[00:00:05]
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD, START, LIKE, TO WELCOME EVERYONE, UH, THIS MORNING BEING HERE.
UH, WE DO HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
IF SOMEONE IS HERE AND WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COURT.
UH, WE HAVE A SIGN IN SHEET, UH, THERE ON THE TABLE.
AND, UH, YOU CAN FILL THAT OUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO.
THEN WE'LL, UH, UH, LET THAT OCCUR OR HAVE THAT OCCUR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
UH, IT IS MONDAY, OCTOBER THE SIXTH.
WE'LL GO UP AGAIN, THE MEETING WITH AN INVOCATION AND THEN THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO, UH, BOTH OF OUR FLAGS.
SO YOU MOST GRACIOUS, HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR TODAY AND WE THANK YOU FOR THE BRAIN THAT YOU'VE SENT OUR WAY.
FATHER, AS WE ENTER INTO THIS MEETING TODAY, WE PRAY THAT YOU WILL GUIDE US AND DIRECT US, UH, THAT WE MAKE GOOD DECISIONS AND SMART DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTY.
LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR ALL THE BLESSINGS THAT YOU PROVIDE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US.
WE KNOW MANY TIMES WE TAKE THOSE FOR GRANTED, UH, BUT WE KNOW THAT, UH, YOU'RE ALWAYS THERE, UH, WHEN WE NEED YOU.
YOU'RE ALWAYS THERE WHEN WE NEED YOU, AND MAYBE NOT ASK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR, UH, ALL THE BLESSINGS AGAIN THAT YOU PROVIDE US.
UH, WE PRAY NOW AS WE GO INTO THE REMAINDER OF THIS MEETING, THAT, UH, THAT YOU'LL PROTECT THOSE THAT ARE ON THEIR WAY HERE AND, UH, THAT YOU'LL TAKE CARE OF OUR SOLDIERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS AND ALL THOSE THAT, UH, PROTECT US EVERY DAY.
THESE THINGS WE ASKED IN US, SON.
SO AMEN TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO REPUBLIC.
FOR WILLIE STANDS, ONE NATION, HONOR GOD AND INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE.
FOR HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, OUR PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BE TEXAS.
ONE HONOR GOD, ONE INDIVIDUAL.
RANDY, DO WE HAVE ANY PARTIES SIGNED IN OVER SIGNING SHEET? I DON'T THINK.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE RIGHT ON INTO, UH, UNDER ROUTINE CORRESPONDENCE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ANNOUNCEMENT, UH, THAT THE GROUNDBREAKING WAS HIGHWAY 34, UH, BYPASS THIS AFTERNOON.
I BELIEVE IT'S GONNA BE AT TWO 30 AS IT BEEN CANCELED, AND WE'LL BE RESCHEDULED NEXT WEEK.
SO YOU'LL HAVE TO PASS THE WORD AROUND ON THAT, AND WE APPRECIATE IT.
UM, UH, WE'LL TRY TO GET IT ON THE, ON OUR WEBSITE TOO.
MAYBE IF WE CAN LATER TODAY, TEXT CONSENT AGENDA, EXCUSE ME.
UM, MAY WE HAVE TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING BOND OF JANE CRANDELL, UH, RICHARDS AS IN COLTON COUNTY TIRE MARSHAL.
UH, ITEM B IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING A PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF POST
AND ALSO TO DISCUSS, CONSIDER THIS SHOULD SAY, ACCEPT RESIDENT APPROVED, ACCEPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CA COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY DISCUSSION ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? ACCEPT, APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SECOND, A MOTION COMMISSIONER, UH, CLARK AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ZU.
UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN FAVOR SAY A AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED? NEXT WE'LL HEAR TRYING TO GET THROAT AT THIS POINT.
UH, NEXT WE'RE HERE FROM, UH, TANYA, EXCEPT TANYA'S NOT HERE.
AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE TERESA, UH, WHO WILL, UH, DISCUSS, UH, TALK ABOUT CONSIDER CHANGING ELECTION DAY VOTING LOCATIONS FOR VOTING PRECINCT 11 TO VILLE ELEMENTARY, 4 0 1 FM SEVEN 40 NORTH IN FOUR AND VOTING PRECINCT 13 TO CROSMAN, UH, CROSBY ELEMENTARY, UH, LOCATED AT 4 9 5 DIAMOND CREEK DRIVE IN PONY, TEXAS.
SO THERESA, I THINK YOU, YOU, YOU GUYS HAVE SENT US THAT INFORMATION OUT, BUT, UH, YES, AND I, I DID, UM, WE TYPED IT AND SENT IT TO, TO JOHN LONG AND HE APPROVED BOTH OF THE POLLING PLACES FOR US TO USE.
WE JUST NEED TO GET HIM APPROVED SO THAT WE CAN GET IT ON THE WEBSITE AND MOVE FORWARD.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS? TERESA, THE FOLKS AT, AT THE FREE LIFE CHURCH? THEY, IT SAYS HERE THAT, UH, BEEN TRYING TO CONTACT THEM, BUT THEY JUST WON'T RESPOND TO WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY YEAH, NO, NO RESPONSES.
WE HAVE GONE ON OUR WEBSITE AND SENT THEM MESSAGES THROUGH THEIR WEBSITE.
AND CALLED THE CELL PHONE OF THE GUY WHO SAID
[00:05:01]
HE'S A CONTACT AND NOBODY HAS RETURNED OUR CALL.SO WE'RE ASSUMING THEY DON'T WANT US THERE LONGER.
BOTH THESE LOCATIONS ARE VERY AWKWARD TO GET TO.
THOSE OVER THERE, THE SCHOOLS ARE MUCH BETTER.
THEY, THE LOCATIONS START OFF WITH THEY ARE.
I GUESS WE NEED A MOTION TO CHANGE.
WELL CHANGE LIKE IT IS HERE TO CHANGE IT FROM THAT.
THESE NEW AND YOU MADE THAT MOTION, DID YOU? OKAY.
IS THAT WHAT YOU INTEND? YEAH, I MAKE JOHN, I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE NEEDED TO DO FORMALLY OR NOT.
I I'LL GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THAT.
YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THE FREE CLEARANCE.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHANE.
ANY DISCUSSIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY A THANK YOU.
UH, NOW YOU WANT TO GIVE HER THE TAX ACCESSORY REPORT? YES, SIR.
WHILE YOU'RE, WHILE YOU'RE UP.
UM, I THINK SHE'S BEEN A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THIS TIME.
SHE BROKE OUT THE ML AND THE ISI BELIEVE.
AND SO LOOKS LIKE FOR AUGUST OF 2014, THE MO HERE DATE COLLECTION WAS 26 MILLION 3 9 6 8 97.
AND THE IS WAS 1 MILLION 7 81 324 40 CENTS FOR A TOTAL OF 28 1 78 220 1 CENTS.
THE BRIDGE YEAR TO DATE IS MILLION 2 86.
AND THAT WAS ON THE 13 COLLECTIONS TODAY.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TAX ASSESSOR REPORT? I THOUGHT THAT, UH, AUDITOR SAID WE WERE BEHIND WHAT
UH, IT PROB YEAH, I BELIEVE IT DOES INCLUDE THAT PROBABLY, UH, WHERE IT SAYS, YEAH.
