
with
tony
and
just
in
this
area
in
particular,
there's
just
like
not
a
lot
of
public
parking
at
all,
so
I'm
not
sure
moving
forward.
I
think
in
that
specific
area,
if
we
can
look
at
adding
more
public
parking,
I
mean
there's
literally
no
public
parking
down
there
and
I
travel
that
little
corridor.
A
lot
circling
looking
for
public
parking.
I
J
I
C
F
C
I
didn't
add
it
because
it's
really
kind
of
up
to
the
commission
to
decide.
But
if
it's
helpful,
I
can
restate
what
I
said
earlier
and.
F
F
D
A
And
it's
actually,
if
anybody
has
testimony
it's
not
just
general
public
comment,
it's
supposed
to
be
interested
parties
that
have
testimony.
So
that's
how
you
would
open
it
in
this
and
as
for
the
motion,
there
is
a
way
to
say
it,
because
this
is
based
on
the
competent
material
evidence.
So
I
I
just
sent
something
to
marie,
where
we
have
our
standard
motion
to
approve
or
deny,
but
you
get
that
little
competent
evidence
part
in
there.
A
E
E
F
F
Yes,
so
I
make
motion
to
approve
the
variance
for
175.
H
A
F
A
K
It
is,
and
I
think
because
I'm
maybe
because
I'm
a
lawyer
and
we
overthink
things,
but
if
we
could
add
that's
that
simply
says
this.
This
condition
is
not
intended
to
prohibit
additions
or
modifications
of
the
existing
structure.
I
think
that
gets
that
gets
me
home.
A
I
E
We
have
a
motion
by
mr
archibald
in
second
by
mr
rodriguez.
Mr
rodriguez,
are
you
agreeable
to
the
the
last
portion
also.
H
H
I
H
K
K
A
E
E
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
commission,
so,
as
mr
hauser
has
indicated,
this
is
a
this
next
item
on.
Your
agenda
is
a
request
to
rezone
the
property
located
at
9999
glendale
avenue
in
your
exhibit.
There
is
an
exhibit
b
map
that
shows
the
subject
property
outlined
here
in
red.
You
can
see
from
the
aerial
imagery
that
the
property
is
currently
undeveloped.
C
What
also
is
not
apparent,
probably
in
this
aerial
image,
is
that
when
I
first
looked
at
this
this
map,
I
thought
the
subject.
Property
was
larger
than
it
really
is
it's
it's
1.59
acres,
so
it's
under
two
acres
and
it
has
frontage
on
both
glendale
avenue
and
springvale
avenue.
Glendale
is
a
city
maintained.
Street
springvale,
however,
is
not.
C
It
is
a
private
road
that
actually
dead
ends
somewhere
in
here,
so
should
springvale
be
used
for
access
to
this
property,
it
would
have
to
be
improved
to
some
extent
the
property
is
currently
zoned
rm16
and
this
this
zoning
map
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
recognize
based
on
this
map.
But
these
are
the
maps
we
use
for
our
ordinances.
C
So
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
more
clear
if
we
just
look
at
our
gis
imagery,
so
you
can
see
that
rm16
zoned
property
in
the
center
there
and
you
can
see
that
it's
essentially
an
island
of
zoning.
So
this
is
something
of
an
unusual
condition.
There
isn't
really
a
specific
rule
about
spot
zoning.
That
says
you
can't
have
non-contiguous
zoning
for
parcels
under
some
some
designated
amount.
C
It
really
is
based
on
what
kind
of
makes
sense,
but
I
will
say
that
I
find
this
to
be
kind
of
an
unusual
property.
It
is
kind
of
small
to
be
a
standalone
island
of
zoning,
so
I'm
not
really
clear
on
what
the
history
of
this
is
and
why
it's
currently
zoned
rm16,
but
I
did
find
that
that
was
somewhat
unusual.
C
The
request
is
to
rezone
the
property
from
rm16
to
commercial
industrial,
to
match
those
surrounding
parcels,
and
it's
not
always
necessary
to
change
the
future
land
use
map
with
a
rezoning.
