![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ovVzcU_MLc8/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting - 06-04-2020
Description
Plan Commission Meeting - 06-04-2020
B
C
C
B
A
B
So
we
will
be
removing
item
a,
and
that
is
the
vacation
for
the
portion
of
Alli
abutting,
the
county,
fair
banquet
hall,
so
that
will
be
removed
and
then
also
just
to
note
and
I.
Don't
know
if,
if
anybody
on
the
on
YouTube,
if
they
didn't
get
the
notification
of
a
participation
ID
if
they
are
wanting
to
call
in
for
any
any
anything,
the
number
that's
posted
on
the
agenda
is
changed
and
I'll.
Just
read
that
okay
and
then
they'll
also
be
in
the
comments.
B
B
A
B
Thank
You
Blake,
so
this
is
Commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
2020
26
approving
the
plat
of
River
Ridge
Estates,
7th
edition
this
you'll
know
we
approved
the
preliminary
plan
for
this
area
in
2019.
We
recently
just
rezone
dit
from
egg
to
r1,
which
is
what
this
this
is:
a
single-family
development,
a
single-family
residential
development.
The
park
dedication
will
meet
all
of
the
requirements.
D
B
Then
the
main
thing
is
we
just
wanted
to
so
in
the
plat
there
is
a
easement
to
the
east
of
it.
I'll
pull
it
up
here
all
right.
So
here
we
have
the
park
that's
being
dedicated.
This
is
not
necessary
to
install
the
street
at
this
time,
so
they
are
giving
an
access
easement,
so
people
are
able
to
get
to
the
park.
We
do
have
language
and
there,
though,
and
that's
where
I'll,
pull,
that
up
now
we're
a
six
to
six
foot
wide
and
grass
and
ingress
easement
adjacent
to
the
park.
B
She'll
be
dedicated
to
the
public
by
the
plat
to
allow
for
access
with
a
temporary
turnaround
which
will
be
gravel.
The
ingress
and
egress
easement
she'll
be
dedicated
as
public
right-of-way
and
constructed
to
city
standards
contemporaneous
to
development,
to
the
west
or
north.
That
warrants
connection
through
that
portion
of
Cheyenne
Lane
or
if
the
park
is
developed
and
Warren
Cheyenne
land
be
extended,
the
installation
of
Cheyenne
Cheyenne
land
will
be
determined
by
the
City
Engineer
and
recommended
to
the
City
Council
for
approval.
B
So
basically,
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
say
the
development
never
happens
to
the
east
and
that
because
his
next
phase
will
include
that
area,
pull
up
that
plat
to
talk
through
that.
So
his
next
phase
is
this
area
over
here.
So
at
that
time,
then
he
will
have
to
extend
that
street,
but
just
in
case
that
wouldn't
happen
for
some
reason,
then
we
just
want
to
have
language
in
there.
A
B
B
A
C
C
B
A
D
B
Then
so
we'll
have
the
gravel
turn
around
just
to
then
you
know
if
if
people
want
to
utilize
that
land
and
then
whatever
the
park
department
is
right
at
the
park
and
Rec
Department
is
already
to
develop.
It
then
we'll
address
well
address
it
at
that
time,
but
I
think
they
were
a
couple
years
out
on
that.
So,
instead
of
having
them
extend
that
part
of
the
street,
when
it's
not
necessary
at
this
time
to
just
address
it
when
it's
when
it
comes
up,
make.
A
E
Sir
I,
just
to
clarify
that
question,
there
are
regards
to
the
maintenance
of
gravel
streets
under
development.
The
intent
of
that
section
is
that
kind
of
cookie
cutter
language
for
all
of
our
subdivisions,
so
that
when
the
development
builds
out
the
public
streets
we
do
require
them
go
through
the
freeze-thaw
cycle
before
they
put
the
top
lifted
paving
on.
So
when
the
development
ends
up
going
into
the
fall
and
winter
months
with
just
base
course
down.
A
E
F
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
in
our
zoning
ordinance,
20
section
21,
point
6201
says
that
all
Lots
created
must
front
on
a
public
street
or
on
an
approved
private
street,
and
the
park
nobody's
ever
going
to
build
a
house
on
it.