YEAH, THE DELINQUENT ON OUR CURRENT WELL, YOU STILL GET PENALTY INTEREST WHENEVER THEY GO DELINQUENT BECAUSE THEY, FOR THE FIRST, I, I ASSUME THAT'S, YEAH.
AND I KNOW THAT THEY TOLD ME THAT WHAT'S NOT IN THE TOTAL IS THE ATTORNEY FEES THAT'S COLLECTED.
SO I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE YEAH, AT THE BOTTOM.
WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ROLLBACK TAXES DURING THE MONTH THAT THAT APPEARED.
ACCEPT TAX ASSESSOR MONTHLY REPORT.
COMMISSIONER SHANE MAKES THAT MOTION TO BE A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALRIGHT, UH, ITEM NUMBER, UH, FIVE IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING AN ORDER REGARDING KAMAN COUNTY RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING SOLICITATION AND PERMIT PROCESS.
REBECCA, DO YOU HAVE THAT? SURE, I HAVE IT.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA NEED TO BE SOME CHANGES MADE SURE.
ON YOUR COPY IN YOUR PACKET, UM, YOU CHANGE NUMBERS.
IT'S ON PAGE TWO OF THE REGULATIONS.
IT'S NUMBER FOUR, SIX, AND 10 THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
UM, NUMBER FOUR, I JUST PUT AN IF IN THERE.
SO IF YOU GUYS DECIDED THAT A FEE WAS NECESSARY, YOU COULD, UM, GO AHEAD AND ADOPT THAT WHENEVER YOU WANTED, IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT NOW OR IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT, UM, IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN ON NUMBER SIX, I KIND OF PUT A LITTLE LEEWAY IN THERE FOR THE $1 MILLION LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY, UM, IN THE WAY OF AN EXCEPTION, UM, FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERED WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS LOCATED WITHIN COCHLAN COUNTY.
AND THEN IT SAYS, EVEN, EVEN SO ON TOP OF THAT, LABOR MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR AN ENTITY WHICH IS GOVERNMENT FUNDED, SPONSORED BY FIRE DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
SO THAT WOULD GIVE THE CONSTABLE THE LEEWAY TO, TO, UH, GIVE THEM ROOM AROUND THAT $1 MILLION, UH, BY POLICY.
AND THEN ON NUMBER 10, I ADDED, UM, NO MORE THAN FOUR SOLICITORS PRESENT AND THEN, UH, MAXIMUM TWO PER LANE.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER MANNING HAD REQUESTED ABOUT THE, UH, MEDIAN, UH, STANDING IN THE MEDIAN.
I SAID, THAT'S ONLY PERMISSIBLE WITHIN WHEN THE MEDIAN'S AT LEAST FIVE FEET AND WIDTH.
AND, UM, THEY HAD TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE TRAFFIC LANE.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE? I LIKE THE LANGUAGE ON THAT.
[00:10:02]
EXCELLENT JOB.WHAT WE WANNA DO ABOUT A FEE? UH, YEAH.
UH, DO YOU WANNA DO ANYTHING NOW? WAIT, WE'VE NOT HAD A BIG PROBLEM WITH THIS UNTIL RECENTLY HAPPENED.
I THINK WE'VE HAD TWO INSTANCES.
JUDGE AND COMMISSION IS ALWAYS ON ANOTHER, UH, FOR A SHORT WHILE, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE A, A RUSH ON IT.
IF THAT GETS, I WOULD ASSUME IF IT GETS TO BE A PROBLEM, WE COULD START YOU A FEES FILL OUT.
WONDER IF CITIES, I KNOW SOME OF THE CITIES, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY DO ALLOW IN THEY OR WANNA JUST KIND OF LEAVE THAT ALONE AND RIDE ON THAT FOR A WHILE AND SEE IF WE NEED TO DO IT OR NOT.
YEAH, BECAUSE IF THEY'RE RAISING MONEY, I MEAN, THEY PROBABLY AIN'T GOT ANY SEED STOCK TO START WITH.
IT'S NOT LIKE A FARMER TALKING.
WELL, I THINK IT BE A PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE HAVING A, YOU KNOW, RESOURCES OUT, THEN MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK, WE CAN IT LATER, NOT AN ISSUE.
IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH IT AS CHANGED AND AS PRESENTED? JOHN GAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO, I, I THINK IT'S GOOD.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER CLARK AND THE SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ROSA.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY A OPPOSED AND THANK, UH, AND THAT'S BACK TO US IN A TIME WHEN YOU FIND HIM THERE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CONDUCT ITEM NUMBER SIX AND, UH, APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE THIS MORNING.
AND, UH, THIS ITEM IS ONE WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST AND WE HAD TALKED ABOUT HAVING A WORKSHOP AND I JUST DECIDED, UH, GO AHEAD AND HAVE IT AS A REGULAR MEETING.
MAYBE WE CAN MAKE THE CHANGES AS AS NEEDED.
UH, AND WE WON'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND DISCUSS IT AGAIN.
SO WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ACTUALLY THAT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT.
AND THAT'S TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AMENDING THE KAUFMAN COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO REQUIRE THAT THE CONJURE LINES REQUIRED WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BY THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION 4.2 0.8 BE SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ITSELF, NOT JUST ATTACHED TO IT WHEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR FINAL APPROVAL, WE TRIED TO GET EVERYTHING IN THAT, THAT AGENDA ITEM TO COVER IN CASE THERE WAS ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT.
SO JENNY, YOU WANNA, UH, TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? SURE.
UM, I, LIKE I SAID, I THINK YOU'VE GOT MOST EVERYTHING COVERED UNDER THAT.
UM, IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU REQUIRE ANYWAYS.
IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE REVIEW, EASIER FOR THE PREPARE, WELL, NOT NECESSARILY EASIER FOR THE PREPARE, BUT MORE COMPREHENSIVE PREPARATION OF THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT.
UM, AND THEN AN EASIER REVIEW JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S COVERED WHEN THAT PRELIMINARY PLA COMES IN, UM, TO, UM, FOR ANY DRAIN THAT MAY, ISSUES THAT MAY COME UP WITH DEVELOPMENT.
I WENT TO THE FOOTBALL GAME ON SATURDAY.
UM, SO THAT'S WHERE WE SEE IT, BUT I THINK IT DOES NEED TO ACTUALLY BE ON THE PLAT AS OPPOSED TO ATTACHED TO IT.
UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT MUCH MORE FOR THE PARAGRAPH PLAT AND IT REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE WHEN WE'RE TAKES OUT ANY CONFUSION.
THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA BE FOR THE, UH, PLATS OF SUBDIVISIONS WITHOUT ROADS AS WELL.
WELL WITHIN ANY COLOR CLEAR, JUST CLARIFY.
WE HAD A LOT OF ISSUES IN THE PAST.
OTHER, OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON ITEM NUMBER SIX? THIS SHOULD CLEAR UP THAT, THAT ISSUE FOR US ALL.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.
UH, COMMISSIONER LIK MAKES THAT MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SHANE SECOND THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED ALL ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
I'M TRYING TO GO BACKWARDS, UH, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ALL MATTERS RELATED TO FLAG LOTS AS IT RELATES TO THE KAMAN COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATION.
SECTION THREE SIX SPECIFICALLY THOSE LOTS LEFT AND REMAINDERS, UH, CREATED BY THE PROPOSAL LABS.
