Short-handed plan commission can’t move new Monroe County zoning forward, next try on Dec. 16
On Tuesday night, Monroe County’s plan commission was set to vote on a draft of the new CDO (county development ordinance), which contains the zoning regulations for the unincorporated part of the county.
The plan commission’s role is to send the draft CDO to the three-member board of commissioners with a recommendation—a positive recommendation, a negative recommendation, or no recommendation.
But on Tuesday, a short-handed commission was not able to achieve the required five-vote majority on any action that would have put the draft CDO on a clear path to appear on a meeting agenda for the board of commissioners before the end of the year.
None of the options for moving forward got more than four votes among the six plan commissioners present. The three who were absent were: Julie Thomas (county commissioner); Cheryl Munson (county councilor); and Dee Owens.
The point of contention was the large number of proposed amendments, since the Nov. 15 draft was released, and the large number of topics that had been put off for future consideration.
Plan commissioners who were in favor of first trying to sort out the raft of amendments and possible topics for further consideration, before sending the CDO to the commissioners for a vote, were Trohn Enright-Randolph, Jerry Pittsford, and Edward Oehlman.
The remaining three plan commissioners—Geoff Morris, Scott Faris, and Margaret Clements—felt the public process to get to this point had been more than robust enough for them to support making a recommendation to the county commissioners.
The plan commission’s rules of procedure say: “A failure to receive the necessary majority shall, lacking further action at the same meeting, move the petition to the agenda item titled ‘Unfinished Business’ at the next Regular meeting.” That means the CDO will be up for a plan commission vote again on Dec. 16. After a vote by the plan commissioners, it still has to be certified to the county commissioners.
The deadline for certifying the recommendation to the county commissioners is 10 days after the vote. So it seems almost certain that the CDO would not appear on the agenda for the final regular meeting of the year for the county commissioners, which is Dec. 18. [Added Dec. 11, 2024. The county commissioners have set a public hearing on the CDO for Dec. 18, based on potential action by the plan commission on Dec. 16, and certification to the commissioners by the planning department in the following two days. That time frame would not require an extraordinary effort, according to county attorney Jeff Cockerill.]
But on Wednesday, after the regular meeting of the county commissioners, Lee Jones told the B Square she considers it a possibility that the commissioners would hold a special meeting to consider the CDO between Dec. 26 and the end of the year.
If the commissioners don’t vote by the end of the year, that means they’ll be handling the issue in early 2025. That would mean commissioner-elect Jody Madeira would be sitting in the District 3 commissioner seat, instead of Penny Githens, when the vote on the CDO is taken. Julie Thomas and Lee Jones will be returning as county commissioners in 2025.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Monroe County plan director Jackie Jelen walked commissioners through the work that had been done after the Sept. 24 and Oct. 1 public hearings, which were held at the historic county courthouse, and drew standing-room-only crowds.
Jelen summarized the outcomes of four work sessions with plan commissioners that had been held since the public hearings. Several topics had been identified as suitable for future amendments to the CDO.
Topics of Potential Future Amendments from the Work Sessions
1. Sliding scale requirement for 25-year reservation of the parent parcel
2. Review impervious cover maximums proposed in the AGR zoning district.
3. Review the new 50 foot front setback from the Lake Lemon normal pool elevation
4. Review the new landscaping requirements under the CDO and see where changes need to be made.
5. Amend the lighting chapter for applicability to residential development
6. Review the PUD open space requirement of 25% and related PUD standards
7. Delegation of variances to a hearing officer
8. Review a potential new subdivision type for allowing “Cluster” development in return for preserved open space
9. Review requirement for sewer vs packaging plants for subdivisions
10. Review standards for “Collection Container Facilities” specifically the setback from residential properties.
11. Re-assess the combination or separation of: RV storage, boat storage, and convenience storage.
For seven other topics, Jelen had drafted amendments to the Nov. 15 version, which was the last one that plan commissioners had seen before Tuesday night. Jelen went through the textual changes in turn. Here’s the list identifying the topics of the amendments:
Text Amendments to the Draft CDO Prepared for Nov. 19, 2024
1. 2-pagers
a. Grammar and Text Error changes to match the permitted land use table2. Use table
a. Made sure uses were in alphabetical order as symbolized in the green text
b. Added Long-Term Shelter as a conditional use after review with Legal
c. Changed the land use table in regard to permissions for automotive salvage (moved from Airport to Mineral Extraction zone)
d. Changed commercial mixed use to allow in the LI and HI zones, but not the LB zone3. Standards for permitted uses
a. Temporary or Seasonal activity
b. Logging or forestry operations
c. ADU/DADU standards – sewer vs septic clarifying and consistent language changes
d. Home Occupation – moved conditions from the definition to the standards for permitted uses
e. Long-term shelter, added use-specific standards
f. Residential facilities for developmentally disabled and mentally ill, added additional standard, fixed the state code reference
g. Removed condition related to self-storage based on discussions with the Legal Department to remove requirement for solar panels
h. Automotive Storage Facility (Impound lot) standards updated Automobile storage facility (impound lot) – removed information about metal salvage since that is a separate use. Changed the landscaping to better match Chapter 816 changes
i. Automotive Salvage, condition removed – redundant (#4)
j. Mineral Resource Extraction, standards updated
k. Adaptive Reuse, standards updated4. Parking — clarified EV charging station standard
5. Throughout — fixed reference to “urban area boundary” as defined by the BMCMPO; tried to follow consistent language; Fixed terminology for sewer (Sanitary Sewerage System) and septic (On-site sewage system)
6. Took out the avigation easement requirement based on discussions with the Legal Department
7. Definitions:
a. Alphabetized (on-site sewage system)
b. Removed duplicate definitions
c. Residential facilities for the mentally ill
d. Fixed definition for urban area boundary per the MPO (defines where sidewalks will be prompted by site plans for new development)
e. Fixed definition for Appeal
f. Definition for appeal fixed
g. Clarified clean fill definition with an added sentence.
h. Removed “intent for development” under logging or forestry
The first roll call vote of the night was on the question of “tabling” the seven edits that were presented by county plan director Jackie Jelen. The idea was to vote on recommending the Nov. 15 version of the CDO to the board of county commissioners, without the seven amendments. So the first step was to set aside the seven amendments.