But
in
this
particular
case,
should
this
rezoning
be
supported,
it
would
be
necessary
to
change
the
designation,
because
currently
it's
designated
traditional
neighborhood,
which
is
a
predominantly
residential
vision
for
this
area,
which
is,
I
also
find
a
little
unusual,
given
that
glendale
avenue
is
predominantly
developed
with
non-residential
uses.
That's
actually
let
me
back
up.
That's
not
exactly
true.
C
You
can
see
here
the
residential
zoning.
This
is
these
properties
are
currently
developed,
but
beyond
that,
and
as
we
move
closer
to
the
river
into
the
river
district
zoning,
it
becomes
commercial.
So
this
property
is,
you
know
closer
to
this
commercial.
These
commercial
uses
in
these
commercial
nodes
than
it
is
to
the
residential.
E
E
C
H
L
Hey
hey:
it's
rob
dole
here
from
site
work
studios.
That
is
indeed
there's
one.
Two
three
four
five
parcels
there
that
are
targets,
storm
water
feature.
C
C
I
also
offer
in
the
staff
report
some
some
considerations
of
for
the
commission.
The
staff
does
support
this
rezoning
request
predominantly
because
that
this
portion
of
glendale
is
commercial,
designation
or
as
commercial
uses
and
the
subject.
Property
is
owned
by
the
same
property
owner
who
owns
these
three
parcels
to
the
east
or
sort
of
southeast,
as
well
as
some
parcels
here
on
the
west
side.
So
in
combination
we
have
about
four
and
a
half
acres.
Seven
parcels
in
total,
so
having
dissimilar
zoning
would
be
potential
barrier
to
future
development.
C
L
Hey
shannon,
thank
you.
My
name
is
rob
dahl,
I'm
a
landscape
architect
at
site,
work
studios
and
have
been
working
with
the
developers
on
on
all
these
partials
and-
and
you
know,
I
think
we
would
just
reinforce
what
shannon
said.
Having
this
be
a
standalone
rm16,
it's
not
that
we're
against
residential
by
any
means.
It's
just
it's
creating
barriers
allowing
us
to.
When
we
look
at
this
as
sort
of
a
master
plan
and
having
an
entire
sort
of
campus.
L
You
know
this
rm16
against
the
ci,
creates
20
foot
landscape
buffers
that
completely
dissect
the
entirety
of
the
of
the
acreage
and,
as
you
said,
the
rm16
is
sort
of
down.
B
L
E
Do
we
a
public
comment
for
this
one.
E
H
C
I'm
going
to
dive
in
and
because
this
is
going
to
be
really
brief
and
hopefully
very
straightforward
and
and
simple
and
I'll
invite
janice
to
add
any
additional
comments.
But.
A
And
shannon,
I
just
want
to
note
that
aaron
miles,
I
don't
know
if
you've
all
had
a
chance
to
meet
her
but
she's,
a
assistant
city
attorney,
who
also
is
working
on
these
160d
updates
with
me.
So
both
of
us
are
here
to
support
you
in
in
this
presentation.
Shannon
great
thank.
C
You
so
I
know
that
the
majority
of
our
commission
has
heard
this
little
spiel
about
what
is
160d.
You
know
why
we're
considering
these
amendments,
but
we
have
a
couple
new
commissioners,
I'm
just
going
to
take
a
moment
to
go
over
this
introduction
again
and
explain
what
is
160d.
It's
a
chapter
in
the
north
carolina
general
statutes
that
were
adopted
as
part
of
a
session
law
in
2019
and
which
became
effective
in
2020..
C
It
replaces
much
of
the
existing
160a
and
153a
chapters,
which
were
the
land
use,
laws
for
cities
and
counties
respectively
and,
as
the
title
of
the
session
law
would
would
state.
The
purpose
of
160
d
is
to
clarify,
consolidate
and
reorganize
the
land
use
laws
of
the
state.
So
it
was
not
the
intent
to
change
the
laws
dramatically.