[00:15:01]
KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT, UH, UH, TO ALL OF US SO WE MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND.UM, A FIVE LOT AND, AND THIS ACTUALLY THAT THE DEFINITION FROM 3.2 0.16 IS A LOT DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM AVENUE OF ROAD ACCESS OR FRONTAGE WHILE ALLOWING OTHER LOTS TO BE STACKED AROUND IT SO THAT THE RESULT IS A LOT, WHICH IS OFTEN SHAPED LIKE A FLAG WITH FLAG POLE STRETCHING OUT TO THE NEAREST POLE ROAD AND OTHER FLAG POLES ADJACENTLY INTO MORE FLAG LOTS.
IN THE PAST YEAR OR SO, WE'VE SEEN AN INFLUX OF, UM, APPLICATIONS FOR PRELIMINARY PLATS AND PLATS WITH THESE, UM, LOTS THAT ARE PLOTTED AGAINST THE ROAD WITH A REMAINDER LOT LEFT IN THE BACK, WHICH IS A SMALL STRETCH OF LAND THAT LEADS UP TO THE ROAD, WHICH RESULTS IN A FLAG LOT.
NOW THE REMAINDER LAW IS NOT BEING PLAID, HOWEVER, IT DOES MEAN THAT THAT PIECE OF LAND IN THE FUTURE IS NOT, IS GOING TO NOT MEET PLAID REGULATIONS AND WE WILL HAVE TO EITHER, UM, REQUEST A VARIANCE IN THE FUTURE AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THE CHILD WOULD'VE TO THEN APPROVED SOMETHING AGAINST REGULATIONS OR IT WOULD BE UNFLATABLE LAND.
AND SO, UM, WE'VE SEEN QUITE A BIT OF THIS COME THROUGH AND UM, WE BROUGHT US TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION NOW.
UM, AND IT'S JUST SOMETHING WE SORT OF NEED, UM, A FINDING ON DECISION ON AS FAR AS WHETHER IN THE REGULATIONS AS FLAG LOTS ARE GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED.
AND SO THERE'S NOT A FIRM ABSOLUTE NOT, BUT WE KIND OF LIKE TO GET A DECISION ON, ON A YES OR NO AS FAR AS WHETHER, UM, WHETHER THEY'RE GONNA BE ALLOWED OR NOT.
AND IF WE CAN APPROVE THOSE OR IF WE SHOULD BE A WOULD A FLAG LOT, WOULD IT STILL BE CONSIDERED A FLAG LOT IF IT HAS 200 FOOT OF ROAD RANGE? IF IT HAS, AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY, IS IF IT MEETS MINIMUM FRONTAGE, THEN YOU'RE MEETING THAT PART OF THE REGULATIONS.
HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A 10 ACRE LOG, WHICH IS 200 FEET OF FRONTAGE, THEN TECHNICALLY IT'S STILL LOOKING LIKE THAT FLAG WALL, HOWEVER YOU ARE MEETING MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE.
SO, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE STILL JUST GONNA HAVE THAT SMALL STRIP DRIVE AT LEADS THEN BACK TO THE, SO IT STILL IS UNDER THAT DEFINITION THAT IS A FIVE LOT.
UM, JUST BECAUSE IT MEANS ROAD FRONTAGE REGULATION DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT A FIVE LOT.
SO I GUESS YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH KIM'S, UH, YES.
AND THAT'S, HE'S GOT 80 FOOT IN ONE SPOT, 80 FOOT IN ANOTHER SPOT, AGAIN, 20 OR 40 FOOT, WHICH GOES BEYOND 200 FOOT.
AND WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SO MY RECOMMENDATION ON THAT IS THAT, UM, FIRST OF ALL IT'S, IT'S NOT CONTINUOUS FRONT.
AND SO, UM, IT'S STILL LEADS TO THOSE VERY SMALL NARROW STRIPS.
AND IN THE FUTURE, IF HE COMES BACK AND HE WANTS TO SPLIT UP THAT BACK LOT, THAT REMAINDER INTO MORE LOTS, WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS THAT HAVE AN 80 OR A 20 OR THIS AND THAT IN THERE.
SO, BUT THE 80 80 FOOT IS, IS BEYOND THE MINIMUM, WHAT'S IT? 60 FOOT FOR A SUBDIVISION IN 60 RIGHT AWAY MM-HMM
SO THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW HIM TO PUT A YES.
REGULATIONS SUBDIVISION ROAD INTO IN THERE.
TWO AREAS ACTUALLY TO ACCESS THE OTHER.
AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT, I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO KEEP SOMEONE FROM DEVELOPING, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET DIRECTION FROM THE, FROM THE COURT ON, IT'S STILL A FLOOD LOT THAT YOU'RE CREATING THIS BUILDING LOTS BEHIND LOTS WITH SMALL ACCESS DRIVES TO GET BACK THERE.
SO, UM, I JUST, I, I NEED, I JUST NEED A LITTLE DIRECTION AS FAR AS HOW WE'RE GONNA TREAT THIS.
WELL IT KEEPS, YOU KNOW, IT KEEPS THE DEVELOPMENT FROM BEING DEVELOPED LIKE IT WAS INTENDED, WHICH IS SHOULD HAVE A STREET EXACTLY.
COME OUT AND NOT JUST, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
LOTS ALONG THE STREET THAT IN ORDER TO GET LOTS BACK THERE, THE INTENTION IS TO ACTUALLY BUILD A RAILROAD AS OPPOSED TO JUST HAVING DRIVEWAYS THAT COME BACK OFF FOR A PIECE OF LAND THAT LARGE.
AND SO IT'S SORT OF A WAY TO SUBVERT EVEN AROUND THAT, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED.
SO OUR OPINION IS WE SHOULD STICK WITH IT AND STICK AND NOT ALLOW THESE FLAT BOTS AND REALLY KIND OF IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE THESE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO, TO STAND BEHIND THEM.
BUT, UM, WE JUST NEED A LITTLE, LIKE I SAID, A LITTLE DIRECTION FROM Y'ALL.
WE, WE HAVE A PLAT THAT IS PENDING.
UH, SO IF WE ACT ON THIS TODAY, WOULD THAT BE EFFECTIVE FOR THAT PARTICULAR FLAT? I'M ACTUALLY GONNA, UM, DEFER MR. LONG AS FAR AS THE LEGALITY BEHIND THAT, THAT SINCE IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT'S, WELL, TYPICALLY ANY, UH, ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE OR PROSPECTIVE RATHER THAN, UH, RETROSPECTIVE.
BUT IF, IF IT'S THE COURT'S DECISION THAT IT'S GOING TO BE RETROSPECTIVE OR EFFECTIVE AS OF TODAY AND ANY CONSIDERATIONS AFTER TODAY, YOU COULD DO THAT.
BUT, BUT TYPICALLY ANYTHING THAT'S PASSED IS GOING TO AFFECT THINGS IN THE FUTURE.
SO I GUESS AGAIN, I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIFIC IN THIS.
FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, FOR THIS ONE.
[00:20:01]
I'M SORRY.AND YOU MAY, THE COURT MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO DO THAT.
WELL, WE GOT SO MANY DAYS TO REQUIRE MAKE A CHANGE, DID WE NOT ACCORDING OUR REGULATIONS.
WE PROBABLY BEEN PAST THAT DATE.
UM, IT WAS 10 DAYS, I BELIEVE WE GOT IT LAST FRIDAY.
