Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutclosed_caption15:05:30 No. 15:05:33 Oh, got it? Okay? Ken Pinky Brian, Can you hear us? 15:05:40 Okay, we had a little technical issue with Carolyn's computer. 15:05:44 So we had to reroute the wires. 15:05:53 Okay, on a legal lot of record issue. Hmm: Very good. 15:06:01 So it's so. It says the host has stopped my video. I don't know if you want to look at me or not, but 15:06:06 Oh, I do need this! He walked away, so I'll turn back on Carolyn's turning that back on Okay, Everyone feel a little refreshed. 15:06:17 I hope, Okay. The wants to kick us off. We're gonna do continued deliberations on this issue? 15:06:25 We were, we had pretty much responded to all of the specific issues we heard, and and the 3 of us made initial comments about how we felt about the situation. 15:06:37 Can We speak to our our tech issues real quick? Yeah, we don't have av capture. 15:06:43 So if people were watching us on that, they aren't going to be able to anymore. 15:06:46 So they won't hear this. But if you're on zoom, we're recording it on zoom, and we can upload this. 15:06:51 I don't know In the next day or 2 into we might have to spice with it, so we will get this meeting uploaded, but it will not be able to be watched after the factory level. 15:07:02 Thank you. Apologize for that, but you could come in right now and sit with us. 15:07:08 We have, lots of empty chairs. Oh, it's really warm since we were Hmm: Good. 15:07:17 Okay, so is there any more comments? Anyone have any that's over there choosing crackers? 15:07:25 I think Staff was doing some collecting the thoughts on that worry about the legal lot of record status. 15:07:36 Oh, and that's that microphone doesn't work anymore. 15:07:39 So the the little ones in front of me, because maybe capture is not working maybe. 15:07:49 Do a little testing, Brian. Can you let us know if you can hear you don't Just speaking the microphone. 15:07:52 Just speak loudly. This is your microphone now. Hello, 1, 2, 3. 15:07:57 This is Brett. Bother the Community Development Director. Great thumbs up from Brian sounds good. 15:08:02 Thank you. 15:08:05 So the question asked was, What was the implication thing should be remove? 15:08:11 Chapter 15:08:14 And so I've looked at the proposed legislation, and it's specifically intended to comply with Rc. 15:08:24 Point 17.2. Sure that which is entitled Building Septic Tank, and other development, permits not to be issued for land divided in violation of chat or regulations, exceptions, damages precision 5 purchases so when I look at This I see that the 15:08:51 process that we got outline would become a transparent process. 15:08:58 So? How we're going about it. Oh, in determining whether or not the site could be developed by having this. 15:09:07 It's clear to the community, and anyone, Can you go to the website and see what the requirements are, And so we will elucidate that. 15:09:20 we've also added to reasonable criteria as well. 15:09:27 So what this does it does sort of implement that earlier question. 15:09:32 The Board was to create more transparent processes. Okay, so it does need that other board expectation regarding transparency. 15:09:45 another area that it does provide for the community. I see the concern person starting development and then finding out that, being subsequent you won't be able to develop that site. 15:10:03 And so they may have spent, I understand. Oh, and so it would prevent that unnecessary expense by some property owns. 15:10:13 It's a very small percentage of property ones that go ahead. But there is a percentage and I believe we do have Pinky on the line, and she might be able to answer how often that occurs. 15:10:25 I'm not sure that's differently than the the site review. 15:10:30 Would. This is Hmm! This must be for the legal law of record determination. 15:10:37 So that would provide the building septic and over development review and and so I I see your question. 15:10:47 Let me just make sure. So that other side development I'm parsing the different chapters to make sure 15:11:00 And maybe there are other rights in the bundle of rights that are probably conferred through illegal lots. 15:11:05 Are you gonna buildability? Isn't one of them, Hey, Mike? 15:11:13 I mean like mineral rights, like ecosystem like if if we were to start, you know, kind of selling ecosystem services, right you You need to demonstrate that you own this land but build ability. 15:11:33 Isn't the only the only rights in the bundle I guess I don't I didn't feel like just owning a lot and do the same, thing, wouldn't it? 15:11:42 I mean I I I don't understand the distinction Yeah, no, I I I don't either. 15:11:48 Accept, really rare, like, one out 1,000 times, because the shoreline that it would be everybody feel through this process. 15:11:56 Okay, And I just the the net benefit doesn't seem like it matches the imposition. 15:12:04 We're putting on every single personal owner in the account. 15:12:07 Hmm. 15:12:24 Okay. 15:12:33 But you can. Yeah, no, unless you wanted to, as part of a transfer of you know, sale or purchase, or there was at least one other county that had a process Where that question is answered as part of a building for the application or you could ask the questions separately We had a process for that more than what we're talking 15:12:59 about Yeah, that was one of the counting examples. And then you have another county making a broader assumptions and hoping that by problems later, right? 15:13:09 And then you've got the proposal that has been under works. 15:13:12 My understanding for a while. I think bread was quoting an earlier document, like in that packet that that we appointed to you, which which really pointed to documents that were by the planning Commission during the full process some day back to December last year, Nice has been to do 15:13:35 is process. The legal data director, determination there are to save that there are also choices which I think is one of the main messages from the collection of attorneys. 15:13:49 General opinions. That's different counties to Washington. I've chosen to do it differently. 15:13:55 this probably question. I believe it more of my time here. 15:14:01 And then, since I got here, this particular phone, So okay, here is the option and we could come back to Oh, and then I I know that we're coming back to you with some modifications to the so we could do the same approach and then You'd have more information. 15:14:26 and we could go report back to you about how the public has responded to this 15:14:33 no, so I'll just try to answer if I can. 15:14:41 I'm sure Brotherton's question right now. We have ad hoc processes that are not necessarily applied consistently, and and we have ad hoc processes being applied by the Assessor's office by to some extent by eph and dCD and this 15:15:00 brings everybody together for the first time on a process that works county one. 15:15:07 and when I went on vacation we weren't even close to having something like that. 15:15:13 And these guys work really really hard to come up with a process that ensures that we're complying with state law. 15:15:20 And we have a consistent approach. County wide for dealing with these issues. 15:15:25 When there's a permit. This process ensures that we comply with onsite sewage system law with the State subdivision law with Gma, with the Shoreline management act and with the State fire code, fire codes and building codes that have 15:15:49 been incorporated by reference into our code. We have nothing like that. 15:15:54 So when you're when they're getting those these determinations of the public they're getting a comprehensive look at everything at a point in time where it makes much more sense to Do that you don't you you get that through the through the 8 did it change 1,800 15:16:12 and 40. The site review process. But you're you're not getting the whole process that you get in 1812, which satisfies everything. 15:16:22 And when I said last week, when I jumped in, I think this will speed things up. 15:16:27 This process, because it really makes clear what the process is. Of course, you know, we're in a hurry to get this legislation done, and and and so, that we can get rid Of the moratorium. 15:16:43 but you know there's gonna be post legislation education We're gonna have to do once once you decide what this what this, what this ordinance says and outreach to to to get people clear on how it works because it is a complex, ordinance there's no doubt about 15:14:30 Yeah, Hmm. Yeah, I don't know. 15:17:05 Thank you. Is that your hand going up, or you just oh, okay. 15:17:11 Hmm. 15:17:14 So, Phil, could you speak to the the question of like the specific kind of benefit of of 1812? 