But
it
is
a
lot
being
plaited
and
it
does
not
a
but
on
any
approved
public
or
private
street.
So
there's
an
inherent
variance
in
this.
F
F
What
we
used
to
have
in
our
standards
with
a
half
road
which
was
actually
more
than
a
half
road,
they
put
the
curb
in
the
gutter
on
the
one
side
and
half
of
the
asphalt
plus
two
extra
feet
of
asphalt,
so
that
and
it
would
all
be
sloped
and
with
the
understanding
that
two
feet
beyond
the
centerline
would
probably
be
removed
and
a
straight
edge
formed
for
the
other
half
of
the
street.
When
the
other
half
of
the
road
is
developed
in
the
future.
F
B
My
thought
with
that
was
just
because
we're
not
dedicating
as
public
right-of-way,
so
somebody
would
have
to
in
the
future
come
in
and
dedicate
that
and
then
build
the
street,
and
that
would
be
part
of
their
development
agreement.
The
the
point
about
the
park
and
that
not
abutting
a
public
street
is
it's
actually
exempt
from
the
regulations,
because
it's
being
plaited
to
be
conveyed
to
a
government
entity.
F
We
have
confusion
about
this
sort
of
thing,
though,
that
we've
done
in
the
past
and
then
the
road
doesn't
get
improved
and
you
know
then
it's
the
adjacent
property
owners,
normally
they're
responsible,
will
pay
for
the
road,
and
so
that
could
be
confusing
in
the
future.
If
that
road
isn't
improved
and
then
the
property
develops
and
they
do
it
by
petition,
it
would
be
the
adjacent
property
owners
and
one
of
which
is
the
city,
so
it
would
be
shifting
potentially
shifting
the
responsibility
to
the
taxpayers.
F
Just
to
make
that
clear,
I
mean
the
the
Plan
Commission
can
recommend
whatever
they
like,
but
I
I
have
had
this
Congress
with
a
couple
of
councilmembers,
and
so
there
they
have
to
ultimately
approve
the
plat,
and
this
could
become
an
issue
at
the
City
Council
meeting
and
just
don't
want
to.
They
want
to
support
what
the
Planning
Commission
does,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
plan
commission
understands
the
normal
process
and,
if
you're
deviating
from
it
you're
doing
it
knowingly.
F
A
E
Think
that
the
turnaround
would
essentially
get
shifted
from
where
it's
proposed
on
this
plateauing,
a
brandy
has
up
and
and
put
towards
the
end
of
that
66
foot
street
run
right
away,
yeah.
In
my
opinion,
that
would
be
the
appropriate
thing
to
do
if
we
were
to
pursue
a
half
three
type
of
configuration.
F
Required
normally
as
a
requirement
for
development,
it's
part
of
the
improvements
and
it's
typically
deferred
until
a
building
permit
is
issued
and
since
there
will
never
be
a
building
permit
on
this
land,
it's
go
in
with
the
street.
But
again
that's
something.
That's
caused
a
problem
in
the
past
because
the
developers
aren't
going
to
come
back
later
and
put
a
sidewalk
in
and
they
put
they
transfer
that
responsibility,
which
is
a
subdivision
responsibility
onto
the
taxpayers
and.
A
Is
you
know
something
that
I've
noticed
over
the
years
and
and
have
trouble
with?
Is
the
fact
that
you
know
we
end
up
with
you
know
these
parks
and
then
no
pedestrian
way
to
get
there
in
many
cases.
I
know.
We've
talked
about
it
a
few
years
now
in
relation
to
lions,
bark,
which
is
a
great
park
in
the
middle
of
town,
for
people
to
get
to
and
and
there's
no
safe
sidewalk.
It's
it's
all
walking
on
the
road
in
order
to
get
there.
A
G
B
So
I
guess
is
a
recommendation
than
to
bring
forward
to
the
City
Council,
because
ultimately,
they'll
approve
the
development
agreement.
I
know
we
just
had
a
different
situation
about
extending
a
street
that
did
not
lead
to
anything
so
I
and
just
the
discussion
where,
where
that
discussion
led,
it
will
be
interesting
how
they
do
want
to
handle
this
type
of
thing
and
kind
of
have
a
policy
going
forward,
because
I
think
we're-
and
you
know,
extending
the
street
say
that
it
never
develops
we're
still
gonna
have
an
easement
there.