SO TODAY IS, SO IF WE DIDN'T NOTIFY BEFORE, NOT NOW, THEN WE WE'RE, WE'RE IN FAULT BY NOT NOTIFY.
SO THIS PARAGRAPH TWO ON THIS PAGE THAT YOU SENT US HERE, UH, IT DOES NOT STATE ABOUT THE MINIMUM, UH, SUBDIVISION FRONTAGE.
AND BECAUSE THAT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT, UM, IT IT'S THE MINIMUM SUBDIVISION FRONTAGE IS MEANT FOR AND WHEN AN ACTUAL SUBDIVISION IS BEING DEVELOPED THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT, IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A MIXED, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT SOMEONE WHO'S CREATING FLAG LOTS.
WELL AT LEAST THEY HAVE THIS FRONTAGE.
THE MINIMUM SUBDIVISION IS IF YOU'RE HAVING, IF YOU'RE BUILDING A ROAD, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE LOCKS THAT FRONT THE ROAD OR IF YOU'RE JUST PUTTING LOTS ON AN EXISTING ROAD, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE.
A FLAG LOT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT HAS KIND OF GOTTEN MIXED IN WITH THIS LOT FRONTAGE BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS ARE COMING IN AND TRYING TO CREATE THESE LOTS THAT, UM, THAT ARE SORT OF JUST SORT OF TRYING TO GET AROUND THAT, THAT INTERIOR ROAD FOR A, SO WHAT WOULD BE, WHAT WOULD BE ON THE, THE PRELIMINARY PLEDGE CHECKLIST IS, UH, UNDER DESIGN STANDARDS NUMBER THREE, NUMBER FIVE, UH, LOTS BEING FLATTED ARE NOT FLAG LOTS, NOR DO THE LOTS BEING PLANTED TO LEAVE THE REMAINDER OF A FLAG LOT.
THAT, THAT PRETTY WELL COVERS IT, DOESN'T IT? I BELIEVE SO, YEAH.
WHICH IS WHY WITHOUT STATING, WITHOUT STATING THAT THE ROAD FRONTAGE NEEDS TO BE, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE, UH, NOT LESS THAN A HUNDRED FEET AT THE BUILDING LINE.
BUT IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ROAD FRONTAGE, WHICH IF YOU, UH, IF YOU PUT ROAD FRONTAGE ON THERE, A LOT OF TIMES, UH, IT WOULD HINDER THE DEVELOPER FROM MAKING A, A
UH, BELIEVE IT'S ON THE CONCEPT CHECKLIST BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT HE, UM, AND IT'S EITHER THERE OR IT'S JUST THE, UM, ON SOME ENSEMBLE WE DID THE COMPREHENSIVE MEETS THE SUBDIVISION RULES REGULATIONS, AND THAT'S RIP STATED.
'CAUSE THE PILOT LOTS ARE ACTUALLY OKAY.
AND THAT'S WHERE THAT THAT COMES FROM IS YOU HAVE THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE AND THEN YOU HAVE THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING LOT.
SO THAT, THAT WAY YOU'RE CREATING A PILOT, YOU MAKE SURE THAT AT THAT BUILDING LINE MAY HAVE THE HUNDRED FEET, WHEREAS AT THE ROAD THAT YOU JUST HAVE THE 60 OR THE 80 DEPENDING ON THAT WIDTH OF THE ROAD.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE PILE LOTS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM.
IT'S THESE FIVE LOTS THAT ARE THE ISSUE.
BIGGER ISSUE, OUR FIVES, THEY'RE, AND THAT'S WHAT THE 3.2 0.16 IS.
AND IN THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA.
IT DOESN'T REALLY PROHIBIT THE DEVELOPERS FROM DOING PHASES.
HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DEVELOP A HUNDRED ACRES.
NO, HE'S BUT HE HAS TO HAVE PLANTED THAT WAY.
AND THAT'S THE INTENT BEHIND THE CONCEPT PLAN AS WELL IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY HAVE THESE VERY LARGE PIECES OF PROPERTY, LIKE, LIKE MR TENDS TO, UM, THAT IF HE'S LEAVING THE ORLANDO LOT, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT REMAIN LOT STILL NEEDS THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND THAT HE'S NOT GONNA BE STUCK DOWN THE ROAD OR THAT Y'ALL AREN'T GONNA BE PUT A POSITION DOWN THE ROAD TO BE GRANTING TO SOMETHING THAT PRIOR TO FIVE YEARS, WELL ACTUALLY HIS STILL MEETS IT, UH, WITH THE 80 FOOT.
UM, BECAUSE ON THE COUNTY, ON PAGE 30 REGULATIONS ON THE COUNTY ROAD SAYS MINIMUM DIRECT LOT FRONTAGE SEVEN FIVE.
SO ACTUALLY HE STILL MEETS THE YEAH, HE MEETS, HE MEETS THE ROAD FRONTAGE.
AND SO HE IS CREATING THESE, WHEN THAT IS FLAT IN THE FUTURE, THEY WILL DO FLAG LOTS.
THEY'LL JUST HAVE THOSE SMALL STRIPS OF ACCESS TO THOSE BACKLOGS.
WELL, UNLESS HE COMES BACK AND BUILD A, A REAL ROAD.
BUT HE SHOULD HAVE THAT DESIGN IN THAT.
IN THE CONCEPT PLAN, HE SHOULD BE SHOWING THAT AS DEDICATED RIGHT AWAY TO THE COUNTY FLORIDA ROAD.
IF HE INTENDS TO BUILD A REAL ROAD, BELIEVE THAT LOTS OF SIZE.
IT JUST, IT DEPENDS ON THE INTER FROM DOING THAT WOULD BE THE BUILDING SETBACK.
[00:25:01]
MM-HMMOF, OF 50 FEET, UH, FOR A COUNTY ROAD OR 75 FEET FROM THE
AND THAT AGAIN IS THAT THAT SMALL STRIP OF ACCESS IS WHERE THAT COMES IN THE HIGH LOTS WORK 'CAUSE OF THAT, THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE AND THEN THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF THE, THE BUILDING LINE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THAT WIDTH.
IT'S JUST THESE SMALL STRIPS THAT FIVE FOOT ONLY OCCUR ON A TOP.
IF YOU STILL FOOT, YOU CAN'T HAVE STRAIGHT 75.
AND AGAIN, I CLARIFY A LOT OF OUR ISSUES AND I THINK WE, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S TAKEN INTO OUR COUNTY, WE NEED TO STEP FORWARD AND AS THE COMMISSIONER POINTED OUT, UM, IF IT, IF HE DOESN'T INTEND TO PHASE THAT DEVELOPMENT, HE JUST NEEDS TO SHOW IT AS SUCH AND THEN HE INTENDS TO, TO DEDICATE THAT RIGHT AWAY, THAT'S GONNA BE A ROAD, UM, TO THOSE BACK LOTS RATHER THAN JUST A, A A, A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY.
I KNOW HE'S GONNA CONTEND THAT IT'S NOT A LOT, IT'S SEVERAL ACRES.
AND SO WE JUST, UM, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT IN THE FUTURE, EITHER LEAVING HIM WITH A LOT THAT'S UNFLATABLE OR PUTTING THE COURT IN A, IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE HAVING TO BRING A VARIANCE FOR SOMETHING THAT HE CREATED FOR HIMSELF OR A SITUATION THAT HE CREATED FOR HIMSELF BY PLA AT THIS POINT, DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD REFERENCE, WE NEED GO AHEAD AND PROVE, I THINK IN THIS CASE, UNLESS Y'ALL PASSING A PARTICULAR, UM, ORDINANCE RE WHATEVER MISS CASEY'S PROBABLY GRANDFATHER AND MAKE GUESS MAKE THIS MAKE.
WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE ON ITEM SEVEN AS FAR AS FLAG LOSS CONCERN? I HAVE A MOTION FROM SOMEONE, WHAT'S THE WORD WE NEED TO HAVE ON IT? DIDN'T
UM, BUT IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF FLAG BLOCKS AS DEFINED BY FREQUENT 1, 2, 6.
UM, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING A MINIMUM AVENUE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED BY, BY THE COUNTY.
SO BASICALLY WE'RE NOT ADMITTING ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE JUST GONNA FOLLOW OUR SUB.
SO YEAH, IT IS REALLY NOT PASSING ANYTHING.
IT'S JUST, UM, STICKING TO IT.
OF COURSE IT'D BE EFFECTIVE AS OF TODAY.
WE DO BE THAT, UH, WITH ALL OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IS WE NOT DEVIATE.
AND SO WHEN WE, THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THIS AFTERNOON IS MR. LANE
SO DOES IT NEED TO BE STATED IN THE MOTION THAT THAT'S A REFERENCE? WE WILL FOLLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF REGULATIONS, EXCUSE ME, IN REC IN REFERENCE TO CREATION OF FLAG LOT.
THERE WILL BE NONE, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE STATED, DOESN'T IT? AS AS FLAG LOTS ARE WILL NO LONGER BE TOLERATED.
JOHN, DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS? I I HAVE A QUESTION.
ARE ARE YOU SAYING THIS IS WHAT THE RULE STATES BUT WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY FOLLOWING? THAT'S YEAH, WE'VE APPROVED, UM, SEVERAL THOUGHT WITH IS ALLOWED.
AND IN THAT EVENT, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE MOTION BE THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT, UH, WILL, UM, FOLLOW THE PROVISION SET FORTH IN SECTION 3.216 REGARDING FLAG LOT AS IT RELATES TO COMP COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY.
THOSE LOTS LEFT TO REMAIN CREATED BY PROPOSED.
'CAUSE YOU'RE JUST ADDRESSING YOUR INTENTION TO FOLLOW THE REGULATION EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT IN THE PAST.
YEAH, AND I THINK JOHN'S CORRECT IN INCLUDING THAT REMAINDER ISSUE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THESE ARE PLA LOTS AND SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SORT OF THAT REMAINDER THAT'S CAUSED THE, THE CONFUSION, THE QUESTIONS 'CAUSE THAT, THAT THAT LANE IS NOT BEING FLOOD, BUT IT IS HANGING OUT THERE AND WILL AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE BE FLOODED.
UM, WHETHER IT'S 10 DOWN THE ROAD, IT'S GONNA BUT IT, BUT THIS WILL CLARIFY THAT EXACTLY SO THAT THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT THE INTENT OF THE CALL AND THAT WAY FOR ER ON ROAD, WHETHER IT'S MR. LANE OR SOMEONE IN PRECINCT TWO, THREE OR FOUR.
UM, THAT WE CAN SAY THE HAVE STATED VERY CLEARLY, THEY'RE NOT GOING ALLOW, THERE'S NO WISHY WELL THE REGULATIONS SAY THIS, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY FRIDAY
[00:30:01]
REMAIN.WOULD TO REPEAT WHAT JOHN SAID, WOULD YOU READ IT BACK TO US? LAW MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, FOLLOWING PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN MACCO COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION 3.2 0.16 REGARDING FLOOD LOTS, SPECIFICALLY THOSE LOTS LEFT REMAINING FLOOD AND REMAINDER CREATED BY THE PROPOSED FLAG.
THOSE LOTS LEFT AND REMAIN CREATED BY THE PROPOSED PLANS IS PRESENTED BY JENNIFER WITH, AND I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MANNING AND A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER, UH, SHANE.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION EVERYBODY PRETTY CLEAR ON? YEAH, I, I THINK I HAVE A GREAT IDEA.
JOHN, WOULD THIS BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENED WHEN SOMEBODY TRIES TO SELL LOCK OR NOT BLEND? IT WOULD NOT BE OKAY.
PROBABLY NOT BE SAVE THAT FOR ANOTHER DAY.
IT IS SOMETHING, OR IT MAY, IT MAY PERHAPS EXTEND INTO, UH, THE KAMAN COUNTY SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST.
WELL WHAT, WE'VE GOT THIS MOTION ON THE TABLE IN A SECOND.
SO READY FOR A VOTE UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS OTHER QUESTIONS.
A THOSE OPPOSED, AND, AND COMMISSIONER, BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID AND WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DEALING WITH OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, WE PROBABLY DO NEED TO COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE DO WHEN WE HAVE SOME, UH, PERSON GO OUT AND START DEVELOPING PROPERTY WITHOUT GETTING CLEARANCE FROM ANYBODY OR WE CAN STOP THEM.
BUT IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE SHOULD, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.
WE PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA MAYBE AT SOME POINT.
I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT SOONER LATER.
ITEM NUMBER, UH, EIGHT IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AMENDING OR REPLACING THE KAUFMAN COUNTY, UH, SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST.
AND THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, YOU WANNA KIND OF TELL US WHAT, WHAT YOU'VE DONE HERE? SURE.
UM, UH, I WAS MADE AWARE, UH, TO ME LAST WEEK THAT ACTUALLY THERE WAS ALREADY AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION, UH, CHECKLIST FROM 2004 THAT, UM, PRECINCT ONE HAD BEEN USING FOR, FOR THEIR, THEIR DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE COMING IN AND APPEARS THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THOSE, THAT 2004, UH, CHECKLIST AND THE 2006 SUPERVISION REGULATIONS THAT THE, UM, THE 2004 CHECKLIST STATES THAT LOTS WITHOUT ROADS BEING BUILT DO NOT REQUIRE PRELIMINARY CLASS.
AND THE, UM, THE 2006 SUB REGULATIONS DON'T INDICATE EITHER WAY.
IT JUST CASE THE PRELIMINARY CLASS SHALL BE SUBMITTED.
SO I THINK THE 2006 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ARE OVERRIDING THAT 2004 CHECKLIST AND HAVE DATED THAT.
UM, THAT WAS JUST, IT'S AN ITEM THAT CAME UP LAST WEEK.
IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE, THE ONES THAT I HAVE PROPOSED.
BUT, UM, SO THOSE CHECKLIST EXIST.
UM, THESE ARE SIMPLY SORT OF UPDATED ONES GOING OFF TO THE 2006 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
AND IT'S, IT'S SIMPLY AN EASIER WAY FOR ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND DEFINITELY THE DEVELOPERS TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THAT.
UM, IF YOU MEET EVERY ITEM ON THIS CHECKLIST, YOU SHOULD BE GOOD TO GO.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW
YOU HAVE TO GET THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AT THE SAME STUFF.
AND SO, UM, PULLING IT TOGETHER INTO THESE CHECKLISTS KIND OF CONSOLIDATES IT ALL AND MAKES FOR AN EASY WAY FOR THE DEVELOPER TO SAY, YES, I HAVE THIS, THIS, THIS, AND THIS.