15:17:22 The but legal. A lot of record is there Is there a specific? 15:17:28 Does that unlock something, or clarify something? I think that's what Greg and I are struggling to understand is what does that designation do, that Another interpretation less Cumber? 15:17:01 that 15:17:44 Well, I mean, I'll just start by saying there's many ways you can approach this, you know. 15:17:48 This is this is a you know, a compromise document trying to account a bunch of interests under current code. 15:17:43 Someone wouldn't 15:17:57 If you look at the definition of lot of record which I described as the the dumbest definition in our code, it says something like You know, this is what a lot of record is but don't even think about this for purposes of the state subdivision law right And so what what 1812 is trying 15:18:20 to do is fix that right to basically address that and make it a unified process for the whole county. 15:18:29 Yeah, to fix that problem so so that you know, you know, when you're talking about the State subdivision on the particular provision specifically relates to onsite septic. And What? 15:18:45 You can do, and there's regulations that implement that that use the language. 15:18:50 Legal order record in the whack right and we don't have anything that says what legal lot of record is for purposes of the whack because it's determined by county code. 15:19:03 So this ordinance also solves that problem. 18 and then, and the and the change in the definitions or the new definition of legal on a record and the Ls. 15:18:29 Yeah. 15:19:23 But it's really used to parse those plots from before 1,969 That's That's the use that we have is to make some of those not legal locks exactly Right? 15:19:37 Cause I mean the first exception under is, if the lot of record was properly platted and approved by the county on or after August the eleventh 1,969 provided that it complies with 1812 I Texas pretty self-referential, then 15:19:53 It's lead a lot of record. So anything that's been plotted legally recorded since then is a lead, a lot of record, I would say, by assumption and making someone go through that process seems like we're building process And I would say, that process is also a barrier to some 15:20:11 people, and I to the you know Frank Hoffman's point. 15:20:15 We'll push some people out of the regulatory framework you know, if you make it too hard, you put too many barriers in front of people. 15:20:20 They just, they won't do it. And I this this one in particular. 15:20:26 It just it reads like I got, you know. It eats itself. 15:20:30 I I am. It's I read it I've read it so many times, and I still obviously don't fully understand it. 15:20:39 and I guess, looking at Clark County and saying, or and I think that's another policy question. 15:20:44 We have to decide. Do we have the discretion to say 1969, 1937, illegal, a a lot of legal, record. 15:20:52 1918, 90 is a lot of legal record. We could say that right now, and if it was properly flattened it, it would be but It would still have to go through the site, review and determination build up a lot whether it was we did anything or not so I I don't see the advantage. 15:21:09 Except that we're restricting people's ability to use some of these nonconforming properties or older property. 15:19:14 in in the ordinance solves that problem, and that's that's used in 1812 15:21:16 Yes. 15:21:18 Well, it's clearly a policy question for the Board. There's no doubt about that, and I agree that you could pick other dates but 1969 was picked because that was the date of the state subdivision law right for that piece of it as I understand it And Yeah, really it's 15:21:30 Yeah. 15:21:36 a process, ordinance At the 1812 ordinance is a process. 15:21:41 Ordinance is designed to to clarify what the process we're going to use when the county is, and to me it's more transparent than what we have now Could you? 15:21:52 Could you make it better? Could you tweak it? Sure So So to me, that's the advantage of it. 15:21:59 And somebody said that earlier. I think, Brent said, that it's that's the primary advantage of it. 15:21:41 No. 15:22:06 Yeah, I'm gonna read the first sentence on on Clark counties. 15:22:09 A legal lot is a parcel of land that is consistent with the zoning and planning laws that were in place when it was originally created 15:22:17 That's clear I I mean, that's something that we don't. 15:17:07 that's my pen. 15:22:20 I don't see a sentence as clear as that, and all of a well go ahead. 15:22:24 So do you to go back to to Phil's comment about not having the definition of legal lot of record in the place of the legal lot of record, because there was no definition of legal Lot of record and the whack relies on that definition of legal lot of record, or not 15:22:43 doesn't rely on it, but references lead a lot of record in the absence of that environmental health. 15:22:50 Back in 1997 adopted the minimum land area policy, and so that policy in effect, talks about where what you can, You know what you can develop on, which is consistent with how we've developed the legal lot of record, ordinance, so that those 2, are compatible so underline that is this whole thing about 15:23:11 a definition, and and maybe Commissioner, Brotherton. Why, it's difficult for you, and what you're maybe what's what you're not seeing? 15:22:26 Thank you. 15:23:18 Is this definition that is in the whack that says, you know you can permit the development of a septic system on basically a substandard lot if it meets the definition of legal group, And So that's we spend a lot, of time on that And the process that we came up 15:23:40 with as Phil has talked about works for both departments to separate those would really it would undermine what we are, what we're the kind of the stated goals in terms of allowing development in those areas that are rural and then potentially downgrading shellfish by putting in 15:24:01 those developments. So without that, without having that legal lot, determination the way that we're that we have constructed, it would basically undermine the whole goals right now. 15:23:32 Yeah. 15:24:18 What if the if the if you know the exceptions, 70 and 80, were under the Site Review chapter, you know, I mean, it seems like it's we're putting land use into legal personal description, and I just it. 15:24:16 And I'm 15:24:35 I think so. I think if that's the in terms of placing it. 15:24:41 And maybe to think about it is, what's the goal here? 15:24:44 And I think that what Philip talked about in terms of the goal is that this the goal is to not allow the development in the rural areas and to protect water quality. 15:24:57 And I think that the way that it is now whether we we take it out here, we take it out of the the definition of legal water record. 15:22:04 It's transparency, and I agree with that 15:24:31 Feels like we're we're mixing stuff. I I I'm feeling 15:25:21 Okay. 15:25:06 Then we have to go back and look at those implications to the Onsite rule, and as it is as it stands right now, it's already meeting our stated goals 15:25:36 I was just gonna put a pen and something Pinky just said to not develop in rural areas That's not what we're after. 15:25:42 we're trying to figure out what the pathways are to make it simple, simpler, and more straightforward As Amanda Grace said earlier, for people to figure out how they can develop their properties or if they can. 15:25:55 And I think what everything you guys have just articulated to me is the reason why we would want a definition of legal out of record to make the process more straightforward, even though it's another checkbox that has to be checked it's tied to the state requirements. 15:25:41 Well. 15:26:21 Yeah, and in my in my bat I want to clarify in my trying to simplify a very complex, my really in the intention of not doing development. 15:26:33 That would be in conflict with environmental and with development code. 15:26:15 Or water quality receptic permitting. Well, let's okay. 15:26:39 Right, right. 15:26:54 Okay. 15:26:44 if I might also jump in back from the larger policy questions that were addressing, and just sort of the function of the of 1812, and what it does. 15:27:01 The suggestion that I'm hearing from Commissioner Brother 10 is to store the Site Development Review, with the functions of the Site Development Review process in a way that is, independent of the League A lot of record determination. 