B
B
And
we'll
have
to
perpetually
maintain
it.
You
know
it's
expensive
to
put
in
an
up
front
for
the
developer
and
let
alone
he's
dedicating
8.4
acres
of
parkland
to
us
and
then
to
have
that
and
trying
to
look
out
for
taxpayers
to,
but
I
think
that
we
still
I
mean
we
could
we
could
create
a
parking
lot
or
you
know
we
could
use
this
easement
and
still
get
to
the
park
without
having
to
have
a
full
Road
extended
at
this
time
and-
and
it
will
it's
shown
in
his
next
phase.
B
So
then,
at
that
time
the
park
will
or
the
the
street
would
go
in,
the
sidewalk
would
be
adjacent.
We
council
approves
the
preliminary
plan
or
the
development
agreement,
so
they
could
make
that
explicit
that
the
sidewalks
had
to
go
in
with
the
street.
They
weren't
deferring
it
to
the
city,
they're
planning
the
public
right-of-way,
so
they
have
to
build
the
street
at
the
city's,
not
engaging
in
that.
But
if
it
never,
if
that
never
happens,
we
still
I.
Don't
think
that
we
would
want
to
extend
the
street
that
that
length.
D
A
D
A
Well,
the
preliminary
preliminary
plan
may
show
that
in
the
next
phase-
and
we
think
we
understand
what
it
is
based
on-
the
approved
preliminary
plan-
you
know
you
know
as
well
as
I,
that
you
know
those
change
sometimes
and
it
could
radically
change
to
where
that
never
does
get
developed
in
the
way
that
we
expect
it
to
so.
Some
some
level
of
you
know
protection
for
the
the
community,
I
think
is
appropriate
as
well.
A
We've
struggled,
you
know,
we've
struggled
with
developments
and
and
this
development
and
phasing
of
the
park,
dedication
and
park
development
as
well.
I
know.
We've
talked
a
lot
about
that
in
the
last.
You
know
a
few
years
I'm
trying
to
get
this
up
front,
because
parks
are
vital
for
our
community
and
the
people
that
live
in
that
area
want
to
have
the
parks.
It
is
it's
part
of
part
of
the
responsibility
of
developing
the
land.
Is
the
park,
dedication
and
improvements,
and.
A
E
E
The
reason
I'm
rambling
on
here
is
because
I
want
to
share
a
little
bit
of
the
discussion
from
the
developer,
who
I'm
not
sure,
if
is
online
here
or
not,
but
I,
know
they've
expressed
concern
and
building
the
entire
Road
out.
For
obvious
reasons,
cost
is
one
of
them,
but
one
thing
to
keep
in
mind
that
brandy
has
drafted
into
the
development
agreement.
Is
the
improvements
being
triggered
by
the
impede
development
of
the
park
land
itself?
E
One
of
the
points
to
developer
mean
to
us
as
staff
is
that
you
know:
does
it
make
sense
to
build
a
full-width
Road
for
260
feet
for
a
park
land?
That's
not
even
developed
or
improved
yet,
and
so
brandy
did
include
language
in
that
development
agreement
that
that
could
be
one
of
the
trigger
points
that
we
look
at
to
hold
the
developer
liable
to
make
any
improvements
in
this
in
this
easement
for
future
right
away.
D
E
E
To
that,
if
I
could
all
right-
yes,
sir
brandy,
you
could
be
the
expand
on
this.
We
have
been
in
communication
with
Terry
Kelly,
the
Park
and
Rec
director
on
the
timeline
for
the
improvements
in
that
parkland
granny.
Can
you
speak
to
that
I,
don't
recall
exactly
if
they
knew
when
that
would
happen
or
better
anticipation
or
when
that
would
happen.
I
think.
B
A
B
And
you
know,
even
if
it
came
about
where
we
didn't
need
the
whole
257
feet
and
it
was
just
a
portion
or
something.
However,
the
park
ended
up.