UM, EACH PRECINCT THEN WILL, UM, RECEIVE THE PAYMENT FOR THE, FOR THE REVIEW AND IS PASSED ON TO US AS WELL AS A COPY OF THE CHECKLIST.
AND THEN, UM, WE USE THE CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW AS WELL.
AND SO EVERYBODY'S WORKING OFF OF THE SAME CHECKLIST, THE SAME INFORMATION, WHAT'S BEING LOOKED FOR.
UM, AND THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM TODAY.
I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S BEING, THESE ARE SIMPLY GRAPHS.
UM, IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES THAT WANT TO BE MADE, IF ANYONE HAS COMMENTS OR CONCERNS ON THE CHECKLIST, UM, WE DEFINITELY OPEN THE CHANGES OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THIS IS A CHECKLIST DATED JUNE 5TH, 2006.
UM, THESE ARE THE, UM, BASED OFF OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DATED JUNE 5TH, 2006.
[00:35:01]
THIS IS A CHECKLIST YEAH.OR A DRAFT COPY OF THE CHECKLIST.
AND THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S, UM, BEING USED IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AROUND METROPLEX THAT, UM, THAT THE DEVELOPER PULLS TOGETHER THIS KIND OF, WITH THE APPLICATION THAT FREEDOM'S PART OF THE APPLICATION.
THIS CHECKLIST IS A, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE, HERE'S WHAT WE, WE WE SHOWING THAT WE COME IN AND THEN THE, UM, EACH PRECINCT SIGNS OFF AND THEN IT COMES TO THE ENGINEER REVIEW BECAUSE I'VE GOT A CHECKLIST FROM 2007.
THAT IS DIFFERENT FOR A SUBDIVISION WITH NO WARRANT.
SEE, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I HADN'T SEEN.
SO, UM, SORRY, WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION
SO, UM, AND THAT'S THE, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S BEEN SOMETHING PASSED THAT DIDN'T GET INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS THAT ARE ONLINE THAT ARE, THAT ARE DATED FROM OH SIX ON THE NEW CODE.
UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THOSE 2006 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SAY THAT A PRELIMINARY PLA IS REQUIRED, PERIOD.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN STICKING WITH AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN USING FOR OUR REVIEWS.
SO IF, IF THAT'S CHANGED AND, AND THEN WE NEED TO UPDATE WHAT'S ONLINE SO THAT EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS AS WELL.
AND, UM, IF THIS IS THE CHECKLIST BEING USED, WE CAN CERTAINLY USE THAT AS OPPOSED TO THESE JUST NEED TO KNOW WHICH ONE GOING, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO STANDARDIZE.
RIGHT NOW I'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT CHECKLISTS, YOU KNOW, AND THE ONE WITH NO ROAD RIGHT IS AFTER THE THREE.
SO THIS, THIS PRELIMINARY DRAFT THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO US YES SIR.
AND THAT WAS, UM, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY CHANGE THAT IF THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF
UM, HOWEVER, WHAT WE, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IN ITEM FOUR FIVE, UM, WITH THE CONTOURS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS THE ONLY PLAT WITHIN THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW THAT REQUIRES CONTOURS.
AND IF YOU TAKE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OUT OF THE SUBDIVISION THAT DOESN'T, THAT ISN'T BUILDING A ROAD, THE AREN'T BUILDING A ROAD, THEN THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
AND SO WE WON'T EVER SEE CONTOURS IF WE DON'T REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY PLAT.
SO, UM, THAT SO WILL THIS NOT BE, IT'S JUST BECAUSE I ASKED MANY PEOPLE YES.
WOULD THAT NOT BE CONFUSING TO, TO THE DEVELOPER THAT'S THAT'S NEVER DEVELOPED ANYTHING BEFORE AND HE WANTS TO GO OUT HERE AND DEVELOP THE PLACE AND HE COMES IN AND SAYS, WELL I NEED THE CHECKLIST FOR FOR NO ROADS.
IT, IT DOESN'T, THERE'S NOTHING ON HERE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, IF HE'S JUST GOING TO CUT BLOCKS OFF OF COUNTY ROAD EXACTLY.
OR STATE HIGHWAY OR WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE.
UH, I BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING IN HERE THAT GIVES HIM SOME DIRECTION.
AND RIGHT NOW DID THAT, IN OTHER WORDS, INSTEAD OF JUST GOING DOWN THROUGH THERE AND SKIPPING BOXES.
AND, AND THE THE DRAFT CHECKLIST THAT, THAT I PREPARED, UM, MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN NO ROADS AND ROADS.
IT'S JUST A CHECKLIST, CHECKLIST FOR EVERYONE.
EVERYONE HAS WELL I WANT THAT, I WANT THAT ONE CHECKLIST DOES IT ALL.
BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING, I NEED A LINE PUT IN THERE SOMEWHERE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, NO ROADS FOR THIS SUBSIDIES.
THAT WAY WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU CAN SAY, WELL, HE IS NOT HAVING ANY ROAD.
SO IF YOU GO DOWN THROUGH THERE AND HE IS NOT CHECKING BOXES OR HE DOESN'T NEED SOMETHING, YOU KNOW WHY IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HE SKIPPED SOMETHING, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HE'S JUST SKIPPING IT, YOU SEE MESS AROUND CALLING HIM BACK.
SO I THINK WHERE THE CONFUSION IS IS, IS WHERE THAT CHECKLIST CAME FROM IN OH SEVEN OF, OF WHEN THAT IF YOU AREN'T DOING A ROAD, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THE, THE 2006 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS THAT I HAVE, DON'T SAY THAT ANYWHERE.
UM, AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT IS REQUIRED PERIOD.
IT MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ROADS, NO ROADS, ANYTHING.
AND SO I, WE WEREN'T THE COUNTY ENGINEER IN 2007.
I I CAN'T, I CAN'T STATE ANYTHING ABOUT WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
WHAT THE, WHAT THE COURT IN 2007, UM, HAD AS A, AS THE THOUGHTS BEHIND THAT, IF THEY ASK THAT, I CAN ONLY SPEAK FROM WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.
AND SO, UM, IN OH SIX AND THAT WHEN THE COST OF, OF ASPHALT AND ROAD OIL SKYROCKETED LATE OH FIVE OR EARLY SIX AND THAT'S WHEN THEY, THAT'S WHEN INSTEAD OF BUILDING ROADS IN THE SUBDIVISION, THEY DECIDED JUST USED THE COUNTY ROAD IS THEIR EXCESS.
I START BLOCKING IT OFF LIKE THIS.
AND SO, UM, MY CONCERN AS I I
[00:40:01]
WE DON'T REQUIRE THEM TO DO A PRELIMINARY PLA, THEN WE BASICALLY HAVE NO, OTHER THAN THE FINAL PLAT, WHICH YES.THE FINAL PLOT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY CONTOURS, DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY, ANY CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION.
AND SO, UM, WE WOULDN'T BE REVIEWING ANY, ANY CONTOURS AND, AND POSSIBLY, UM, IDENTIFYING ANY DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME UP AS THE RESULT OF THE PLA PROPERTY.
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION REGARDLESS WHERE IT'S AT BECAUSE AS YOU WELL KNOW, YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN, UH, BOMBARDED WITH DRAINAGE PROBLEMS RECENTLY, BUT WE WILL.
AND WHEN THEY BUILD THOSE HOUSES, THEY SEE IF THEY HAVE PROBLEMS WHEN THEY FLOOD, GUESS WHO'S SUPPOSED TO FIX IT? THAT'S RIGHT.