15:27:18 But you can see through this process flow, chart that everything in blue. 15:27:22 So this blue section moving here down to interpreting the exceptions and going through the reasonable economic use process, all of this portion of the chart is housed in 1812, so the the proposal of you're really taking 1812 and putting it into the site development review I think the site development 15:27:47 reviews sequentially after the legal out of record determination. 15:27:00 Yeah. 15:28:05 I'm really suggesting is that the conforming lots are going to be a much larger portion of the lots, and that this doesn't necessarily reflect the reality. 15:27:50 So the restructuring of 1840 that's being described as quite intensive, and really only replicates the League a lot of record determination under the banner of side development, view with that it really changed Yep. 15:28:28 I I believe so. Yeah, I think there are. We have fewer lots of that are conforming to zoning standards. 15:28:35 Then we have lots of substandard. It's my impression. 15:28:18 On the ground of the of the workflow. I mean, do you think there's really fewer conforming lots than so standard lots 15:28:43 we we're talking about just bacon, Austin, So we're not talking about develop blocks, but vacant lots 15:28:52 That was a question 15:28:56 Yeah, they were not in their heads over here. Gonna Go still. 15:29:03 Okay, back. Brian's back. I could jump in just on the process part, as I mentioned before, for most customers. 15:29:15 This will be one thing. Now. They'll come to the door, or the better website. 15:29:22 and we'll say, great, Yeah, Tell us your personal number. 15:29:27 Here's the application form, and find out if you have a to find out Here's the first step. 15:29:31 First step and we'll simplify all of this code type language stuff legally, and we will create a a set of guidance documents that points people to Here's the application. 15:29:47 Form. Build this out, gives your partial number, your address, and so forth. 15:29:52 and for those simple parcels and simple could be either those large parcels, or really bigger than 2 acres, and don't have any other troubles. 15:30:06 Obvious troubles that'll be. That's that's that top. 15:30:11 2, right? So I'll just about this application. 15:30:15 Will as quickly as we can give them back looprint or a vine, or a permit for the next stage We'll give them a map So here's your building envelope. 15:30:26 you can. Now you can. Permanent application. 15:30:32 I just make sure you're gonna dig test plus You're gonna be in your building envelope and not outside of it. 15:30:36 And we'll get it back to them, and they'll proceed, and they'll take care of that business. Their consultants, their contractors, will have all that information, and then they'll come back, that permit application will be better that'll be easier to process, and so forth, so that's how 15:30:51 it's gonna work. And then there are those types of customers, as I mentioned, who may. 15:30:57 What Just answer the question. Do I have to leave a lot I don't need a lot of Record It's available for okay to answer that question correctly. 15:31:05 And they can do a standalone process that they want and not have to do the site. 15:31:08 yeah. And then there are those tricky ones and we're setting up this profit by which those questions can be answered. I think one of the comments we heard earlier was I'm still trying to find out 2 years later, if I think Bill i'm not sure where case that is but that doesn't sound 15:31:20 right. I mean, I don't know what the problem is. 15:31:22 Maybe that person. They answer that she doesn't know this process. 15:31:30 At least we can answer that question under current rules the current context. 15:31:35 Sorry you can't. Comedy drinking water, provision, and satellite on that personally. 15:31:40 Handle the house. But thanks could change. Rules get changed. All the services can be provided to that area. 15:31:48 I hope you heard someone else named somebody. And so. 15:31:53 Yeah, So I guess it's always a snapshot of time. 15:31:57 But at least there'll be a problem. What do you think I mean? 15:32:02 It? It's also kind of hard to look at this without seeing the fee schedule, right? 15:32:07 I mean, if we I How far away are we from the fee schedule? 15:32:09 Because I just see this 8 12 feature anywhere from a $100 to $5,000, depending on how difficult it is. 15:32:17 You know you have to go get surveys, and you know I I yeah, I know the first person that comes in. 15:32:23 And oh, yeah, well, you know, Go get these surveys and do the critical area stuff to see if it's not all critical areas. 15:32:29 And they're like, oh, $7,000! Later, you're telling me I don't have a legal lock, so is it. 15:32:36 When is the fee schedule, and how I understand it? 15:32:38 So okay, get the board and access it all into today, for example, and it doesn't take you back to next week. You know, that gives us a week to really know exactly what we're making But either at the board delayed action on Monday we have an idea about what we're recommending 15:32:55 we're in the board case direction to change in some regard, Then we have an idea about that too. So I guess there's a caveat that we are again working on the policy. Making. 15:33:02 As well as simple. That's it. So what I said before is that the land use? 15:33:09 Yes, part of the current process. Consistency. Review: Yeah. 15:33:20 alright, So I. Think it's some going. 15:33:24 I'm sorry, Boss, something like that 15:33:29 So we're simply moving that majority of that. So we're looking. 15:33:35 I think that I think we could, yeah, or an easy to answer question on the legal black question that can be together with the second overview. 15:33:46 I think we talked about charge in that same 3 h now. 15:33:50 Would there be a charge later Depends on how complicated the store management aspect is. 15:33:53 I would say the because we're trying to answer some questions without having the full set of design in front of us, and maybe lendering Still, not a management. 15:34:03 Questions that come up now so good choose to. But all that money and time into giving us better that we can look at. 15:34:13 Maybe we'll be able to answer those questions at the beginning We're not making people, because I would say it's save somebody money not have to contract those services. 15:34:23 Oh, right in the process. There's something coming for the parcel number, and we take care of the beginning part. 15:34:29 And then make decisions by Adam, line up their development plans. 15:34:34 Why do I want to hire a subject? Is 101 I don't have a building, and all of that. 15:34:38 So I guess I'm saying we're doing our best to make it cost neutral in terms of permit fees. 15:34:45 It's possible that it could be additional an hour or 2 They'll take the process for some parcels, Others, again, that are complicated. 15:34:52 Those fees are gonna be related to how. So if you have to do a site, that's what you are charging for understanding right now. 15:34:59 if we have to review, especially born as a person hour charge, So some some cases, I think I went through a long example last time. 15:35:08 The workshop about It's the parcels. 15:35:10 Pick it up You got a wetler in the corner, and you can make assumptions about that wetland It's still built far away from me. 15:35:18 We can give you a building You don't have to do that assessment with them. 15:35:25 but it is starting to get constrained. Here, road setbacks, whatever other situation is happening on that parcel, and we do have fair mountain a lot less here than our constraint. 15:35:36 That's why I haven't been Bill yet. Okay? 15:35:39 and check out every single one, but just in general. So if you kind of love this like that, then it would. 15:35:47 It's in your best interest, I would say. It's a property owner, too Delineate that when I assess it, because it could be a class 4 for example, and you know where the boundary is and you know with the exact properties one for a phone and then we just adjust the map And look, you've got 15:36:00 this 4 sports most space here with now, and you accommodate your load or something. 15:36:03 Now just figured out because we did that assessment. 15:36:07 Yeah, I'd still argue that that's a better place to do You're talking about making these investments in your property. 15:36:13 It's still better to make that investment rather than have already tried to other investments that are typical. 15:36:17 Now which are designing. Designing, with a hat on instruction, designer and builder. 15:36:25 So I'm I'm a huge fan of the process improvements. 15:36:29 I see coming from that says good year, I guess it's just you're this takes everyone, I mean, I've permitted my house and built my house in Jefferson County. 