Developing
I
think
would
be
telling
of
what
we
would
need
as
far
as
the
street
improvements
but
I
think
by
the
time
the
park
is
improved,
he's
probably
gonna
be
on
his
next
phase
and
the
streets
gonna
be
installed
because
he
will
need
it
to
extend
to
the
rest
of
his
development
right.
B
But
it's
just
kind
of
a
it's
a
tough
situation
with
we
set
like
we
need
the
park
dedicated
with
this
plat,
so
we're
not
pushing
that
off.
But
now
it's
just
trying
to
trying
to
be
understanding
on
where
he's
at
with
the
development
what's
necessary,
having
the
proper
mechanisms
in
place
to
have
it
installed
if
necessary
and
then
but
working
with
them,
where
it
when
it
will
be
needed.
Yeah.
A
A
B
B
So
you'll
see
here
this
is
phase
one
phase
two.
This
is
also
part
of
phase
one.
He
actually
and
then
phase
three.
Is
this
portion
so
you'll
see
then,
and
that
you
know
he's
slating
that
at
20
28
but
phase
2
is
for
2023
and
he's
already
there
I
mean
one
was
2020
he's,
including
two
with
this
phase.
So
then
3
will
be
the
next
phase.
A
A
Yeah
I
think
it's
a
good
discussion
to
have
whether
you
know
whether
we
need
to
you
know,
take
action
on
the
development
agreement
or
not.
It
is
something
that
you
know
we
like
to
look
at
and
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
this
to
us.
It's
it's
been
good
discussion.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we're
thinking
about
the
future
of
these
developments
as
well
and
and
the
parks
we've
talked
extensively
about
over
the
last
few
years,
so
something
that's
pretty
near
and
dear
to
us.
B
And,
and
that's
the
thing
too,
is
it's:
that's
the
nice
part
of
it
being
the
courtesy
is
getting
your
guys
eyes
on
it,
you're
a
big
part
of
it,
you're,
the
ones
that
approved
the
preliminary
plan
and
then
I.
Think
too.
It
gives
some
a
little
direction
to
for
council
when
they
have
to
actually
approve
it
so
because
I
think
that
your
recommendation
weighs
heavily
or
they
take
that
into
consideration.
C
The
cause
you
know
the
developers
not
wanting
to
do
it
to
load
the
leaf
from
nowhere,
but
I
do
know
that
you
know.
Sometimes
it
takes
longer.
Then
you
know
the
phasing
map
shows
he
is
developed
and
if
we
don't
put
a
road
in
there,
we
probably
won't
for
the
part
in
there
I
think
I'm,
leaning
towards
that
we
could.
The
developers
put
that
home
didn't
now.
C
C
B
C
C
D
B
You
know
I,
don't
think
it
was
contemplated,
but
I
think
that
I
mean
we
know
that
this
land
is
dedicated.
They
have
it
slated
when
they
would
develop
it
they're
putting
money
toward
it.
So
then,
when
they
were
ready
to
do
the
project
and
if
they
felt
that
the
road
the
street
being
extended
was
necessary,
then
we
could
call
it
in.
But
you
know
I,
don't
know
what
what
they
are
proposing
for
this
park,
but
it
might
not
need
the
full
extent
of
the
road
it
might
it
just.
A
C
A
Other
aspect
to
it,
you
know
that
we
mentioned
earlier
was
the
installation
of
the
sidewalks
as
well,
which
would
typically
go
with
the
street,
and
there
wasn't
a
street
yeah
I,
don't
know
well
in.
We
couldn't
get
all
kind
of
hinges
upon.
You
know
the
park
being
usable
too,
because
if
it's
just
a
field,
it's
not
entirely
useful
and.
B
And
we
could,
you
know
the
sidewalks,
not
as
as
much
as
the
street.
If
that
was
wanted,
you
know
we
could
maybe
look
at
that
of
having
this
the
sidewalk
extended
along
that
access
easement
for
this
development.
If
you
feel
like
that,
would
you
know
lead
people
there
and
let
them
know
that
it
was
accessible.
E
D
E
C
B
A
C
C
A
D
A
A
B
So
this
is
discussion
on
the
extent
of
notice
to
adjacent
landowners
for
conditional
uses
and
planning
items
and
variances
for
that
matter.
