The meeting opened with concerns from Michael Weber, a public speaker, about the proposed LDC revisions, particularly the establishment of the ADC. This new body, proposed to streamline deviations from zoning standards, raised questions regarding its composition, the scope of its authority, and the process for public notification of its meetings. The conversation revealed apprehensions about varying levels of expertise among committee members and potential conflicts of interest. Further concerns were raised about the redefinition of administrative variances as deviations, which might lead to procedural uncertainties for applicants and the public. The discussion led to the identification of a typo in the code, which incorrectly referred to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Administrative Review Committee, prompting a need for clarification.

Ray Spalford, Vice President of Planning at a consulting firm, provided an overview of the LDC revisions, clarifying that the proposed changes were not a complete rewrite but were meant to address issues. The revisions aimed to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan, compliance with state law, and internal consistency within the code. Spalford’s presentation covered updates to permitted uses, accessory dwelling units, parking standards, and alternative parking calculations. Although acknowledged as dry, the content sparked a debate over the necessity of the changes, with a focus on ensuring alignment with state law and the comprehensive plan.

One of the most debated topics was the establishment of the ADC, which would have the authority to approve deviations from zoning code standards and include the County Administrator’s designee, the Director of Planning and Development Services, the Director of Public Works, and a senior planner. The debate extended to the size of accessory structures, the need for updates to code tables, and the composition of the ADC. Concerns were put forth about the committee’s ability to handle special use permits with Commissioner Turner and Commissioner Pickins discussing the appeals process and the potential for unforeseen consequences. To address concerns about public representation on the ADC, the council agreed to include one at-large member and suggested designating alternate members to ensure meeting availability.

The discussion also encompassed the width of easements for property development. Members suggested that the Public Works director should have the discretion to reduce the 66-foot width requirement to 35 feet in certain cases. The definition of family in relation to property ownership was another contested issue, with proposals to expand the definition to include in-laws and adoptive relationships. The enforcement of regulations on home occupations and the classification of subdivisions, including the types of subdivisions allowed in different areas, were also debated.

Further, there was confusion over the definitions of manufactured buildings, mobile homes, and modular homes, which led to a broader review of the LDC. The Planning Commission’s lack of input in the updates to the document was noted, and there was discussion about whether the current review process constituted a major rewrite of the LDC. Despite reservations due to the limited time for review, the Planning Commission voted to move the amended document to the County Commission for adoption.