SO IF YOU GET AFTER I'M GONNA SUGGEST THAT SOMETHING WASN'T ORIGINAL, IS THE CONCEPT THING GONNA BE APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER'S COURT? THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT HAS TO HAPPEN.
AND THAT'S ACTUALLY, UM, THAT WAS ONE OF THE TWEAKS THAT WE MADE BETWEEN WHEN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THIS AND UM, THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE FOR COMMISSIONER SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS STATE THAT THE COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSIONER APPROVE.
AND SO THAT IS THE, AGAIN, THIS, THESE ARE ALL JUST DRAFT AND SO THERE IS SOME, THERE'S SOME VERBIAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
AND SO, UM, THIS IS THE, THE ENGINEERING VERSION OF THE CHECKLIST.
DO THEY HAVE, IF, IF THE, IF THE CONCEPT PLAN HAS TO COME TO THE COURT, THEY CAN AS CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAN, AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, THEY CAN SUBMIT THE, UH, PRELIMINARY PLAN THE DAY AFTER Y'ALL APPROVE THE CONCEPT PLAN.
BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, BUT IT DOES HAVE, AND THAT, AND THAT WAS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST TIME I WAS HERE, WAS IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BEFORE THE NEXT STEP CAN BE SUBMITTED.
AND 'CAUSE WE HAD THAT CONFUSION BETWEEN, UM, ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL AND, AND SUBMISSION OF, OF THE NEXT STEP ALONG.
AND SO WE ADDED THAT THAT VERBIAGE OF IT HAD TO BE APPROVED PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THIS PRELIMINARY PLA AND THEN SAYING THE FINAL, THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLOT HAS TO BE APPROVED BEFORE THE FINAL PLA CAN BE SUBMITTED.
I'M THAT THERE'S A STATEMENT IN THE, UH, APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLA ON PAGE TWO THAT ALL TAXES ARE PAID AND SHOWING THAT ROADMAP TAXES ARE PAID AND THAT THAT'S STRAIGHT FROM THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
NO, BUT I DUNNO WHY WE HAVE THAT IN THERE.
BECAUSE IF A GUY'S GONNA SUBMIT YOU A PLAT FOR, UH, 300 ACRES AND HE'S GOING TO DO IT FOR PHASES, IS HE SUPPOSED TO PAY AND, AND, AND THE ECONOMY FALLS APART AND HE ONLY DOES PHASE ONE.
THE ROLLBACK TAX IS NOT GOOD UNTIL USE CHANGES.
SO WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT JUST 'CAUSE HE'S PLANNING ON PUTTING HOUSES OUT THERE ONE DAY.
IF HE'S STILL BE ABLE TO PAY ON IT, THEN HE'S LEGALLY MM-HMM
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS, 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
I DUNNO IF THEY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY OR NOT TO EXTRACT THAT TAXES PAID.
AND THAT IS, UM, THAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT THAT IS SECTION 4.3 0.1 ITEM P, WHICH SAYS THAT THE CERTIFICATE FROM EACH TAX COLLECTOR OF A AL SUB IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, STATING THAT ALL TAXES ARE PAID AND NOT DELINQUENT AND SHOWING THAT ALL, ALL THAT TAXES ARE PAID.
UM, SO AGAIN, THAT WAS, AND THAT'S ON THIS LIST OF PRO OF FINAL PLA ITEMS IN THE
WELL THAT, THAT WOULD STILL BE A FAIR STATEMENT.
I GUESS THAT BECAUSE HIS ROLLBACK TAXES, HE NOT HAVE ROLLBACK TAXES AT THAT TIME SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY.
SO IT'S KIND OF KIND MO POINT AND WHENEVER HE DOES DEVELOP IT AND IT CHANGES USE THAN IT WOULD BE RIGHT.
THEY DO THE NEXT PHASE OR WHATEVER.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING Y'ALL HAVE TO VOTE ON RIGHT NOW AT THIS MOMENT.
IT'S JUST THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING.
UM, KIND OF WANTED TO GET IN FRONT OF YOU SO WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT IT.
THE COURT MAY NOT BE READY MOTION.
UM, IS IT SECOND? SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
CAN I JUST, CAN I INTERRUPT? JUST AND WHAT THEY HAVE IN FRONT OF THEM HAS A BIG OLD DRAFT WATERMARKS ON IT.
CAN THEY VOTE ON THAT OR DO THEY NEED TO? THEY COULD.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION POINTS THAT MAYBE YOU WANT TO BRING IT BACK IN THE FINAL FORM.
UH, IT, IT WAS, THE REASON IT HAS A DRAFT ON IS IF SOMETHING CAME UP IN THIS MEETING WITH, WELL, WHEN IT WAS A WORKSHOP
[00:45:01]
UM, BUT IF Y'ALL ARE OKAY WITH THE WAY IT IS NOW, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE WHAT THEY HAVE HAS DRAFT ON, SHE HAS DRAFT, IT SAYS DRAFT, SO YEAH.BUT IF, IF WE ADOPTED IT TODAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR, YOU'LL HAVE, WE CAN COME BACK WITH COPY.
AND I, I JUST NOTICED THIS, IT'S IN THE LITTLE TOWN IN PRINT.
IT SAYS THIS CHECKLIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE OF ALL, ALL INCLUSIVE OF ALL COUNTY ORDINANCES AND STANDARDS, BUT IT IS A CHECKLIST.
AND THAT IS, UM, IF WE FORGET THE LANGUAGE, IT'S A CYA THAT IS, IS BASICALLY NOT ANY, UM, I LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKS MYSELF, ANY CHECKLIST THAT ANY MUNICIPALITY IS GONNA HAVE BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S UM, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH YOU CAN PUT ONTO TWO PIECES OF PAPER.
AND SO WE HAVE A FEW THERE AS I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS THAT SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU MEET ALL, ALL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, YOU MEET ALL SUB REGULATIONS IN IN 4.3, WHICH IS WHATEVER.
IT'S, UM, AND SO THAT'S JUST THE, YOU KNOW, YOU PUT THE ONUS BACK ON THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE DOING IT RIGHT IF WE CHECK EVERYTHING WE CAN AND THAT WE KNOW TO CHECK.
BUT UM, THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE GETTING EVERYTHING, COVERING EVERYTHING FROM THE BEGINNING AS WELL.
UM, AND I DON'T HAVE IT FROM ME, SO YOU MAY HAVE IT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT I HAVE THOUGHT, UM, AND MAY HAVE IT, DOES IT HAVE A TIMELINE OF THE, THE DIFFERENT DATES FOR IT DOES NOT BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I THOUGHT SO THAT SOMEONE COULD LOOK BACKWARDS AND SAY, I WANT TO DEVELOP FIRST AND THEN I, SO I NEED TO START, I NEED TO GET DEFINITELY.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DEVELOP.
THESE ARE SIMPLY THE CHECKLIST FOR THE ACTUAL APPLICATION WHEN THEY COME INTO, INTO THE, WHEN THEY COME INTO, UM, INTO THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AND SAY, I'M READY TO SUBMIT THE CONCEPT PLAN, THE PROGRAM, WHATEVER IT IS THEY HAVE TO HAVE ATTACHED TO.