15:36:37 And I would assume I have a legal lot of record. 15:36:40 But now I don't know that I do. I would have to come and pay an hour or 2 of time to establish what I believe I already, have, and that just doesn't sit right, you know fundamentally to you're taking something away from me with this that's how I feel I 15:37:01 think other people feel that way, too. I feel like things that I've already established are now not established, although oftentimes people thing what people think they have. 15:37:15 So that's part of the transparency process thing which we determine. 15:37:20 and and make clear and record to title. One is accurate that doesn't make me feel better, though that just makes me feel more uncertain. 15:37:30 So I as I should go do it to make sure that I'm a I believe a lot. 15:37:34 I mean, I need to just right ramifications. 15:37:37 If you aren't, you keep living in your house. Nobody bothers you no I can't get a building for that. 15:37:43 I can't get a building person right? Well, not necessarily. 15:37:47 No, I can't get a building. Hmm! 15:37:53 so if you don't do it, yeah, I I I mean, that's that would be part of the purpose. 15:38:00 So I guess here's a good. Here's a good difference. 15:38:02 You've got property. You've got a house on an already. 15:38:06 Say, you want to build an email. Yeah, So today you would come in for the building permit. 15:38:13 There's still with the land Use review the size of your Where is it located? 15:38:23 sure? Where is it? Relationship system in your septic system accommodate additional usage? Right? 15:38:32 So the same chart is the same deal is just in the middle of your building, partner. 15:38:40 Then you won't according to this ad hoc. The way that I'll describe it as an ad hoc process by which we sort of assume that it's a big Get anything Yeah, that terms of determination you have the same question less of course there's some other 15:39:01 our advisors have told us that there's some weaknesses of that way going about it. 15:39:06 in charge, and searching I'd love to hear what those weaknesses this process let me finish this down. And actually I wanted to ask Brian about what would be an example of a power possibility of running into profit with. 15:39:19 A lot, after our 69. Oh, wow! 15:39:23 I'm awfully. I agree No, I think they're they're bound to be so. 15:39:26 But I, frankly, I haven't done that before. But just just to complete the thought of what process would be Now, then, once the audience were acted, they were enacted. 15:39:35 This current form, and you'd come to the office. You make the same application. 15:39:40 Start with this process for you, for again assuming that there aren't any constraints that would provide you from being built on that company. 15:39:50 Then the difference would simply be that it would be turn 2 steps, even though again the other process would sound like one step. 15:39:58 But there would be a big stop in the middle to do the landing room, and good afternoon definitely. 15:40:05 Is it really one step? Because there's that additional stall like? 15:40:08 What if you started with a separate, anyway? Back to this? Just do the process upfront hopefully. 15:40:15 They cost her until your payment It would be any additional time overall process, and at the end of it you have the leave, a lot of record determination that you could, and before and then you'd have that peace, of mind how would it be cost neutral I mean it would just be if I went in 15:40:30 today, and wanted to build an A to do the site prep and everything. 15:40:34 And maybe it happens not in this ideal of an order. 15:40:38 Is this but my assumption is that it would be assumed that I have a lead, a lot of record, because I've already built a house and permitted it so there would be no cost there at all. 15:40:46 But if I now I have to pay for an hour of time at $200, for something that was assumed before, that's not so. 15:40:53 Again, the The 1 h Proposal was for a Standalone Make a lot of driver determination for those persons who wish to. 15:41:06 Yeah, that, and then have that security so they can buy so property, or they can. 15:41:11 No, there's on that, so I don't of that property for the purposes of marketing or whatever their purchase, is off. 15:41:22 Most customers, I believe, Will. It'll just be, or one thing with that that psychedelic do. And then we have a lot of information Essentially, just be one process, one application, one fee which I think we would have as a reality as a key to our consistency. 15:41:39 you became, or you pay it up time. 15:41:46 Take care of that, and then you I mean, it makes sense for vacant land. 15:41:52 But if then if I if it isn't a legal lot of record, then DCD. 15:41:56 Will take care of recording it. If it is, we need a lot of record. 15:41:59 I have to be proactive to record it, or I lose that designation. 15:42:03 I might have to go through it again right with. Yeah. Possible. 15:42:08 Well for recording. That's a leaving line record. 15:42:15 it is written the way that you just said it that you could do. 15:42:17 And technically, you can lose the algebra. We don't. 15:42:20 I also don't think that'd be something that where we would spend a lot of staff time following up on this morning in your advantage to do that and you can choose not to do It it's not something the reason Why? 15:42:32 We would file the one that says that you're not yeah where protecting on future buyers. 15:42:38 Yeah, sorry. That's okay. 15:42:47 Any other questions. 15:42:54 I did. Want to go back to the the Clark County example, I mean, I think there's I have 2 points about it, I'm only remembering one I want is that I don't. 15:43:07 I don't want to live in Clark County like I'll do your respected people living there, and my colleagues. 15:43:13 There, you know I don't want Jefferson County to look like, but County I want to to support better planning progress management. 15:43:24 I also think that we live in a very different litigious climate than they do, and so I know that you're only suggesting that we adopted lot of records definition, But just I mean or a definition. That. 15:43:38 That gives the assumption of leave. A lot of record with certain conditions and that Po post 1969, you know. 15:43:45 Maybe like it seems like 99, 99% of it. 15:43:49 The properties, there would be no question. So why are we getting? 15:43:54 yeah, no, I share the concern, but I think it's how it's implemented. 15:43:57 And you know Josh is saying it would be folded into existing processes unless it were requested to be a standalone which satisfies my my concern about that. 15:44:10 but I do think that in terms of the policy choice, that is a great example of why I don't want to confer the idea that every lot is a lot, and you know then people's assumption is that what comes with that is development. 15:44:28 potential development rights And And that's where I think we are figuring out where we land on the policy, And I feel pretty strongly that I think we need to to to be careful about where we confer that, right and it's I mean it's tricky this is like deep American values. 15:44:47 Here the property rights. The idea that you know speculation is like a a valid, you know. 15:44:55 People assume they have value and property, and we, you know, literally built false. 15:45:02 You know riches on that, but you know, disappear and I mean it's cross. 15:45:07 It's so broad, and yet we all assume that that is like such a deeply held American value. 15:45:11 Property rights, you know. That's like everything And it's like that's been a really problematic structure. 15:45:18 And if it's problematic that that people assume that they have alright to develop every piece of land, how they want to, and we have over time had to say no in fact, what you do on your property affects other people stormwater You know we Now, understand that we have to regulate for that But you 15:45:35 know that 50 years ago would have been considered crazy. So I think this is part of that. 15:45:43 Like we all have to be more responsible stewards, and recognize that there aren't just places where we cannot allow sprawl to continue to take hold. 15:45:52 We do need with the responsibility to direct well it towards services. 15:45:58 yeah, so, especially as our population grows here. 15:46:12 Where are we at taking the temperature of the room? Hmm! 15:46:18 I I'm not sure I wouldn't mind 15:46:24 You know cause we we can't continue the conversation. We could hope, keep the the hearing open until next Monday. 