So,
right
now
in
state
statute,
well,
we
kind
of
have
a
discrepancy
with
just
of
what
the
policy
should
be
and
then
once
we
get
your
input,
we'll
get
it
in
ordinance,
so
it's
just
straightforward
so
for
public
notice.
B
So,
if
that's
something
we
want
to
contemplate
on
adding
to
our
ordinance,
we
can
that's
a
side
note,
but
otherwise
there's
not
there's
nothing.
That
says
that
you
have
to
send
certified
mailings
to
any
distance.
How
I've
been
doing
mine
by
policy
is
we
send
certified
mailings
to
landowners
within
250
feet
of
the
property
and
just
the
legal
description
of
what
we're
acting
on
and
then
how
for
jill's
items?
Then
it's
actually
in
ordinance
and
it's
not.
D
B
I'm
trying
to
fill
up
my
ordinance,
why
isn't
my
ordinance
book
I
had
up
so
and
okay?
So
all
any
of
my
any
of
the
planning
items
is
not
specifically
in
ordinance
now
the
boa
items
are
so
it
says:
notice
shall
also
be
given
to
all
adjacent
landowners
by
certified
mail
of
the
applicants.
Request
for
a
variance
land
immediately
across
streets
or
ro
right
away
shall
be
considered
adjacent.
B
So
now
adjacent
is
a
little
arbitrary,
so
we
have
a
couple
different
things
to
establish:
do
we
want,
instead
of
having
it
say
adjacent?
Do
we
want
to
say
a
certain
distance,
because
you
know
we
want
to
have
a
clear
boundary
for
when,
when
somebody
would
call
and
say
well,
I
didn't
get
noticed
and
if
they
would
be
considered
adjacent
it'd,
be
easy
to
just
say
like
how
I've
handled
the
pathani
of
mine.
It
was
just
saying:
well,
it's
within
250
feet
of
the
property.
B
B
Yep,
so
if
they
yeah,
if
any
part
of
it
touches,
then
that
would
be
they
would
be
notified.
So
there's
that
to
contemplate
and
then
do
we
want
to
send
so,
do
we
send
notice
to
the
adjacent
landowners
of
the
parent
parcel
or
just
the
actual
legal
description,
that's
being
petitioned
for
so
say
that
some
like
for
a
real
life
example
competi
dunes.
So
we
had
a
rezone
on
just
that
southeast
portion,
but
he
owns
that
entire
lot.
B
B
Or
do
you
guys
or
or
do
we
look
at
it
as
the
entire
property
that
he
owns
so
something
to
think
about
there
and
then
the
third
thought
is
if
we
want
to
send
certified
mailings
or
if
we
just
want
to
say
first-class
mail,
because
certified
mailings
are
expensive
and
tedious.
The
only
thing
that's
nice
about
them
is
that
you
get
the
receipt,
but
it's
not
it's
not
a
state
require
it's,
not
a
state
law
that
we
that
they
have
to
be
certified.
B
E
Brandy,
if
I
could
chime
in
to
kind
of
give
the
board
some
some
decisive
context
here,
really
the
three:
if
I
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
really
the
three
main
actions
referring
to
are
a
conditional
use
or
variance
that
the
BOA
might
act
on
and
then
the
third
one
would
be
a
reason
that
Planning
Commission
would
act
on
more
or
less.
Is
that
accurate,
yep.
B
E
E
There's
good
link,
Brioni
excited
we
what
we
want
to
be
as
consistent.
We
don't
want
to
have
a
case
come
through
and
staff
is
subjectively
deciding
who
gets
notices
and
then
something
gets
challenged
later
on
and,
of
course
that
puts
everybody
in
a
in
a
difficult
situation
except
we're
trying
to
avoid.
We
want
to
be
consistent
and
we
want
to
provide
enough
notice
to
the
adjacent
landowners,
as
is
appropriate.
These
actions.
D
D
H
Well,
I
think
that
you
know
generally
the
more
notice
we
provide
I,
think
the
better
but
I
also
I
just
think.
Don't
anything
need
to
be
consistent.
I
guess
that's
my
that's
my
bottom
line
is
you
need
to
be
consistent
with
how
we
apply
it.
However,
that
comes
down
a
fire.