C
So
staff
has
been
bringing
forward
a
series
of
amendments
to
modify
our
development
code
to
be
consistent,
and
this
is
the
fourth
in
a
series
of
amendments.
This
particular
amendment
addresses
duties
and
responsibilities
of
various
decision-making,
administrative
and
advisory
bodies,
so
bodies
such
as
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
C
So
quite
simply
these
changes.
This
amendment
includes
changes
to
three
of
the
articles
in
the
unified
development
ordinances
ordinance
in
your
staff
report.
We
had
markups
that
if
you
were
interested,
you
could
go
and
you
could
look
and
see
exactly
what
text
changes.
You
could
see
the
additions
of
new
text
and
the
strikethroughs
show
in
text
that
is
proposed
to
be
deleted.
C
So
in
article
3
is
the
decision-making,
administrative
and
advisory
bodies
article.
This
is
where
it
lays
out
and
identifies
a
lot
of
the
or
all
of
the
bodies
that
have
a
role
in
development
review
and
it
describes
their
different
powers
and
duties
and
responsibilities.
So
there
are
some
edits
to
that
as
a
result
of
160d.
It's
primarily
clarifications
things
about,
perhaps
about
voting
or
membership,
and
things
like
that,
but
they're,
relatively
straightforward.
C
Article
5
is
the
city's
development
review
procedures
section.
The
primary
change
from
160d
and
article
5
has
to
do
with
notice
requirements.
So
quasi
judicial
hearings
have
a
slightly
different
notice
requirement
that
our
than
our
legislative
hearings
do
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
other
information
related
to
that
article.
6
is
our
variances
administrative
appeal
and
reasonable
accommodations.
So
this
is
specifically
about
board
of
adjustment
functions
and
there
are
some
again
relatively
small
changes
related
to
variances
appeals
and
reasonable
accommodation
provisions
and
procedures,
and
then
article
7
text,
amendments
and
map
amendments.
C
It
just
amends
the
review
steps
that
the
planning,
zoning,
commission
and
city
council
would
follow,
and
it
also
removes
language
regarding
protest
petitions
now
protest.
Petitions
are
actually
part
of
a
different
legislative
act
from
I
think
2013
some
time
ago,
so
we're
just
cleaning
this
up
and
taking
it
out
of
the
ordinance
now
as
a
result
of
this
amendment
or
it's
kind
of
on
the
coattails
of
this
amendment,
that
actually
concludes
my
introduction.
I
hadn't
planned
to
go
through
it
line
by
line,
I
think,
like
I
said
it's
relatively
straightforward.
A
And
if
there
are
no
specific
questions,
I
just
want
to
highlight
a
couple
of
things:
the
article
three
some
of
the
biggest
changes
well
there,
as
we've
said
before,
160d,
didn't
really
make
a
lot
of
changes,
and
thankfully
we
are
already
doing
many
of
the
things
that
160d
says
you
should
do
for
boards
and
conditio
boards
and
commissions.
For
example,
we
always
have
we
have
rules
of
procedure.
160D
suggests
that
boards
and
commissions
should
have
rules
and
procedure,
but
we
have
that
and
we
have
for
a
long
time.
We
swear
in
our
commissioners.
A
One
of
the
biggest
changes
was
that
they
said
we
have
to
have
a
conflict,
a
broadened
conflict
of
interest,
standard
for
planning
related
boards
and
commissions,
and
I'm
going
to
go
over
that
in
a
little
bit
with
you.
But
you.
You
won't
see
that
broad
and
conflict
of
interest
standard
in
this
udo
change,
because
where
we
find
your
conflict
of
interest,
standards
are
in
your
rules
or
procedure,
but
what
it
also
added
160d
required
that
the
planning
staff
had
to
have
a
conflict
of
interest,
standard
and
so
you'll
see
in
article
three.
A
We
have
added
to
the
section
on
planning
city,
asheville
planning
department.
There
we
added
a
conflict
of
interest
section
which
basically
says
that
no
staff
member
shall
make
a
final
decision
on
an
administrative
decision
related
to
a
development
regulation.