15:46:30 I mean, I think you know I I can get uploaded if you guys are ready to move forward. 15:46:36 I I'm uncomfortable with part of this very comfortable, with the intent of it and the and a lot of the structure 15:46:47 I guess I could. I could. Use more time to to mow it over. 15:46:51 There was a a fee schedule that could be developed in that intern. 15:46:54 It would be a helpful touch point to, you know, like when we look at code out out of context, it is. 15:47:02 It's hard to hard to understand sometimes. So, knowing what Oh, well, I've got to get legal a lot of record, and I'm in this situation. 15:47:10 This is what I should expect is, is, it's easier when there's some dollars and cents to it, but I'm not opposed to that. 15:47:17 My concern is that we won't have time, so if we come back next week and wish to see any additional changes, there won't be time to institute that. 15:47:27 And then let a special meeting to further deliberate, True, true; whereas if we could identify specific changes, we would like to see, give Staff a week to bring those back to, us, and if if they're not, significant, but we would need planning mission, input right? 15:47:50 It was fairly minor. Okay? No, no, yeah, I'm moving into. 15:48:09 Oh, okay. 15:48:06 No, no, you don't. You don't need to go back to the planning commission 15:48:11 They've made the recommendation of them. Now we get to Yeah, Okay, I mean, I guess I would love to see language to consider. 15:48:18 That's that had a way to that. Not everyone had to go through this you know. 15:48:24 If there was an assumption that could be made that, you know, like these, some of the exceptions seem like assumptions that could go before and say If you've got a post 1969 house, that's been platted legally or or even before I I you know we can 15:48:40 argue about what the threshold is, but I I would love to see some language that we could consider that would talk about an assumption of leave, a lot of record with these criteria. 15:48:51 Does that make sense? So that's something? Yes, yeah. 15:48:57 And I think to the process, perhaps; whereas instead of we'll make a lot of record process being what sounds like a standalone process in 1812 could be folded into another, it it could be stand alone, But that. We know that's going to be a very rare yeah, circumstances that that 15:49:20 avoiding everyone, having to go through it. Yeah. 15:49:37 I just 15:49:42 I hear the rationale, so I'm supportive of of the work that's coming into this. I don't know what's gonna change Seeing a fee schedule I think I understand when the fee would be added and when it wouldn't so I mean. 15:49:56 I'm supportive if we need an extra information. But I think I understand based. 15:50:01 And what Josh said, what the fiscal implications are for the individual applying for the 15:50:08 Building permit or hey to you bye, or whatever 15:50:15 What about language that would assume legal loss of record for the clear case? 15:50:24 Where would you? Where would you draw that line? Well, I might drive in a different place that you would; but if we had language, we could then draw the line. 15:50:30 I mean, you know, like to go back to Clark. Count? 15:50:34 Is they? They dry it 1969, we let's say we dried at the same place we did, September eleventh, 1969. Is that it's August eleventh, 1,969 anything that was legally platted after 1969 is is 15:50:47 assumed to be a lot of legal record, I mean, that's that would take a 75% of the developed properties. 15:50:55 I'm sure off of the off of the list and out of my decision. 15:50:59 That would I would be interested in what? That what? That hmm population of properties would look like right? 15:51:07 And what is it we're assuming It's an assumption. 15:51:11 But but I agree with that. But if a development application came in after subdivision, laws were in place, you would think that those are legal lots of record unless someone wants to explain to me. 15:51:27 If there's been a time period in Jefferson County, where we weren't requiring, So, you know, legal subdivision permits and processes. 15:51:36 I mean, I I'm not 100% clear that they're haven't been times when we were doing things exactly as we should have been Well, there wasn't zoning Yeah, some period right with her Wasn't zoning or but I think it's in. Important. 15:51:55 To delineate is a lot buildable from a lot as a lead, a lot of record, and that's something that's really hung me up. 15:52:01 And I was. I'd love to make that clear and see, you know, as I don't know some of the language in 1812 makes that money. 15:52:08 You. I've been thinking through different development, you know, like California proper, and then those developments around California. 15:52:17 When did those happen? And you know I know that I don't know We're had back, and those tiny lots were all. 15:52:23 And then like 18 nineties. But I don't. 15:52:26 I'm not really clear on like keep George. When was that, then? 15:52:32 Is that in the sixties or fifties, thirtys So you know, I don't know what. 15:52:38 If we apply the rules that we're talking about to some different system scenarios that actually exist in our community, it would help Yeah, I'm I'm always one that asks for scenarios, right nice to have a few scenarios we can give people And then there's the when was. 15:52:53 It planted versus when was, the subdivision approved right. 15:52:57 2 very different things on them 15:53:03 Thought, and then see it. Brian could jump in with some answers to some of the things you're asking. 15:53:09 The project manager on this for longer, so I know what we talked at 1 point about using Gis tool spatial analysis They answer some of these questions and tried to get to a point where I mean may be able to do more blanket assumption. Style. 15:53:31 and I believe I can speak to it more. But that would have taken longer to do that to get to that place. 15:53:41 so we were planning on. Still, in pursuing those avenues, but we knew that the more enormous number inspired, and I guess I ask Brandon if you want to indulge his participation ask him to answer that question and also just a real quick Synopsis pre 19, 15:53:54 37. What's the difference between that and then 1937 to 1969, And then, either you know what are the chances, I guess the probability of there being a lot that was created somehow, after 19 I know it's Still, need problematic in in terms, of being a lot of birth to 15:54:18 go. 15:54:19 Okay. 15:54:21 and I just wanna make sure am I jumping in at this point, Josh: Okay, So I think I think the classic example of lots that were illegally created after 1969 would just be people. 15:54:41 Who are carving off sections of property and telling it to somebody they know. 15:54:46 And it's kind of an unscrupulous. 15:54:49 But it happened, and without reviewing where those parcels are created, and the history of situations like that, we don't have assurance that development was permitted on a legally created lot. 15:55:07 It's uncommon to see Alright, I would think inner locked in this is like the the subdivided lands that will properly subdivided after 1969 are accepted. 15:55:21 and part of my question, that I would kind of bring back to board. 15:55:25 Word is what is missing from the exception process identified in 1812. To what you're wanting to see, because my understanding is that the exceptions just to accept certain types of properties if they meet septic, disposal standards and and so if a post 1969 lot was 15:55:49 legally created, but doesn't meet minimum land area for sewage disposal. 15:55:54 Do we want to grant it in eligibility for development? 15:55:58 Does that make sense? Is that policy approached. It holds water. 15:54:23 Okay, okay, yeah. 15:56:20 I keep seeing conflation of finding a minimum land area. 15:56:04 the exceptions. The intent of the exceptions is to comprehend situations where we want to be deferential, but we do need to check this minimum land area for septic disposal issue first for granting instead 15:56:22 But isn't that what the site Review is for 15:56:24 Yeah, 1812 is where the minimum land area requirement is housed, not Site Development Review 15:56:32 Why? 15:56:35 Because it's an answer to that legal eligibility for development where requesting or the proposal is to say, before we're granting legal eligibility, we want to make sure it lots minimum land area requirements for septic otherwise it needs to go through a reasonable economic use that's not even the end of the 15:56:56 story, but they would need to bring forth a septic design that demonstrated that it wasn't going to cause water quality impacts. 15:56:36 It's necessary. 