On the initial vote, both Enright-Randolph and Oehlman dissented, which mean the motion failed, even though the tally was 4–2.
Recognizing that to move anything forward, a 5-vote majority was needed on the nine-member commission, Oehlman asked to change his vote. A second roll call yielded a 5–1 tally.
Enright-Randolph then made a bid to change the CDO requirements on karst features, so that the conservancy area would be reduced from 50 feet to 25 feet. Here’s how the section reads in the Nov. 15 draft:
826-3. Karst Feature Delineation and Development Requirements
(A) Karst Conservancy Areas (KCA) shall be delineated as follows:
(1) For swallow holes, cave entrances, sinking streams, springs, or other karst feature that are not located in a sinkhole/depression sufficient to be established by the closed contour method, the KCA will be the area within 50 feet of the karst feature; and
(2) For all sinkholes and compound sinkholes, the KCA shall, at a minimum, encompass the entire sinkhole and all of the area within fifty (50) feet of the largest adjoining closed contour to the sinkhole utilizing the best available data.
Enright-Randolph’s motion to amend the 50-foot requirement to 25 feet failed on a 2–3–1 vote. The idea got additional support from Pittsford, with Oehlman abstaining. Morris, Clements and Faris opposed it.
But a subsequent vote to add the KCA requirements to the list of topics to be considered for amendments next year passed on a 5–1 vote. Clements dissented.
Enright-Randolph then moved to amend the moratorium on further subdivision of certain lots from 25 to 15 years. Here’s how the Nov. 15 draft reads, which Enright-Randolph wanted to change.
(b) The designated parent parcel remainder shall not be further subdivided for a period of 25 years from the date of recording of the Secondary Plat unless connected to a public sewage disposal system or further subdivision of the property is authorized by ordinance. This restriction shall be noted on the Secondary Plat.
The vote on the change to the moratorium failed on a 3–3 vote. Enright-Randolph, Pittsford, and Oehlman voted for it. Morris, Clements and Faris opposed it.
At that point, a couple of efforts were made to move the Nov. 15 CDO draft ahead to the next administrative meeting of the plan commission, on Dec. 3. Both of those votes failed to get a 5-vote majority.
That meant the rules of procedure for the plan commission kicked in, which required the CDO to appear on the Dec. 16 regular meeting agenda for the plan commission.
None of the six commissioners present on Tuesday were pleased with the outcome.
Enright-Randoph expressed frustration that there was not a clear process for resolving the remaining topics and amendments that had been identified. About the remaining topics and amendments, he said, “There’s not even a standard process of how we’re going to address these.”
Oehlman agreed that a line had to be drawn somewhere on discussing the document, but the number of needed changes that had already been identified told him that the CDO as drafted was not yet ready. He put it like this: “But when we have a list of 20 [amendments] already, that, to me, it’s not a prepared document.”
Pittsford drew a comparison between the CDO and its amendments that would be needed in the short term, and the U.S. Constitution: “The founding fathers wrote the Constitution and only had 10 amendments when they walked away from the table.”
He continued, “I think the Constitution might have been a little bit more substantial and important than this, and we have 20 [amendments].” That confirmed for Pittsford that some “highly important issues” had not been fully covered in the CDO.
Pittsford also said he was “a little disturbed” by the fact that three members were absent from the meeting. All of the plan commissioners should be present for the vote, Pittsford said. About the idea of voting on the CDO with three plan commissioners absent, Pittsford said, “That’s not the way this is supposed to be done.” He added, “It’s not Washington, D.C.—it’s Monroe County.”
Faris said, “No plan is perfect. What is key and essential to a plan is a process that, once it has been approved, to address changes.” Faris countered the idea that 20 amendments would be required, saying that one amendment would cover the 20-some items that had been identified.
Faris cautioned against “an endless number of discussions.” The commissionaires had already put in considerable time responding to comments made during the public hearings. “We personally sat down and went hour, after hour, after hour, on every comment that was made during the public hearings. He wrapped up by saying, “I support this document.”
Clements said she was humbled by the amount of time and energy the community had put into the CDO process. She said, “We’ve gone to parks. We’ve gone to libraries. We’ve sat here for hours and had and received input from the public.” Clements said she is proud of the way the feedback from the public had been carefully considered. At this point, Clements said, “It’s time to get off the bench and to get into the game and get this done.” She added, “I’m voting for it.”
Plan commission president Geoff Morris put it like this, “I think we’ve put a lot of hard work into this. Planning staff has put a lot of hard work into this. The public has attended a lot of meetings and given us a lot of great feedback.” Morris continued, noting that it was a long list of items that still needed more discussion. Morris said, “But I think it’s a lot to ask the public to keep coming to each of these meetings to discuss each of these topics.”
Morris said, “I don’t think this is going to move forward tonight with the…six people that we have here.”