If
that
decision
would
have
a
direct,
substantial
and
readily
identifiable
financial
impact
on
the
staff
member
or
if
the
applicant
or
other
person
is
a
person
with
whom
the
staff
member
has
a
close
familial
relationship.
A
C
I'm
I'm
sorry,
I
erin
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
hijack
your
spot
for
a
second,
because,
because
kim
had
asked
a
question
in
regards
to
the
variants
that
you
all
just
voted
on
here
a
little
while
ago
about
the
notice
requirements
for
that-
and
I
kind
of
I
didn't
want
to
get
into
it
in
an
email
conversation-
and
I
said
we
would
talk
about
it
later
tonight
and
there
right
now,
the
udo
we
just
treat
all
of
our
notice
requirements.
The
same
we
just
notify.
C
So,
with
all
of
this
additional
notice,
that's
occurring
160d
reminded
us
that
technically,
the
state
only
requires
that
we
notice
people
directly
adjacent
to
the
properties
and
that's
for
legislative
and
quasi-judicial
now
for
our
legislative
decisions.
We
didn't
think
that
was
a
good
idea.
Our
community
relies
on
broad
notice,
and
so
we
want
to
be
transparent
and
open
and
upfront.
So
we
want
to
continue
to
do
that.
C
However,
for
quasi-judicial
hearings,
it's
a
little
bit
different
because,
as
janice
mentioned
earlier
in
the
previous,
the
the
quasi-judicial
hearing
that
we
just
completed
when
we
open
the
public
testimony
it's
to
be
primarily
it's
for
people
who
are
directly
impacted
or
who
could
potentially
have
standing,
and
if
we
do
broad
notification,
we're
potentially
introducing
issues
of
standing
or
not
people
not
having
standing
making
comments.
C
So
we
don't
want
to
you
know
we
want
to
be
inclusive
and
do
broad
notification,
and
you
know
we
hope
that
we'll
have
more
and
more
tools
that
people
can
use
to
kind
of
know
what's
going
on
in
their
community
if
they
have
concern,
but
in
terms
of
meeting
the
statutory
requirement,
we
really
thought
at
least
for
quasi-judicial
hearings.
We
should
probably
drop
back
to
just
notifying
those
directly
adjacent.
C
So
aaron,
sorry,
I
I
don't
know
if
you
have
anything
more
to
add
there.
B
Yeah,
I
I
don't
have
much,
I
don't
have
anything
else
to
add
you
covered
it
greatly,
shannon
that's
the
major
change
that
for
quasar
judicial,
it's
going
to
only
be
those
abutting
and
adjacent
properties
and
the
legislative
hearing
it
will
continue.
The
mailing
will
continue
to
go
out
to
the
200
feet,
those
probably
within
200
feet.
F
L
F
Thought
was
a
very
good
clarification.
A
And
the
only
other
thing
I
wanted
to
comment
on
is
shannon
had
mentioned
the
changes
to
774
reviewed
by
the
planning
commission
and
then
776,
where
we
cut
the
protest
petition
and
just
to
explain
that,
because
we're
having
to
go
through
the
whole
udo
to
update
for
160d,
remember,
the
udo
is
what
from
1998,
shannon
97
97
so
over
the
years,
and
you
will
see
my
marked
up
udl.
This
isn't
legal.
We
can't
do
this
or
we've
had
other
city
attorneys
say
you
know.
A
For
example,
we
used
to,
I
guess,
allow
the
planning
as
written
it
says.
The
planning
and
zoning
commission
can
give
a
negative
recommendation
and
then
just
hold
sort
of
and
and
then
the
application
is
just
denied
right
then,
and
it
doesn't
ever
go
up
to
counsel.
Well,
we've
never
done
it
like
that.
But
the
way
it
is
written
was
like
that.
A
So
we're
correcting
taking
the
opportunity
to
correct
that
and
we
actually
just
had
somebody
call
quite
recently
to
say
I
want
to
do
this
protest
petition
thing
and
I
had
to
say
well
actually
that
hasn't
been
valid
since
2015,
but
we
just
haven't
had
a
chance
to
go
back
into
our
udo
to
change
it.
