Agenda - 02-04-2025; 5-a - Applications for Zoning Atlas Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, & UDO Text Amendments to Realize “Fiddlehead Corner”, a Master Plan Development – Conditional District

Browse Search

281 Approved 8.7.24 1601 Patrick Mallett: That's right. They see it and are able to comment or not comment on any given project. 1602 For this specific case. In many cases they don't chime in. 1603 1604 Beth Bronson: I want to say they had no comment but let me just double check that real quick. 1605 1606 Patrick Mallett: That's my recollection. 1607 1608 Beth Bronson: I do not actually see them on here. 1609 1610 Patrick Mallett: So, they get the information, they attend the meeting, but they may not put in a comment. 1611 Or provide a memo. Most of the other departments, we ask for a specific memo because 1612 they have a very technical application and integration into the request. 1613 1614 Beth Bronson: And so when this was originally provided, I want to say that if there was proposals going 1615 back as far, and this is probably for the applicant, but proposals going back as far as 2020 1616 and 2019, was the Economic Development Department ever consulted or did you guys 1617 ever approach them about how to work with the County on creating this type of co-op 1618 environment so far away from municipality and doing that in rural county development 1619 land? 1620 1621 Scott Radway: I think all of us working on the project and H4D members and 2T members realize the 1622 complexity of the overlaying of these many issues that are here. The proposal itself, 1623 which is, there's some statements that have been made that aren't accurate. The 1624 proposal itself is completely a residential development. It does not have any non- 1625 residential components. 1626 1627 Statler Gilfillen: I'm sorry. That differs with what you said about the medical facilities and other things that 1628 will be there. When you say it's only residential, but you've been telling me the opposite 1629 of that, so that's why you're getting that response. 1630 1631 Scott Radway: Well, I think that's incorrect. The medical piece which is state law as Perdita talked 1632 through and gone through and to this item that's No. 8 is that when we start, as applicants 1633 doing due diligence on property and uses, we started going in detail to what did it mean to 1634 be in X, Y, or Z district. What did it mean to be a flexible development within the existing 1635 zoning? What did it mean to be a residential conditional district? This application could 1636 have been brought forward in almost all or any of those districts, and it could have in fact 1637 been brought forward without requiring any rezoning component to it. It could have been 1638 brought forward in the agricultural residential district with one exception, which is the fact 1639 that there are multi-family dwelling units in this rather than all single family or all single 1640 family and duplex, and that's an important distinction, but the assisted living or the family 1641 care centers are governed by state statute. Part of the activity, it was referenced that 1642 there was a lot of back and forth between the applicant and the County. I took that to 1643 imply that somehow there was collusion someplace in there, but, in fact, when we tried to 1644 find that out and did some research, and the County did that research, looked at it and 1645 discovered that the state statutes and the definitions in the LIDO were not matched. So, a 1646 simple piece in this is get the right definition in the right place, that's technical. The other 1647 part is should it be here, and that's obviously a bigger discussion, but state statute 1648 establishes, as was said, that all districts that permit single family or residential 1649 development, actually in any form, can have what is now called a family care home, 1650 defined correctly according to the state statute, which can have a maximum of six people,