15:57:04 That's the proposal. And it's held in 1812, because it allows the county to determine legal eligibility in coordination with minimum land area. Perceptive disposal 15:57:16 Because I leave a lot of record. Part comes from the web septic code. 15:57:22 right. I guess I just don't. To me it's more, I mean, and you know what's written is what's written. 15:57:28 But I guess it just lets see is that seems more natural in a site review than is this alle locked. 15:57:34 I just and yeah, just just dating 15:57:42 So but hmm! So could there be people seeking that lead a lot of record status to be able to kind of slowly move forward of a septic front with that wanting to participate in the entire site development review process is That Why, it's somewhat stage that way. 15:58:07 Oh, we see that currently That's one of the we've had persons that going to process what they haven't looked at. 15:58:18 Some of the other encompass conferences. Okay? 15:58:22 And so and those are really important. Yeah, And I think we could speak to that. 15:58:31 wow. 15:58:37 Oh, thank you! And I could repeat that, And I, I was saying, Is that the hello problem that we've seen, that we have different processes. 15:58:53 so if you go to public, can you get really we need to make sure that one of the hardest areas is that if you're like, for example, if you're in a sector, you can get something Josh what is happening. 15:59:12 To the ward. We don't have any stormwork. 15:59:15 4! And I don't want to way too much into deceptive. 15:59:24 but this provides sort of a seamless approach to both the health side of them. 15:59:35 the more or less the shoreline and the critical area inside. 15:58:32 right time. Habitat a hard time hearing your Your comment. 15:59:40 And I'm just gonna try to maybe say this again, maybe a little bit more simply. 15:59:45 And I think what I'm hearing, Commissioner Brotherton, you know, get kind of stopped on. 15:59:52 Is this idea of the legal lot of record, And I guess you know, simply said, I think the in working with DCD. 16:00:00 There is kind of a policy decision here in terms of the the that minimum land area. 16:00:07 And so, and maybe and it's it's it's very difficult for me to try to concisely say how the whack 1 70 or a whack once anybody whack 248 7 2 a thinner definition. 16:00:21 kind of leads us back into this legal lot of record determination, and it's very subtle. 15:59:40 and 16:00:45 And I just love it that you guys did that work to find the path through the process. 16:00:51 Yes, it is is part of the well. Greg, if if we think about the leave, a lot of record being a part of the Site Development Review process instead of a separate standalone process, it would, be a a process fix that might make more sense. 16:01:09 That you know the the both partners have the authority to do all of that work. 16:01:13 It's just part of a site development review process that cause it sounds like right. 16:01:20 What you're saying is that it can't really be a standalone thing. 16:01:23 It's the benefit of it is that it does pull in these other. 16:01:26 But land use considerations as well. All is that just sort of really wanted to make sure that you come in one door You're both in the same. 16:00:28 And I think that that's the That's where I see Commissioner Broadlyerton struggling is in this definition and in this clarity that we made in working together to find a process that works for both Entities For both departments 16:01:43 And I and I would. You know, second, that too, When we did. 16:01:48 Our you know analysis of permit delays, You know one of the the one of the biggest things was the Esa Critical Areas Review. 16:01:56 it gets stopped right in the middle of everything, and that was both something very difficult for people to understand. 16:02:15 This is Linda. I I just wanted to relay that it's not uncommon for people to, of course, develop their property over a period of time and so we in in utilizing this process. 16:02:30 Of course, their first step would be to obtain the lot of record recognition, and then do that initial review for Site Development Review, which would include identifying that envelope of area on the property where the test holes could be excavated and access to the property could be safely done and at that 16:02:54 point. You know the the establishment of the League. 16:01:41 Okay, love? It. Umhm. 16:02:58 A lot of record has been made. The property owner could decide to proceed with the septic permit application, but they would be doing so, knowing kind of the basic parameters of where the rest of their development could take place and I I think that's a real advantage. 16:03:14 To people and they might to go ahead and get their septic permit. 16:03:18 Maybe a year or 2 or 3, before they proceed to get their building permit. 16:03:21 But they're going into the whole process with a much more comprehensive view. 16:02:04 why things had to get stopped and created, I would say, an excessive amount of delay in the process 16:03:31 And I think one of the other you know benefits of the process. 16:03:36 and we heard this with our consultations with the septic designer, or stakeholder consultations, is having that soil. 16:03:43 Registration. And so, you know, environmental health is working on. 16:03:47 They're onsite rule, revision, you know, to hopefully to dovetail and make any changes that we need to for a lot of record. 16:03:55 But this whole Site Development Review was very much supported in terms of the the soil registration by septic designers and septic performance. 16:03:12 Okay. 16:04:20 it's really both It's it's really has to do with both because the intersection with the Onsite sewage code and the reference to league a lot of record is very dependent on the local jurisdiction having a definition of legal law of record that 16:04:08 clarifying question there, Linda. But the example you just gave was that were you thinking specifically to the legal out of record process, or the Site Development Review process, or both? 16:04:41 yeah, but so the process is First, I've got a lot, and then I find out that it's to develop a lot. 16:04:47 And then after I find out and that it's a develop a lot, and I'll leave a lot of record. 16:04:38 supports our permitting process 16:04:56 Well often the basic concept of the of the envelope that will be developable once that's established, the applicant can move forward with applying for a permit, whether it's a septic permit. 16:04:52 Then I can find out if it's a buildable log right 16:05:13 Still seems like you're bifurcating the process and creating 2 processes for that are both Site Review. 16:04:04 Yeah. 16:05:21 Okay, I would say that if it words or the State health code wow which I think is 2, 48, 72, a I'm thinking Well, not if that's correct, and That'd be in my mind anyway. 16:05:38 No issue about just saying a lot of record process, because getting a legal letter record that concept comes from that web. 16:05:45 So what for that wack lot of record? Answer that question separately. 16:05:50 No problem, because, and the implication of that wack that's septic system should be accommodated by the local health. 16:06:02 Important or legal lots of records. That was those 2 things, one closely together. 16:06:11 So in order to get that ll or status needs to look at the minimum land area requirements together without, and that involves at least their initial particular chat. 16:06:21 So, that's why we created the process. The way we did. 16:06:24 I don't know what Park County considered when they made their process. 16:06:28 I would say that they weren't thinking of that safe health code right? 16:06:31 But I don't know that, for fact. Hey, Marcus, anyway, so we can get to a part where we say, you know that parcel is eligible for development Most part is we can get to that right without the next step which would be the complete land use review which might take more time because again, invited 16:06:50 to do a geotech report. You might have to do a webinar port. 16:06:52 There could be a lot to that, and we wanted to get customers. 16:06:56 The office question for lots that are essentially over 2 lakers to get to answer quicker if they just wanted the eligibility question answered. 16:07:04 Most people. I think we'll just do it. This will just be one thing and then there's also the really tough ones, the reasonable that the only way to really answer the question is to get Yeah, all the cars in the table And to answer the question and that's why awesome to get 16:07:24 to the question whether it's legal eligible to that for development kind of the implications of that Can you tell me the whack One more time, 2, 4, 6, 2, 7, 2, a and maybe pick your let it. 16:05:34 0 3 16:07:39 Say the rest of it point in exactly 16:07:45 Thank you. Okay, I'm just gonna do what logistics time check thing we have About 10 more minutes on inside. 