If
I
understand
correctly,
our
ordinance
only
requires
certified
mail
for
for
variances
that
that's
correct
brandy
and.
E
E
B
I
send
them
for
preliminary
plans,
Ruiz
owns
and
annexations
and
zonings,
and
you
know,
because
we
want
to
be
transparent.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
getting
the
people
that
could
feel
could
be
affected
by
such
a
change.
But
just
and
that's
what,
with
hitha
Massa
just
to
have
something
consistent
for
every
every
action.
B
E
That's
actually
a
point
that
still
made
because
she
handles
is
boa
cases,
and
you
know
you
wouldn't
be
expanding
that
in
some
cases,
maybe
quite
extensively
compared
to
what
the
adjacent
language
says
that
and
here's
where
here's,
where
it
becomes
a
little
bit
unique,
because
sometimes
we
end
up
with
kind
of
an
island
of
land
that
doesn't
really
have
anything
adjacent
to
it.
To
the
250
become
a
lot
more
fitting
yeah.
A
And
we've
definitely
seen
those
cases
to
where
there's
either
you
know
some
some
Ag
land
or
maybe
some
city
land.
That's
immediately
adjacent
to
it
that
if
you
just
went
by
those
qualifications,
the
the
land
owners
which
are
really
pretty
close
to
the
subject,
parcel,
wouldn't
meet
the
criteria
and
those
are
definitely
the
kind
of
cases
where
you
know
we
don't
want
to.
You
know,
abstain
from
giving
them
notice
and,
and
so
I
guess,
I'm
leaning
towards
just
a
universal
250
feet
being
more
appropriate
across
the
board.
B
Then
and
then
the
other
point
to
that
is,
if
somebody
owns
a
whole
quarter
section
now,
this
might
eliminate
notice,
because
so
say
somebody
owns
the
entire
quarter
section
that
we
would
send
notice
to
all
of
those
adjacent
landowners.
Or
do
we
just
go
by
what
is
being
petitioned
like
what's
what's
what
the
legal
description
of
the
application
is,
because
and
that's
where
I,
that
I
think
that
that
we
should.
A
A
Yeah
I
agree:
the
action
is,
is
on
the
property
in
question
and
and
so
you're
talking
about
those
people
that
are
affected
by
it.
Well,
it's
it's
they're
affected
by,
what's
the
subject
to
the
action,
if
I
owned,
you
know
an
entire
section
and
I'm
only
looking
at
one
small
corner
of
it,
somebody
that's
on
the
opposite.
Side,
isn't
isn't
as
affected
by
that
action
right
right.
D
D
A
I
D
A
B
A
B
A
I
think
so
I,
it's
a
good
idea
to
try
to
get
more
consistent
across
the
board
and
and
tighten
up
the
language,
especially
if
we're
doing
doing
stuff.
So
you
seem
to
be
kind
of
going
above
and
beyond
what
our
ordinance
requires
right.
Well,
let's,
let's,
if
that's
what
we're
going
to
do,
you
know,
let's
put
it
into
the
ordinance,
then
mm-hmm.
D
G
B
In
state
statute,
they
only
consider
the
rezone
but
I,
but
but
just
by
practice,
I've
been
noticed
too
for
annexation,
zonings
and
preliminary
plans,
which
I
and
then
reasons,
of
course,
but
I
think
we
can
continue
doing
that.
But
I
would
add
the
language
actually
in
the
ordinance.
So
it
wasn't
just
yeah.
A
A
D
E
Yeah
I
was
gonna,
eat
caution
to
that
to
brandy
just
from
a
staffing
workload.
Standpoint
I'd
want
to
be
careful
on
how
expansive
we
get
with
that
requirement,
but
I
do
agree
that
there's
a
fitting
place
for
it,
if
not
only
for
the
condition
it
uses,
maybe
for
conditionally
uses
and
zoning,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to
get
too
expansive
just
out
of
concern
for
the
workload
that
that
would
create.
So
the
staff
would
have
available
to
perform
that
yeah.
A
B
Conditional
use
is
nice
too,
because
that's
like
I
mean
you're
you're,
changing
the
use
of
the
property
right
so
and
then
usually,
there's
smaller
scale,
where
it
would
be
easy
for
somebody
to
stake
it
and
put
a
sign
there,
I
mean.
