The Planning Commission at its July 10 meeting purposely spent most of its time knee-deep in semantics. City Council had voted to return three proposed ordinances to Planning after aldermen at Monday evening’s council meeting wrangled over particular wording, so commissioners on Tuesday without hesitation launched into their semantic journey to unravel nuances between “residence” versus “domicile” and the meaning of “register.”
Chair Ann Sallee said council approved the second readings of two proposed ordinances. Ord. 2269 clarified when a public hearing is required, and Ord. 2271 proposes to add permitted uses to the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones and add “Library/Museum” as a conditional use in C-3.
She noted their recommendation for an update regarding Planned Use Developments was incorporated into Ord. 2272, but a paragraph she called messy and confusing was added. Commissioner Susan Harman commented City Attorney Tim Weaver had acknowledged that paragraph was incorrectly inserted, and moved to strike the paragraph and send the ordinance back to council. Commissioners approved.
An ordinance not yet numbered was returned because it contained the following paragraph:
“New Bed and Breakfast establishments may be allowed to residentially zoned districts as a Conditional Use. The owner of a Bed & Breakfast shall certify at time of application and upon request that they, the owner, or a resident manager shall occupy the premises and register the establishment as their primary domicile. Existing Tourist Lodgings may not expand the number of units originally permitted.”
At issue were the meaning of “register” and use of “domicile,” both of which Sallee stated were added during a workshop with council last year. She preferred “primary residence” to “domicile,” and nuances of meaning and even the purpose of “register” bounced around the table like semantic ping pong.
Eventually City Development Coordinator Glenna Booth suggested they simplify discussion by simply striking the part about registering and instead add a checkmark on the application which states, “I or my manager will reside there.” Harman also moved they modify the last sentence to replace “originally permitted” with “on the application.”
Ord. 2270 was next, and it contained the 200-ft. rule which states, “No request for a new Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if an existing CUP property or Legal Non-conforming Permitted property is within two hundred (200) feet from all parcel boundaries of a new application. This restriction is not intended to, nor does it apply to any existing, permitted Conditional Use activities where a permit is requested for an existing activity due to a change in ownership.”
Commissioners eventually agreed to leave that passage as stands, and Harman moved to amend the list of conditional uses for R-1 to keep “Tour Home/House Museum” and change “Day Care, small and large” to “Child Care Residential, Family Child Care Home & Child Care Commercial.”
Other items
- Commissioners agreed to take home for review a revised tree cut application. Sallee said the goal was to make sure building requirements are met before the application comes before them.
- Sallee said she met with Mayor Butch Berry regarding Planning’s role in the Fill and Excavate process of construction projects. Berry told her he would ask Building Inspector Bobby Ray to draft a revision to Code stipulating the requirement to appear before Planning applies to commercial projects only.
- Sallee said she has not completed her research for a discussion of discontinuing the B&B CUP in residential zones. Harman asked, “Why just B&Bs?” She said goal was to protect neighborhoods, and she was concerned with one particular CUP being singled out. Sallee agreed it was a valid point. This topic will be on the next agenda.
Next meeting will be Tuesday, July 24, at 6 p.m. It will be preceded at 5 p.m. by a workshop presentation by commissioner Abbey Abbey on aspects of Low Impact Development such as storm water harvesting.