16:07:52 And because we have a couple of things we have to do at the end before we end up 4, 30, and I proposed, or out loud, anyway. 16:08:03 so it sounds like, But what legal lot of record the the State wants the county to make a determination like. 16:08:14 And so that is a an important part of the process. What if, under site review, any development application that was triggering either an expansion of septic installation of septic what if that routed those applications into legal lot of record process but other development applications did not only if it sounds like 16:08:37 it's indeed tied to subject at the state level. 16:08:42 What if that route so like If it's a redevelopment of a property that has a septic system. 16:08:48 Okay, for example, you know, wanting to expand their septic as part of a remodel and if an Abu triggered a need for a larger septic system, yes, obviously vacant land, you know wanting assurance that they can bills would would trigger that But what if it was only septic that 16:09:08 triggered the League a lot of review any I hear you saying it across department. 16:09:16 All situations for our account we have greater flexibility in other countries, with regards to some specifically so. 16:09:36 We all session sure. 16:09:47 Hmm. 16:09:50 What does that mean? And that's the next question one. 16:09:54 That means, then, if you're looking at a constraint site, it might be something that we have I have to do. 16:10:00 That? Okay, 7 nature being constrained, like, we don't have enough land to accommodate another. 16:10:11 so one So I'm trying. Think what what would it mean? 16:10:16 for that that applicant, and I I guess the concern that I'm hearing and I just wanna make sure I'm yes. 16:10:24 Is there use a desire? She would sure, that permits good might not benefit from a lot. 16:10:39 Could some happy, Yeah, Well, I'm hearing for shot. 16:10:46 No separate. There's not a facility there, and I'm saying no, no impact. 16:10:54 On septic at all. Could you exempt that from the legal log record information or anchor or remodeling? 16:11:04 yeah, that last one. You just say, mom. 16:11:07 So when you look at the there's a part where it talks about basically over the countered applications and don't involve changing the footprints. 16:11:15 Those trigger this, but now, with the extra shop, though I guess I would say that the Site Development Review is going to be required to that cause like, Where are you putting right so We already have that right. 16:11:32 But the question is, you intersect between wack regarding water quality and setting. 16:11:40 There's no intersection. Okay, user that whack requirement is not triggered. 16:11:49 I would ask the bill to wait on this. I guess what I would say about that is yes, part of the policy also is to make sure that we're not, and like expansion I'm harsh with that. 16:12:08 Are not a legal letter record Now, if we made a blanket statement about that, or really, I would say, maybe we should need to find the statement lots of record. 16:12:16 And not the legal lot of record, in order not to confuse with that particular whack. 16:12:20 Which you know defer to legal counsel for what application I guess I would say that it's a quick check. 16:12:29 That just happens as part of the process, so that we figure out, okay, great, like a lot of record. No problem. 16:12:32 Here, you go; but if there were some kind of problem with that parcel, then we wouldn't have ever inadvertently issued an additional permit. 16:12:37 There's something that, and I'm looking at that whack right now, Beinginky, and the only place I see legal lot of record is under 5, where the local help officer may and then if you go. 16:12:52 To E permit the installation of an oss, where the minimum land area requirements cannot be met only when all of the following criteria are matched, and then a lot is registered, as a leave a lot of record created prior to the effective. 16:13:07 Data, this chapter. So the only only reference I see is something that I doubt that we would be interested in, which would be permitting the installation of an Oss. 16:07:39 0, 0, 3 2 0, sub 5 16:13:16 With less than the minimum land area required. Hmm! Nice 16:13:20 And yes, And so that's And that's why this process, this process basically 16:13:32 We're not gonna do that, are we? 16:13:34 What. 16:13:41 Yeah, that's that's why that's how that's what this process I'm trying to figure out how to say this in developing this process. 16:13:52 We considered what are existing use of the minimum land area. 16:13:57 So ie. No, it would not allow the installation of a septic system. 16:13:35 Grant an oss permit to a 5,000 square foot property 16:14:06 Cart blanc honest on a substandard lot 16:14:13 But we don't have to. Anyways, this is a mandate that we do 16:14:19 I mean, we just ignored this whack entirely, and didn't grant any septic systems to less than 17 or 15,000 square feet, And if this is the only point that we're pointing at to say we have to have a definition. 16:14:34 For this. Leave a lot of record that seems like much to do about nothing in my reading of it right now. 16:14:17 Correct. 16:14:47 Well, oftentimes it's been, you know, in you know my experience that may all oftentimes means yes, and so and you're right. 16:14:58 We don't have we could. We could come up with a whole different process, with environmental help. 16:14:40 I mean, I've spent all 5 s with it. 16:15:05 Just say No, no, no! To the small septic systems. 16:15:08 I'm fine With that we want to protect our waters. 16:15:02 But that's also going to take time as well 16:15:19 There There are a few that we've given waivers to. 16:15:23 I think Linda might have done some tallying of those if she had time. 16:15:10 We talked about that as a priority, but we just say, I mean, do we issue a lot of permits for properties that are less than 12,500 square feet 16:15:34 Or no port. Had locked Uga, I can imagine. 16:15:38 Okay. 16:15:50 Okay. 16:15:42 So So we the policy that we're talking about does have a process for for for reducing the you know, or allowing development where the lot size is smaller, and that's and and you know, that's the the reasonable economic use or the substandard lot process. 16:16:09 So I think what this is gonna do is it's gonna let you develop some properties that are that have less than the minimum land use required. 16:15:58 Yeah. 16:16:21 In this and this whack, but still protect the environment. 16:16:26 That meet the other requirements 16:16:29 That meet the other requirements. That's why I said last week. 16:16:34 I think you're gonna What you're gonna get from this is you're going to get clarity on smaller lots that may meet the requirements of this of this word nets. 16:16:47 And create, You know, more possibility for development than currently is being allowed. 16:16:52 So it's the and they have to be, you know. 16:16:56 Meet the safety standards or come up with this other way of putting in a in a a septic system that's gonna meet all the safety requirements or the health and safety requirements for An Os S and That's. 16:17:11 All you know, that's all part of that. The part process that we have in the ordinance for substandard lot, especially in the reasonable act. 16:17:21 Numb. Use provisions of it, so I I think that's getting missed here. 16:16:32 Yeah. 16:17:26 I'm super supportive of that flexibility, being in whatever is our final version of this ordinance, and we have 3 more minutes on this topic. 16:17:38 My friends today, trash it upon just one piece of data. 16:17:46 our Gis staff, Kevin. Specifically thanks, Kevin. We calculated that 12,136, out of 13,800, and 52 rural, residential one to 5 parcels or less than 5 angers that's 87.6% 16:18:06 That'd be a lot. I'm not compliance. 16:18:14 Hmm. So does that. Are you for the legal block? 16:18:18 Determination, then I think it does 16:18:23 And I trust that Staff considered all of this, and bring in this draft to us. 16:18:30 Hmm! And we'd be happy to entertain a motion if anyone's interested 16:18:39 but I do appreciate all the work. Okay, I mean also if if I don't know what what time and availability looks like, limited, I'm sure on everybody's part. 16:18:49 But you know, I wonder if you know, Greg, if you could work with Josh and friend, so so bring something back next week that you we're ready to move on I'd be happy to do that you know answer some of your questions and resolve some of those concerns still Yeah, but we have 16:15:28 I'm not sure. But yes, we've used that minimum land area policy on several 16:19:09 to be ready to adopt it next week. Right? Yeah, yeah, what is that? 16:19:19 Is that realistic Oh, they have a retreat on Friday. Absolutely. 