But
if
you
get
a
annexation
zoning
you
might
get
a
whole
quarter
section.
So
I.
I
H
That's
I
was
going
to
point
out
is
that,
with
include
events,
we're
going
to
amend
the
ordinance
to
250
feet
rather
than
adjacent?
He
could
have
a
scenario
where
nobody
gets
noticed,
because
the
landowner
owns
a
huge
chunk
of
land
and
250
feet
from
the
affected
portion
of
that
land
still
is
the
landowners
property.
Therefore,
no
adjacent
land
either.
G
D
E
What
I
mean
by
that
would
be,
it
would
be
an
objective
determination
as
to
the
number
of
notices
that
would
be
going
out
if
you
go
adjacent
and
that
produces
ten
notices.
Ten
adjacent
landowners
versus
250
feet
that
maybe
produces
15
notices
going
out.
We
would,
we
would
then
objectively
choose
the
15
and
use
that
as
an
objective
determination.
D
H
And
then,
if
you
remove
the
cement,
if
you
go
ahead
and
remove
the
certified
May
requirement,
which
is
over,
which
is
well
above
and
beyond
state
law,
perhaps
the
additional
a
couple
additional
notices
that
might
go
out
under
that
either-or
scenario,
the
time
required
would
be
made
up.
We
don't
use
certified
mailing
right.
B
And
so
this
just
picked
out
a
property,
but
for
no
no
reason
so
and
also
I
think
that
so
that
we
have
this
tool
where
you
just
select
by
location
and
then
you
can
expand
your
distance
250
feet
right
now
in
the
ordinance
we
have,
we
have
where
we
exclude
public
right
of
ways,
and
so
we
take
that
out
of
the
adjacent.
What
would
be
adjacent
I
think
that
that
gets
a
little.
B
I
Well,
you're
doing
that
brandy
I
think
both
Board
of
Adjustment
here
type
of
hearings,
conditional
use
and
appeal.
It
would
be
useful
to
put
the
onus
on
the
applicant
to
post
a
sign
at
least
maybe
not
stake
out,
but
at
least
post
a
sign
on
the
property.
I
know
this
is
what
we
talked
about
when
we
go
to
conferences
and
things
that
appeals
there,
sometimes
an
affected
landowner.
That's
a
couple
spaces
down
that
didn't
get
notified.
I
B
D
D
B
Then
you
know
when
you
look
at
a
certified
mailing,
that's
about
$7,
a
a
for
one,
so
now
at
least
we're
going
50
Cent's,
so
we're
cutting
down
on
that
expense,
because
otherwise
you
know
this,
and
this
is
what
I
would
send
out
for.
If
they,
if
they
were
rezoning
this
property,
then
they
would,
they
would
be
responsible.
I'll
pull
up.
How
many
this
actually
is.
E
Is
just
curious,
Adil
available
in
the
conference
room
down
there
I
wouldn't
mind
hearing
her
thoughts
on
this
because,
as
we
mentioned
here,
the
BOA
cases
have
been
adjacent
in
the
past,
and
this
is
one
example.
You
know
we're
probably
producing
an
additional
dozen
mailings,
maybe
as
opposed
to
the
adjacent
I.
Just
you
know
deals
around
yeah.
I
Thanks
Heath,
the
I
think
that
doing
regular
mailings
versus
certified
mailings,
even
though
there's
more
it's
just
a
matter
of
slapping
a
label
on
an
envelope
stuffing
it
and
throwing
it
in
the
you
know
to
mail
bin,
whereas
the
certified
mailings,
which
are
definitely
fewer.
That's
you
know
you
have
to
write
on
those
green
car.
You
have
to
you,
know
separate
pages
and
paste
something
on,
and
then
they
come
back
and
you
have
to
match
them
up,
and
this
would
be
even
though
there's
more
a
lot
less
work.
B
Yeah
so
like
this,
this
is
35
properties,
then,
who
would
all
get
notice
which
again
they
could
refer
it
if
they,
if
they
were
against
what
happened
so
to
at
least
notify
them?
What
is
happening,
I
think
is,
is
nice
and
then
just
the
I
mean
the
cost
of
a
certified
mailing.