So
this
is
why
you
will
see
sometimes
cleanups
that
are
not
related
to
160d
and
we'll
try
to
highlight
those
for
you.
F
H
A
And
we
have
sent
out,
I
think
in
the
past
and
we
can
send
it
out
again,
but
the
thing
I
find
most
helpful
is
this
160d
checklist
and
it
is
very
simple,
you'll
see
this
is
how
we're
working
through
the
udo,
but
it
highlights
the
main
changes
and
we
have
that
little
blurb.
A
That
says
a
lot
of
160d
will
say
you
must
do
this
or
you
may
do
that,
and
so,
if
you
don't
have
that,
we
can
send
it
out
again,
but
at
least
it's
instead
of
reading
all
the
changes,
which
is
the
whole
book.
You
get
this
five
page
handy
dandy
checklist,
so
you
can
see
what
we're
what
we're
up
to.
F
Actually
I
have
a
question
I
mean.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
right
place,
but
there
I
did
see
in
one
part
of
that
checklist.
They
were
talking
about
that.
You
must
ensure
that
the
ordinance
definitions
follow
terms
that
are
consistent
and
it
referenced
like
building
and
dwelling
unit,
and
things
like
that,
I'm
assuming
that's
one,
that's
coming
or
does
the
udo
already,
because
I
can't
remember
that.
B
A
G
I
did
have
a
quick
question
about
the
quasi-judicial
notifications,
where
you
said
you
only
send
that
to
adjacent
properties.
Does
that
mean
only
those
adjacent
properties
can
speak
to
or
or
have
comment
on
that
hearing,
or
is
that
just
who's
directly
being
notified.
B
So
those
are
those
for
quasi-digital
hearing
just
have
standing
in
order
to
participate
in
the
particular
hearing,
and
that
means
that
you're
in
a
sense
directly
affected
by
it.
So
the
only
ones
who
who
would
have
standing
to
participate
in
a
quasi-district
hearing
would
be
those
who
were
directly
affected.
Would
you
be
most
likely
those
who
are
budding
properties
or
adjacent
properties
for,
for
instance,
if
you
were
to
have
an
apartment,
complex
that
is
within
200
feet
and
every
single
person
in
an
apartment
complex
or
to
receive
a
mailing.
B
They
would
assume
that
they
would
have
stand
some
sort
of
standing
to
to
testify
and
provide
input
which,
in
in
in
a
certain
instance
they
may
not.
So
it's
trying
to
limit
that
instance
where
some
may
think
they're
able
to
testify
in
half
standing
while
others
do
to
to
kind
of
limit
that,
because
you
do
have
half
standing,
whereas
legislative
hearings,
anyone
can
testify
and
provide
any
type
of
public
comment
or
information,
but
only
those
who
have
standing
can
and
quasi-judicial
hearing.
G
A
There
might
be
other
ways
you
can
make
the
case,
but,
and
typically
we
don't
get
into
this
well,
you
will
only
have
it
for
variances
to
be
quasi-judicial
and
we,
we
typically
will
not
put
the
board
or
commission
in
in
the
position
of
saying.
Do
you
have
standing
or,
but
it
makes
it
easier.
If
somebody
says
I
live
next
door,
and
this
is
how
it
impacts
me
and
people
should
be
testifying
based
on
again,
as
aaron
said,
how
it
directly
impacts
them.
A
So
there
might
be
broader
than
just
the
adjacent
property
owners,
but
somebody
should,
when
they
are
testifying
in
a
quasi-judicial,
should
be
able
to
make
the
case
of
why
they
are
an
interested
party
and
and
160d
is
trying
to
do
a
good
job
of
clarifying
what
are
quasi
judicial
procedures
such
as
variances,
such
as
certificates
of
appropriateness
with
the
historic
resources
commission
and
what
are
legislative.
So
you
will
see
in
our
changes
to
160d
those
terms
more
often
quasi
judicial
and
legislative.
A
Just
to
clarify,
yes,
you
could
in
a
quad
in
a
legislative
decision
I
could
be
from
anywhere
in
asheville
and
say
I
just
I
just
don't
like
this.
I
don't
live
in
that
neighborhood,
but
I
just
don't
think
that's
a
good
idea
and
that's
fine,
but
when
you
are
testifying
and
quasi
judicial,
you
should
be
able
to
again
say
you
shouldn't
be
from
across
town
unless
you
own
a
property
that
is
impacted
by
that
variance.
C
Shanna
you're
muted.
I
was
muted
sorry.
What
I
have
instructed
are
I
used
to
work
with
our
board
of
adjustment,
and
I
I
would
one
thing
that
I
would
say
to
them
is
like:
if
somebody's
directly
adjacent,
they
almost
certainly
have
standing,
but
the
further
you
get
out
the
less
likely
they're
going
to
have
standing
and
by
changing
the
notice
requirements.
What
we're
hoping
to
do
is
not
give
people
the
impression
that
their
comments
are
going
to
have
an
effect
on
the
outcome
of
the
hearing
when
they
don't
have
standing.
A
And
as
a
reminder,
as
shannon
has
already
said
that
what
the
statute
has
always
said,
this
isn't
a
change
for
160d.
Is
this
narrower
notification?
It's
not
just
for
quasi
judicial.
It's
for
legislative
as
well,
but
asheville
has
chosen
to
broaden
to
200
feet,
who
we
provide
notice
to
in
legislative
decisions.
E
A
Mean
because
not
for
the
legislative,
well,
I
think
usually
people
say
I'm
a
resident
of
asheville,
but
I
because
it
is
public
anybody's
comments
can
be
taken
in
and
by
pnz
or
council
can
consider
those
comments.
C
Now
I
I
do
think
you
know
as
different
members
of
the
different
advisory
or
decision
making
bodies.
They
might
weigh
comments
from
somebody
who's
a
resident
or
somebody
who's
directly
adjacent
higher
than
somebody
who
lives
in
you
know,
say
the
county
or
another
state
or
part-time
owner
right.
So
it's
you
know
that
that's
that's
just
part
of
the
discretion
that
you
and
other
bodies
have,
but
we
haven't
historically
required
that
council
requires
it,
but
it's
for
right
now,
under
the
remote
meeting
laws,
I
think
it's
primarily
for
identification
purposes.
F
C
I
think
it
can
be.
You
know
you
can
ask,
or
it
can
yeah
as
part
of
your
procedure
like
when
you
do
your
introduction
and
you
say
we're
opening
up
for
public
comment.
Please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record,
and
not
just
the
name
for
the
record.
You
could
say
name
and
address.
I
think
there's
nothing
wrong
with
that.
I
I
But
then
you
have
people
who
actually
do
live
within
200
yards,
and
that
item
is
really
important
and
it's
going
to
affect
them,
and
you
know
next
week
we
have
something
that's
being
built
here
right
across
the
street,
a
proposal
that's
coming
up
for
a
new
property
here
on
hendersonville
road
right
across
from
my
house,
and
so
that
is
something
that
really
affects
me
but
may
not
affect
somebody
else
across
town
who
constantly
weighs
in
on
everything
in
this
town.
I
So
it's
really
important
that
we
actually
do
take
into
consideration
people
who
is
actually
going
to
effect
and
start.
You
know
just
reading
through
the
charlotte
street
comments
that
we
have
been
getting.
It's
really
important
for
us
to
actually
weigh
in
on
the
people
who
going
to
effect
as
opposed
to
other
people.
So
I
agree
with
joe
on
this
one
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
take
things
seriously
on
that
aspect.
E
I
tend
to
agree
that,
although
it
may
not
be
required
for
legislative
procedures
that
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
because
I
think
there's
there's
some
level
of
standing-
that's
that's
provided
by
by
knowing
that
and
that's
perhaps
a
good
segue
since
we're
talking
about
public.
Do
we
need
to
open
this
one
for
public
comment
also.
E
E
You
gotta
love
civic
activity,
we'll
close
public
comment
at
6
12.
H
H
I
F
A
So
we
have
a
markup
of
your
rules
and
procedures
and
you'll
see
section
3d,
which
has
always
been
there
as
your
conflict
of
interest.
Your
prior
conflict
of
interest
standard
was
that
you
should
not
vote
on
a
matter
where
you
had
a
direct,
substantial
or
rather
substantial
and
readily
identifiable
financial
interest,
so
that
is
still
there,
but
it
has
been
brought
in
to
also
say
that
you
should
not
vote
in
any
zoning
amendment
if
you
have,
if
you
have
a
close
personal,
familial
business
relationship
or
other
association
relationship
with
the
applicant
or.
A
Owner
this
is
pretty
straightforward.
Sometimes
conflict
of
interest
has
come
up
and
a
member
is
not
certain.
They
say
I
might
have
a
conflict,
I'm
I'm
not
sure
so,
you're
always
free
to
check
with
with
shannon
who
could
get
in
touch
with
me
and
legal
or
aaron
to
just
help
you
figure
out
if
it's
a
conflict
of
interest,
usually
it's
pretty
clear.
Sometimes
it's
it's
fuzzy
a
little
bit
and
when
it
when
we're
not
sure
so
say,
maybe
you
used
to
work
for
a
company
many
years
ago.
A
A
Where
a
member
may
say
I
want
to
disclose
that.
Many
years
ago
I
worked
for
this
company.
I
believe
I
can
make
a
fair,
an
impartial
decision
and
then
leave
it
to
the
rest
of
the
commission.
You
will
note
when
we
do
have
somebody
recuse
themselves
for
a
conflict
of
interest.
They
usually
state
what
that
is,
and
then
the
board
will
vote
or
the
commission
will
vote
to,
let
them
recuse
themselves.
A
So,
as
I
said,
when
we
get
to
the
ones
that
maybe
are
not
completely
clear,
usually
a
member
would
disclose
and
say.
I
think
I
can
make
an
impartial
decision,
but
if
other
members
of
the
commission
feel
that
that
is,
it
just
seems
that
it's
too
much
of
a
conflict,
then
they
may
say
we
we
want
you
to
recuse
yourself
and
then
the
board
votes
on
that.
A
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
did
make
a
few
other
cleanup
changes
to
the
rules.
Mainly,
we
have
to
change
all
of
our
references
to
the
former
statute.
160
a
to
160
d,
so
you'll
see
that
change
and
you'll
see
this
one
that
we
also
did
in
the
udo,
which
is
about
the
appointing
who
appoints
members
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
You
know
it's
a
joint
commission
city
and
well
it's
it's
a
city,
commission,
but
city
council
appoints
and
board
county
commissioners.
A
A
point
and
years
ago,
when
we
lost
our
authority
to
annex
there
was
a
question
whether
the
county
would
still
be
able
to
appoint,
but
there
was
local
legislation
that
that
required
that
this
continues
to
be
the
appointments
from
both
the
county
and
the
city.
So
the
language
you'll,
see
in
section
3b,
is
verbatim
what
was
required
by
that
session
law.
A
A
A
E
E
C
J
H
H
E
C
Before
we
break
up
for
the
evening,
I
wanted
to
let
you
all
know
that
we
ordered
several
books.
You
all
are
looking
at
it
backwards.
Aren't
you
like
you're
looking
in
the
mirror,
it's
the
quasi-judicial
handbook
for
that
for
guide
for
boards
making
development
regulation
decisions.
So
this
is
a
handbook
that
we
give
all
of
our
new
board
of
adjustment
members
and
our
plan
and
zoning
commissioners.
C
I
got
two
copies
for
brenton
and
jennifer
and
I
wasn't
sure
if
you
all,
I
think
some
of
you
attended
training.
You
may
have
gotten
a
book
then,
but
I
wanted
to
check
to
see
if
anybody
else
did
not
have
the
book
and
would
like
a
copy
of
the
book,
and
if
you
would
just
email
me
and
give
me
your
address
I'll,
either
drop
off
or
mail.
You
a
copy
of
the
book.