16:19:24 Okay. I don't sense that the changes are going to be dramatic 16:19:40 I don't see how they on dramatic changes. 16:19:45 Okay, Hmm. I mean it. But if I I guess. 16:19:55 But you know, do you agree with that that it could be minor changes? 16:20:00 Or are you? Are you holding out for more dramatic I don't know. 16:20:07 I mean, I can do a lot of soul searching and and and research on my own. 16:20:11 I don't necessarily need to to encumber the staff. 16:20:14 I think you understand the the wording that I'm I'm looking for, and I don't think I'd be able to add a lot more nuance to it other than you know really consideration, of an assption. 16:20:26 Basically that most labs are legal lots of legal records that you know. 16:20:30 That's or leave lots of record. That's you could propose to the draft ordinance right. 16:20:37 Now make it more Question: No? Okay, yeah, So you think something's legal without knowing 36 having it. 16:20:47 Nick, only those lots the trigger, the requirement in the wire, require a lot of record determined all others. 16:20:56 Yeah, Well, that would be small. Lots on me. That would be lots of less than 17 or 15,000 square feet. 16:21:05 Don't think that's the threshold DCD. 16:21:08 Would want. 16:21:14 okay, we're at the end of our. So what we need to do, we put the phones in times. That Commissioner. 16:21:27 okay, Man: Yeah, we can come up with some suggestions in terms of certainly here today. 16:21:39 hmm! So we So works. 16:21:43 We're extending the hearing then until Monday. 16:17:25 Somehow. 16:21:47 Right. 16:21:49 Hmm point of order. You the hearings over you already had the hearing. 16:21:55 Now you're just deliberating. So you you'll be deliberating further deliberations 16:21:55 Right? Okay, Okay. And but you may extend the written testimony you wish 16:22:11 Correct. No, I think we're just talking about Greg getting his questions answered. 16:22:18 Yeah, okay, yeah, I'd appreciate it. Hi. I'm not sure. 16:22:25 You actually said, you're closing good here for the oral and written testimony. Okay, So just to be clear for those still online, the oral and written testimony on this issue is post 16:22:38 As of floor 24. On Monday, September 20, sixth, and we will take this up again next Monday on our regular agenda. 16:22:51 Sounds good. Thank you very, Much; You guys have done an awesome job. 16:23:03 By the way, we thought we had the same agenda today. 16:23:07 Yeah, well, we even said that in our Prep: Okay, So we have. 16:23:17 We have a couple of other things. We need to approve this public notice. 16:23:21 The public hearing on the proposed parks and recreation. 16:23:24 Open space and trail sky, conference, plan We'll move to approve the hearing notice to reschedule the post plan. 16:23:34 Hearing. Bye? Okay. And then I have a letter. 16:23:38 I'd like to walk on, Matt. Yes, I'll read the whole thing. 16:23:42 It's the cap asked for it They're applying for a continuum of care program funds, so they better read if the Coswell Brown village is awarded, hud continuum of care program funds, Jefferson County Commissioners commits. 16:23:53 To provide contributions worth $16,500,000 over the next year to Olympic community action programs. 16:24:01 Our contribution includes purchase of the land. Infrastructure costs water power, septic and will be available for the 12 month, period. Beginning in February. 16:24:08 1, 22, The amount of the contribution is based on costs associated with instructing an open air shelter to include 40 spaces for homeless, to occupy which includes all infrastructure costs We agree to lease the land with the infrastructure to have 40 spaces 16:24:22 for tiny shelters or Rv. Trailer to Olympic community action programs for homeless individuals, slash panelists 16:24:30 So that the 1.5 million couldn't include purchase in the land, because that was in September a year ago. Right? 16:24:40 and this is beginning. We contributed so far, but it has to be a 12 month period, beginning February first, and we bought it and September. 16:24:52 I'm sure it's so we could change that to September first. 16:24:58 Hmm! 21 let me just was actually end of September. 16:25:11 Cool. He's delegated that to me. Someone 16:25:17 Alright, alright! Can I see the letter? Land churches to be part of that? 16:25:26 I don't know. Match essentially. That's cool, Of course that's what I thought. 16:25:35 Said. Yeah, absolutely one. It to be part of that 16:25:43 It says it includes purchase of the land. Yeah, that was. 16:25:46 It was supposed to be. I think things 16:25:58 And that's 16:26:12 Gotcha. Okay, but it needs to be February first. 16:26:20 Okay. 16:26:35 Okay, Thank you. Bye. So it has to stay. 16:26:42 February first in our contribution includes purchase of the land. 16:26:47 Infrastructure, cost, water, power, septic. Does that mean They bought it all on February first, but it will be available for the 12 month period, beginning February first that land which we purchased for a 1,000,005 and the other things we'll be available it's not clear in the 16:27:02 water. 16:27:10 a contribution. Is it like a contribution? 16:27:13 Includes purchasing the one and infrastructure costs water power, septic, and maybe it's probably be an end. 16:27:19 Be available, these resources will be available which are available. 16:27:29 if how, how can we change it? 16:27:33 And will. 16:27:38 Okay, and will be available for the just that in the word, Anne. What our contribution, which includes purchase of the land infrastructure 16:27:51 Will be available for the 12 month period, beginning They only want it for a year. 16:27:57 Yeah, that's to qualify for the grant. I think it's that these resources are available in this year. 16:28:03 Okay. 16:28:12 And will be made available for used by only cap during the 12 month period. 16:28:16 The made available for use. Fine Yeah, privilege a month. 16:28:27 Okay, hold our end up, our contribution, which includes purchase of the land infrastructure, cost water tower, septic will be will be made available for use by only cap during the 12 month period. 16:28:44 Beginning, February. Hmm. I'll move to approve the letter as amended a second all in favor, bye, bye. 16:28:56 Can I announce one other thing, Yeah, Kate asked. 16:28:59 If I ever applied to rack. And I did, and I got so I'm on now on it. It's all done by mail. 16:29:06 That's why it puts so long. Srs: So for how to spend the money, I believe. 16:29:20 So we only remember, as Jeff had told us, that I really didn't know before, that hearing that we had, we can really allocate. 16:29:29 I think Jefferson County money back to programs in Jeff's account, and Kane I both got appointed to the Federal Issues Committee for was act Yeah, which I think I think Oh, I I assume that we can't both be on it so I talked to Eric about it and he said we 16:29:44 just noticed those meetings. So I sent Adola and Carolyn. 16:29:50 I tickler about that, so we can both participate. Sounds like, Okay, I will see you. 16:29:58 I'm available for any info States. I'm only available for the last 2, not the first 2 Oh, interesting. 16:30:04 I mean, that's another thing. It will not both available for the same ones. 16:30:07 We could alternate Yeah, Okay, Yeah, actually, either wants to know the dates. 16:30:13 It's just trying to and an email, I'm pretty sure I sent them in an email 16:30:24 Section at the end, but so the other one. You're on. 16:30:29 we are at 4, 30, and it was an in person meeting, so that we should have great for the rap as well. 16:30:37 Yeah, So those those things. 16:30:50 is that Olympic Resource Advisory Committee Olympic Peninsula Resource advisory. 16:30:56 yeah, the email I sent Avl has the dates because it has Eric's original email, which had all the dates. 16:31:04 Okay, if she scrolls down 16:31:11 And Kate. I can forward this to you, too. Anything else. 16:31:17 Before we adjourn that port 31. Greg, Are you checking the good Miller Peninsula State Park? 16:31:25 Oh, I've heard complaints from their neighbors, but I'm not you know. 16:31:30 That's Palm County. It is 100 feet from from Jefferson guys not in Jefferson. 16:31:40 Down. Oh, it's no, but no, Is there something I sure can track Jefferson County overlap it does impact. 16:31:51 Our people, right? Yeah, neighbors to the charge. Yeah.