Now
that
would
be
two
hundred
forty
five
dollars
extra
that
the
applicant
would
pay,
rather
than
whatever.
A
And,
and
what's
a
two
hundred
fifty
I
mean
it's
just
it's
so
much
simpler
to
explain
and
it's
consistent
right,
I
mean
there's
been
so
many
times
where
people
are
confused
by
the
adjacency
thing.
I
mean
not
understanding.
What's
a
Jason
and
with
the
you
know,
public
right
away
and
everything
this
would
just
clarify
it.
E
C
A
B
A
H
I
would
just
I
was
just
gonna
hope,
they're
just
gonna
come
in
there
that
it's
not
really.
Our
choice
actually
is
required
by
state
statute
for
conditional
uses.
We
can
go
ahead
and
require
for
more
than
that,
but
we
just
haven't
been
doing
it
and
I
am
really
the
statute
says
landowners,
so
I
would
say
that
we
haven't
done
this.
Necessarily
anything
inconsistent
with
statutes.
H
It
truly
is
the
landowners
responsibility
to
go
talk
to
somebody
like
Liam
and
have
them
tell
the
landowner
that
they're
required
to
put
a
sign
up,
but
regardless
we
should
take
it
upon
ourselves
to
inform
them
that
they
should
be
putting
a
sign
up
and
then
I
guess.
The
board
should
discuss
whether
we
want
to
include
more
than
just
conditional
uses
and.
A
A
A
I
E
That
that's
a
good
major
to
have
a
standard
sign.
Actually
a
small
project.
I
did
my
last
community.
We
had
a.
We
were
posting
all
different
kinds.
There
you
know
various
what
they
said.
The
language
wasn't
consistent,
they
some
would
be
covered
in
plastic
and
then
the
paper
and
plastic
would
blow
away.
It
was
kind
of
a
mess,
so
we
went
to.
E
B
And
even
because
everything
like
it'll
change,
but
we
can
at
least
you
know
whatever
it
would
say,
conditional
use
application
pending
view
agenda
at
the
website
and
have
that
large
enough.
Where
somebody
could
you
know,
read
that,
but
then
that
we
weren't
having
to
change
it
and
say
like
well.
The
public
hearing
is
this
day
and
this
time,
but
also
we'll
look
at
the
state
statute,
which
I
think
Matt
has
looked
at,
and
we
can
just
be
consistent
with
whatever
right
that
you.
H
Know
I'm
I
want
to
clarify
something
real
quick
here:
I
forgot
this
was
a
goofy
statute,
so
it
actually
says
that
if
that
a
sign
is
only
required
and
if
we
decide
to
require-
and
if
we
decide
to
require-
then
it
must
be
24
inches
wide
and
18
inches
tall
lettering
to
inform
the
public
of
Sheen
and
hearing.
So
it's
kind
of
weird
it
says
that
it's
required.
If
we
require
it,
but
then
it
puts
conditions
on
what
it
has
to
be
in
the
event
that
we
require
it's
kind
of
confusing.
H
E
H
Yeah
yeah
I
could
be.
It
was
only
added
in
the
statute
back
in
in
2016
and
so
I'm.
Not.
It
seems
odd
that
they
put
that
in
there,
because
they're,
basically
saying
essentially
what
they're
saying
is,
if
there's
a
local
ordinance,
you
have
to
follow
it,
which
is
true
anyway,
but
apparently
they
wanted
to
dictate
that
if
there's
a
local
ordinance,
here's
what
the
sign
has
to
look
like
and
the
size
it
should
be
so
anyway,.
D
G
B
Sounds
good
to
all
include
all
of
that
language
discussed
here
in
an
ordinance
amendment
and
then
it'll
come
before
you
again.
So
we
can
make
sure
that
we
got
everything.
Just
to
reiterate,
then
it'll
be
250
feet
or
to
adjacent
landowners.
Whichever
is
greater
sent
by
first-class
mail
will
put,
will
add
the
language
for
the
Sainz
for
conditional
uses
and
variances,
and
then
the
the
notice
will
go
to
the
adjacent
landowners
or
the
200
250
feet
for
the
legal
description
of
the
application
and
not
the
entire
parcel
that
the
applicant
owns.