BUT THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT IS PROBABLY SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK AT AS, AS WE ARE HAVING THIS TIME DISCUSSIONS AS FAR AS MAYBE PUTTING TOGETHER FLOW FLOW CHART TYPE THING WITH THE, UM, WITH EACH REVIEW DATE ON THERE.
SO YOU'RE GONNA REGENERATE THE CHECKLIST.
IF EVERY, IF EVERYONE IS FINE WITH, UM, THE WAY IT LOOKS AS IS, WE CAN UM, PUT A FINAL DATE PRINT NOW SEPTEMBER 14TH ON THE BOTTOM.
UM, WE CAN UPDATE IT, TAKE THE, I MEAN UPDATE THE DATE, TAKE THE DRAFT OFF AND PROVIDE A FINAL COPY TO EVERYONE.
THE RAY YOU MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE CONCEPT PLAN, UH, IN THE PAST THE SALT LAKE'S BEEN WHERE A COMMISSIONER IN THEIR PRECINCT.
IS THAT SOMETHING EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH? IF WE CHANGE IT FOR THE ENTIRE COURT HAS TO APPROVE, I THINK THAT'D BE A GOOD IDEA.
AND CAN WE, SINCE WE MEET EVERY TWO WEEKS, GENERALLY, COULD WE MAKE IT 14 DAY TURNAROUND? YEAH.
21 THAT PUTS IT OFF IN ENTIRE MONTH.
WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT CHANGE? UM, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR THE COURT THOUGH, THAT THAT WAY REDISTRICT COMES BACK AROUND.
AND YOU MAY HAVE DEVELOPERS DEVELOPING IN MORE THAN ONE PRECINCT.
AND AS MR.
SO 14 SHOULD BE SHORTENING, THAT SHOULD BE OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER SHANE, UH, AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CLARK TO APPROVE THE, UH, SUBDIVISION, UH, RULES, OR WHAT DO WE CALL THEM? THE CHECKLIST.
ARE YOU GONNA ADOPT IT OR APPROVE IT? YOU WANNA APPROVE ADOPTION? APPROVE ADOPTION.
I'M GOOD TO ME, UH, AS SUBMITTED, INCLUDING THE, UH, THE CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST AND THE FINAL PLAT CHECKLIST.
IS THAT WHAT Y'ALL INTENDED TO BE IN THE, IN THE MOTION.
SO WE GET ALL THOSE CLEARED AND PUT THROUGH THERE.
DO WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION JOHN? I I WOULD, I WOULD ADD THAT A CLAIM COPY OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE A TEST TO OKAY.
AND THEN WE'LL NEED TO
I THINK IT UM, PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE.
PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE AND SO THAT WAY, UM, ANYONE THAT'S DOING RESEARCH IN THE COUNTY THAT WANTS TO START THAT DEVELOPMENT WEBSITE.
ALL, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
GET THESE, UH, GET THESE ITEMS CLEARED UP FOR.
[00:50:02]
IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER RENEWING JOINT AND A LOCAL COOPERATIVE OR COOPERATION GRIEVANCE FOR FULL-TIME LAW ENFORCEMENT PATROL SERVICES BETWEEN KAMAN COUNTY AND KAMAN COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NUMBER ONE B AND ONE C.UH, THIS IS THE CONTRACT THAT WE EXECUTED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR.
IF THIS NOW A NEW FISCAL YEAR, I THINK WE, UH, DECIDED WE WOULD DO IT, UH, TO FIRE THAT AT END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
AND IT
WE HAVE TO DO LAW ENFORCEMENT OUT THERE ANYWAY.
THIS IS THE, YES, IT'S GONNA BE FOR TWO OFFICERS AND TWO ONE THEY TAKE FOR ONE, ONE OFF, ONE PATROL.
INITIALLY THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT TWO OFFICERS I THINK.
AND, UH, I DON'T THINK THEY, THEY BROUGHT THAT UP AGAIN.
SO WHAT WE DO, WE DOCUMENT EACH DAY THE HOURS THAT WE SPEND OUT THERE SO WE CAN SHOW CONTRACT WITH CURRENT SERVICES YOU HAD OUT THERE.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER CLARK.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHANE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER 10 IS TO DISCUSS, CONSIDER ADVERTISING FOR A BID FOR AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR STILL CUL FOR ALL, UH, PRECINCTS.
WE HAD A CONTRACTOR WHILE BACK AND CHANGES MAY, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT PLASTIC AND WHEREVER WE KIND OF DELAY THAT DUE TO THE, THE USAGE I'VE THE, IT'S TIME TO BID THOSE OUT.
PERMISSION TO I MOVE WE THAT PERMISSION? OKAY.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MANNING.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND COMMISSIONER LIK SECOND.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS TO DISCUSS, CONSIDER APPOINTING A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE RLP NUMBER 14 TO SIX PROJECT 25 PHASE TWO TRUNK RADIO SYSTEM FOR THE COUNTYWIDE DISPATCH.
OBJECTION AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS THE UH, WE'RE WORKING ON.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON THE STREET FOR, UH, THE DO SETTLEMENT RADIO SYSTEM.
UH, WE HAVE TO HAVE A PRE-BID, UH, ON WEDNESDAY.
UH, THAT BID CLOSES IN A COUPLE WEEKS.
BARRING ANY KIND OF EXTENSION, UH, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF WE EXTEND THE BID.
UH, I WOULD RECOMMEND, UH, HAVE FOUR INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT.
UM, BEGINNING, THAT'D BE GEORGE, BRIAN BEAVERS, TIM MOORE, AND STEVE.
UH, ALSO KIND OF WANTED A SEPARATE PERSON THAT, THAT HAD NOT BEEN IN THE MIX.
HE GET BANGED UP AND NOT ABLE TO GET AROUND SO MUCH.
I THOUGHT IT A GOOD TO HIM TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT.
UM, STEVE HUEY RECOMMENDED A, UH, JERRY JONES', CHIEF RADIO OFFICER, MCC COUNTY FOR HAMPSHIRE RADIO AND ALSO INVOLVED THE CITY OPERATION.
WHAT WAS THAT NAME? JEREMY JONES.
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS COMMISSIONER.
WOULD LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT COMMITTEE.
GONNA READ THOSE NAMES OUT AGAIN.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ITEM? NOT ON ENTERTAINED MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED? UH, THE PURCHASING AGENT.
COMMISSIONER SHANE MAKES THAT MOTION THAT WE HAVE A SECOND.
ALL IN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED? AND THEN ITEM NUMBER, UH, 12 IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ADVERTISING AND BID FOR AN ANNUAL CONTRACT OR WASTE HAULING AT THE
[00:55:01]
PRECINCT FOUR ECO.AND THAT THAT IS ANNUAL CONTRACT.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE AT THE TIME WE DID THAT AND I THINK NICK BEEN COMMISSIONER MANNING ENOUGH THAT THE WASTE HAULING AND RECYCLING AND ALL THAT'S TO GO.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MANNING.
SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ROSA.
UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UH, BEFORE WE DISMISS, UH, JOHN IS THERE, ON THE ITEM WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU AND REBECCA CAN WORK ON AS FAR AS HAVING A MAGIC DEVELOPER? UH, WHAT YES.
WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO, WE PROBABLY, WE'VE ALREADY COMMUNICATED WITH COMMISSIONER LIK ABOUT THAT I DON'T NEED.
EVERYBODY SIGN THERE'S TWO COPIES.
SO, BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER.