Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

[00:00:01]

AND WELCOME TO

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION, A MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH.

IF YOU WOULD JOIN ME, WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

AND IF YOU JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU.

ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS PLEASE.

GOOD MORNING.

COMMISSIONER AGUILAR, COMMISSIONER ATCHISON, CHAIRMAN SPYCATCHER, COMMISSIONER MOBLEY, COMMISSIONER, REBECCA.

WE HAVE A FULL QUORUM.

THANK YOU.

MOVING ON.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 25TH, 2021 MEETING.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE ALL IN FAVOR CHAIR VOTES.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED SEEING NONE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AT THIS POINT OF THE MEETING, ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO SOMETHING THAT'S FROM THE PUBLIC, THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.

THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC

[6.I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP21-013 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. SPR21-005-]

HEARING.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER C U P 21 DASH 0 1 3.

GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.

UM, DIANA WARRANTS PLANNING HERE.

SO, UM, THIS CONDITION USE PERMIT, WHICH IS FOR, UM, UH, MR. MOTO IS A REQUEST TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING PARKING YARD TRUCK, PARKING YARD, AND INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN EXISTING STRUCTURES.

UM, THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAST CHILDS AVENUE AND SOUTH TYLER ROAD IN THE MERCEDES CITY PLANNING AREA.

UM, BECAUSE THE COUNTY COORDINATES WITH THE CITIES ON PLANNING IN THESE AREAS, THIS AREA IS, UM, DESIGNATED HEAVY COMMERCIAL LAND USE IN THE CITY OF MERCEDES GENERAL PLAN AND IS ZONED INTO GENERAL MANUFACTURING IN THE COUNTIES PLANNING.

UM, THESE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THE PROJECT SITE LOOKING ACROSS EAST CHILDS AVENUE, SOME OF THE PROPERTIES NORTH ACROSS CHARLES AVENUE.

UM, ALSO YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT, BUT THERE'S AN MID CANAL, I GUESS, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE GRASS GROWING THERE.

THERE'S THE MID CANAL.

UM, THESE, THIS IS THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF THE PROJECT SITE.

UM, A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES SURROUNDING THE SITE ARE DEVELOPED, AND THIS IS, UM, A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY EAST OF THE PROJECT SITE.

YOU CAN SEE, UM, SOME OF THE TRUCKS PARKED AND ALSO WEST OF THE PROJECT SITE.

UM, SO THE PROJECT, THE PROJECT IS, UM, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MERCY GENERAL PLAN, AS I SAID, BECAUSE THE AREA IS LOCATED IN THE MERCEDES CITY PLANNING AREA, THE COUNTY COORDINATES WITH THE CITY.

UM, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR GENERAL HEAVY COMMERCIAL USE OR COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION.

IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE MERSEYSIDE COUNTY ZONING CODE AS IT ZONED IN TO, UM, AND THIS USE IS ALLOWED WITH APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

UM, STAFFED ON THE PROJECT CAN BE FOUND EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 1, 5, 3 0 1 CLASS ONE EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE SECRET GUIDELINES, UM, BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON A SITE WITH EXISTING BUILDINGS AND NO CHANGES TO THE BUILDINGS OR THE SITE OR PROPOSED, UM, NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE AND PUBLISHED IN THE MERCEDES ON STAR ON AUGUST 27TH ON STAFF DID RECEIVE ONE COMMENT LETTER YESTERDAY.

UM, JUST FOR FORECLOSE, WE DID RECEIVE ONE COMMENT LETTER AND STAFF HAS, UM, AND MR. MAXEY WOULD, UM, IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE COMMENT LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED.

OH, NO, NO, SHE'S JUST THE LIGHTS.

THANKS.

UH, WARNING MR. CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION, STEVE MAXI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FOR THE COUNTY.

UH, YOU SHOULD'VE ALL RECEIVED A COPY OF THE LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED, UH, LATE YESTERDAY, UH, FROM THE, UH, LEADERSHIP COUNCIL.

UM, JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS A FEW THINGS THAT ARE IN THAT LETTER.

UH, ONE OF, KIND OF AN EARLY ASSERTION IN THE LETTERS THAT THE PROJECT FALLS, UH, WITH WHAT W WHAT THE LETTER CHARACTERIZES AS,

[00:05:01]

OR THE AUTHOR CHARACTERIZES AS A ZONING THAT TENDS TO CREATE ACCORDING HERE TENDS TO CREATE POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON WHICH REQUIRES AN ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE MITIGATION FOR NEARBY SENSITIVE USES, UM, LOCATED NEAR THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE PROJECT, UH, THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE EXCEPT FOR WHERE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT GENERATE IMPACTS IN EXCESS OF THRESHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN EITHER ESTABLISHED BY POLICY AT THE COUNTY, OR THAT ARE OTHERWISE USED BY THE COUNTY.

UH, I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THAT WOULD BE TRUE EXCEPT FOR THE USE ITSELF IS EXISTING HAS BEEN FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME AND AS A RESULT AND SQL, UH, THE BASELINE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THAT PROJECT UNDER SEEQUA, UM, IS THE CURRENT PROJECT SITE CONDITION.

AND IT'S USED FOR TRUCK PARKING.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LEGALIZING THE EXISTING USE HERE.

SO BASELINE IS WHAT IT IS TODAY.

UM, A COUPLE OTHER POINTS IN THE LETTER, UH, THE LETTER RAISES TWO ISSUES IN PARTICULAR.

UH, BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE PROVIDES NO FACTS, UH, TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS, UM, THE, THE ISSUE OF VMT ANALYSIS, UM, AND WHAT I SUPPOSE AS A SUGGESTED LINK BETWEEN FAIR HOUSING, INFLAMMATION, IMPLICATIONS, AND AIR QUALITY, I'M A LITTLE FUZZY ON WHAT THEY, UH, INDICATE THAT LINK TO BE, UM, RESPONDING TO THE BMT ANALYSIS ASPECT OF IT.

UH, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE, UH, OR BMT, EXCUSE ME, VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED IS WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER UNDER, UH, OUR SEQUENCE ANALYSIS NOW, PER STATE LAWS BE 7 43 THAT WAS PASSED AT THE STATE, UH, SEVERAL YEARS BACK, UH, WITH VMT ANALYSIS, THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, UH, ISSUED A TECHNICAL ADVISORY, BASICALLY GUIDANCE TO LOCAL AGENCIES ON HOW WE CONDUCT THIS BMP ANALYSIS FOR .

AND IN THAT TECHNICAL ADVISORY, UM, OPR RECOMMENDED USING A THRESHOLD FOR VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT OF 110 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS.

SO ANY INCREASE OVER 110 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS, THERE MIGHT BE POTENTIAL FOR A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT, ANYTHING BELOW 110 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS, UH, PER OPR, HIS RECOMMENDATION, AND THEY'RE SUGGESTING THAT TECHNICAL ADVISORY, UM, WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANT OR WOULD NOT CARRY ANY POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.

UM, THE PROJECT'S OPERATIONAL STATEMENT, I BELIEVE INDICATES SOMETHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ABOUT 10 PEOPLE ONSITE PER DAY, BETWEEN STAFF, UM, AND, UH, POTENTIAL VISITORS, MORE FOLKS, UH, GRABBING THE TRUCKS.

UM, SO OBVIOUSLY WELL BELOW THE 110 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS, EVEN IF WE WERE TO SEE THE 45 TOTAL TRUCKS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO STORE ON SITE COME AND GO EVERY DAY, THAT WOULD STILL BE BELOW THAT 110, UH, ADT THRESHOLD SUGGESTED BY OPR.

UM, AND THEN AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EXISTING USE.

SO THE BASELINE IS WHAT IT IS TODAY IT'S BEING USED AS TRUCK PARKING TODAY, AND THAT INCREASE WOULD BE MARGINAL IF ANYTHING, UM, WITH REGARD TO THE AIR QUALITY COMMENTS IN THE LETTER, UH, WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, UH, THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, UH, ADOPTED SOME, UH, SMALL PROJECT ANALYSIS LEVELS, WHAT THEY CALL SMALL PROJECT ANALYSIS LEVELS, UH, IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, UH, THOSE SMALL PROJECT ANALYSIS LEVELS USE THE PROJECT TYPE, UH, THE SIZE, THE NUMBER OF TRIPS, AND THEN THE DISTRICT TAKES THOSE, THOSE THRESHOLDS AND PRE QUANTIFIES.

UM, WHAT THE EMISSIONS AND WHAT POTENTIAL IMPACT VALUES MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH A PROJECT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WOULD EXCEED A THRESHOLD OR A POTENTIAL, UH, OR GENERATE A POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT, UM, IN THAT SMALL PROJECT ANALYSIS LEVEL, UM, THAT ADOPTED SMALL PROJECT ANALYSIS LEVEL THAT SETS THRESHOLDS FOR TRIPS ASSOCIATED, UH, WITH WHAT THEY CALL A GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE AT 71 WAY, HEAVY TRUCK TRIPS PER DAY.

SO TWO, ONE WAY TRIPS LEAVING AND COMING BACK, EVEN IF WE WERE TO SEE ALL, ALL 45 TRUCKS LEAVING, COME BACK IN A DAY, STILL WELL BELOW THAT W WHAT WOULD BE 140 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS TOTAL.

UM, SO THAT REALLY RESPONDS TO THE KEY POINTS OF THE LETTER, UH, THAT, THAT, AGAIN, YOU SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THAT, I WOULD SUGGEST, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, INCLUDE A FEW OTHER FINDINGS, UH, WITH THE FINDINGS THAT ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FOR THE SECRET DETERMINATION.

UH, I GUESS ONE TO, TO SAY THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AS INDICATED IN THE OPERATIONAL STATEMENT, UH, WOULD NOT GENERATE TRIPS IN EXCESS OF THE 110 ADT STANDARDS SUGGESTED BY OPR, UH, PARTICULARLY FOR, FOR EXISTING FACILITIES TO THAT, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXCEED THRESHOLDS ESTABLISHED BY SOMEONE CAN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, UH, IN THEIR, IN THEIR ADOPTED SMALL PROJECT ANALYSIS LEVELS AND THREE THAT NO OTHER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THE SITE WOULD REASONABLY NECESSITATE FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

SO I, AGAIN, SUGGEST, RECOMMEND THAT YOU INCLUDE THOSE THREE FINDINGS.

I CAN REREAD THEM, UH, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE, OTHERWISE, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LETTER, UH, OR, UH, MS. LAWRENCE CAN FINISH HER PRESENTATION AND WE CAN RECEIVE COMMENTS,

[00:10:01]

AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS, UM, SO WITH THAT, UM, STAFF, IF YOU HAD ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, UM, OTHERWISE STAFF JUST HAD TWO RECOMMENDATIONS ON ONE THAT YOU FIND A PROJECT EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 5301 CLASS, ONE EXISTING FACILITIES HAVE THE SQL GUIDELINES AND THAT YOU APPROVE ON CVP 21, 0 1 3, UM, AND SPR 21, ZEROS ARE FIVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AT THIS POINT, WE ARE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOW WOULD BE TIME FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME AND ASK QUESTIONS OR MAKE COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT.

IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD ALSO, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS ANNA .

I AM A POLICY ADVOCATE WITH LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HAVING STAFF GO THROUGH THE LETTER THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE POLICIES.

UM, I WANT TO NOTE THAT, UM, THE COUNTY PRESENTATION DOES NOT MENTIONED THE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

AND PART OF SECRET IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT THE COUNTY AND CITIES, THIS IS STATE LAW.

AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING, UM, IF, IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING THAT THERE'S A NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACROSS THE WAY, AND, UH, IT'S LITERALLY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE CONSIDERED AT THE IMPACT THAT IT WILL HAVE IT'S ON BEACH STREET, IT'S EAST A CHILD'S AND B STREET.

AND, UM, I'M JUST HOPING THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER THAT AND UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S STATE LAW TO, UM, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

AND WE KNOW THAT RESIDENTS IN SOUTH MERCED SAID ARE HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED.

THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY RESOURCES, UM, GIVEN TO THEM.

SO I JUST THINK THAT WE SHOULD REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS BEFORE YOU APPROVE WITHOUT AN EXTENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WHAT ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS, OR WHAT STAFF LIKE TO, TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING ISSUE? SURE.

I'D BE HAPPY TO, UM, SO THE, UH, MENTIONED CHILDS AND B STREET PROJECT.

THAT IS A, UH, PROJECT THAT THE COUNTY PARTNERED WITH THE CITY ON FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.

UH, SO YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE WELL AWARE OF, UH, ITS LOCATION.

UM, IT'S LOCATED ACTUALLY JUST OVER A THOUSAND FEET AWAY FROM, UH, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPOSED USE HERE, HER AGAIN, THE EXISTING USE HERE, UM, THE, WHICH IS A THOUSAND FEET IS TENDS TO BE WHEN YOU, UH, WHAT YOU LOOK FOR IS, UH, A THRESHOLD WHERE, UM, YOU CONSIDER ANY WHAT WE CALL SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.

SO, UM, HOUSING, IT QUALIFIES AS A SENSITIVE RECEPTOR.

SO BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE OF THAT THOUSAND FOOT RANGE, UM, AGAIN, IT WOULDN'T TRIGGER ANY KIND OF SENSITIVE RECEPTOR ANALYSIS, BUT I DO WANT TO GO BACK AND POINT TO THE FACT THAT ABCD IN THEIR GUIDANCE ON THESE SMALL PROJECT ANALYSIS LEVELS SAYS IF YOU'RE BELOW A CERTAIN THRESHOLD AND TRIPS, AND WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY DOING ON SITE IS AN INDUSTRIAL USE.

THERE'S NO NEED TO CONSIDER ANYTHING ANY FURTHER.

THE IMPACT WOULD BE SO MARGINAL AS TO, UM, NOT EVEN BE WORTH GOING THROUGH THE WORK, UM, BUT THAT THE PUBLIC COSTS OR TO AN APPLICANT COST, UH, TO CONSIDER WHAT THAT IMPACT MIGHT BE, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE JUST SO MARGINAL YOU VERY MUCH.

DOES ANY MEMBER OF THIS BODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? OH, I'M SORRY.

ACTUALLY, AT THIS POINT, I NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.

YEAH.

I GUESS HOW A COUPLE, HOW MANY YEARS HAS THIS BEEN? THIS TRUCK PARK BEEN THERE AND THEN, UM, UH, WOULDN'T, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF ANALYSIS BY THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BUILDING THIS HOUSING PROJECT.

I MEAN, THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THAT WAS THERE.

I MEAN, WOULDN'T, THEY HAVE DONE SOME SORT OF ANALYSIS BEFORE THEY DESIGNATED THAT TO BE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AREA.

AND THEN HAVE, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER COMPLAINTS FROM ANYBODY ABOUT THAT TRUCK PARK? UH, DIANE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE.

I'LL COME BACK ON THE SECOND PIECE OF THE ANALYSIS ON THE, UM, I'M NOT EXACTLY AWARE HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE.

UM, WHEN THE, UM,

[00:15:01]

I, I GOT THE SENSITIVE SPIN THERE.

THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, CAUSE IT THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE REUSING THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA HOW LONG THE TRUCK BASICALLY IT'S NOT A NEW DEAL.

NO, IT IS NOT A NEW DEERE.

NO ANYBODY EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT IT EVER BEEN ANY CODING? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BUT I CAN CHECK THAT.

WELL, UH, NOT ANYTHING IN RECENT MEMORY, UM, ON THE S YOUR SECOND QUESTION, COMMISSIONER MOBLEY, UM, ON WHETHER THE CHILD'S WOULD BE AFFORDABLE, HOUSING PROJECT WOULD HAVE DONE ANY ANALYSIS ON THE NEARBY INDUSTRIAL USES.

SO SEQUEL IS A LITTLE BIT NUANCED, AND THEN IT LOOKS AT YOUR PR GIVEN PROJECTS EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, NOT THE ENVIRONMENT'S EFFECT ON THE PROJECT.

SO IT WOULDN'T LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT SURROUNDING, OR THE FACT THAT THERE'S A FREEWAY, JUST, JUST ACROSS THE STREET, AS FAR AS IT IS FROM THIS SIDE, RIGHT.

UM, IS TO, TO USE THE WORDS THAT, UH, THE CARPENTER MADE EARLIER, UM, OR ET CETERA THERE, UM, WITH THAT SAID, BECAUSE THAT IS A, UH, WHAT AMOUNTS TO A PUBLICLY FUNDED PROJECT THAT CHILD'S AND B PROJECT, AND IS GRANT FUNDED THROUGH A PROGRAM THAT COMES FROM GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND DOLLARS.

AND JUST WITH MY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT GRANT PROGRAM, I DO KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS CONSIDERED IN THAT GRANT PROGRAM IS WHETHER THERE ARE ANY, UH, POTENTIAL, UM, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS NEARBY AND HE'S, UH, SERIOUS, UH, AIR QUALITY, EMITTERS NEARBY, UH, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO, UM, I, I CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN, WHETHER THAT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME THAT THE GRANT WAS AWARDED FROM THE STATE TO FUND THIS PROJECT, THE CHILD'S AND B PROJECT.

BUT, UM, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, IT'S CLOSELY LINKED TO GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND AND NOT PRODUCT ITSELF.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEE, NONE.

I'LL BRING IT BACK BEFORE THIS BODY.

IF THEY, IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY CHOSE TO MAKE A MOTION, I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO INCORPORATE THOSE THREE POINTS IN THAT, CORRECT.

AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DO THAT, OR IF LITTLE, LITTLE ADVICE MR. CHAIR.

UM, I WOULD FIRST TAKE, UH, THE VOTE ON THE SECRET DETERMINATION.

AND THEN, UM, IF THAT WENT THROUGH THEN IN THE PROJECT, DETERMINATION, JUST THE MOTION COULD INCLUDE AND THE FINDINGS, UH, PRESENTED BY MR. MAXI AND HIS PRESENTATION.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU.

IF I COULD NOT, NOT TO QUESTION COUNSEL HERE, UH, W UM, WOULD IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO PUT THOSE FINDINGS AS PART OF THE SECRET DETERMINATION AND THE SECRET FINDINGS, OR DOES IT DOESN'T MATTER? THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE.

OKAY.

SO IF SOMEONE WERE TO MAKE A MOTION, WE WOULD ADD AT THE BACK AT THE END OF IT, AND THE FINDINGS, UM, MADE BY MR. MAXEY AND THIS PRESENTATION INCLUDED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR WHAT, W I SEE SOMEBODY WILLING RIGHT HERE AND I'LL BET YOU WE'LL WALK RIGHT THROUGH IT, BUT YOU WANT THOSE THREE FROM MR. MAXI TACKED ONTO THE SECRET DETERMINATION.

YEAH.

OKAY.

I MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15, 3 0 1 CLASS ONE EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE SEQUEL GUIDELINES AND INCORPORATING THE THREE ITEMS THAT MR. MAXY, UH, OUTLINED.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

THAT WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE.

AYE.

CHAIR VOTES.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED PASSES UNANIMOUSLY NOW MOVES MOVING ON TO THE PROJECT.

DETERMINATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER C U P 21 0 1 3.

AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NUMBER S P R 21 0 0 5.

BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE.

CHAIR VOTES.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED AGAIN, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO, UM, CONDITIONAL USE

[6.II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP21-012 -]

PERMIT NUMBER C U P 21 DASH 0 1 2.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SIS.

NEXT.

UM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS, UM, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN AUTO BODY REPAIR AND TIRE SHOP AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

UM, NO NEW STRUCTURES ARE PROPOSED THE PROJECT.

UM, THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SA, UH, STATE ROUTE 59 AT THE INTERSECTION OF MONTGOMERY STREET IN THE SMELLING COMMUNITY.

PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED SMELLING RULE CENTER, UM, GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND ZONE C2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

UM, THIS NEXT IMAGE IS A BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE.

YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING STRUCTURES,

[00:20:01]

PARKING AREAS AND THE EXISTING FENCES, UM, SURROUNDING THE PROJECT.

UM, THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM HIGHWAY 59, THE EXISTING STRUCTURES.

UM, THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING IS VACANT AND THE UNDEVELOPED PARCEL TO THE NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE.

THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS, A GAS STATION TO THE WEST OF THE PROJECT SITE.

AND THIS IS THE VIEW OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO THE EAST OF THE PROJECT SITE.

UM, ALSO I BELIEVE VACANT.

UM, THE PROJECT SITE IS CONSISTENT WITH GOAL L U FOUR AND POLICY L YOU 4.2 A UM, OF THE MERSEYSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN IN NOT, IT IS A BUSINESS THAT WOULD SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE RURAL COMMUNITY OF SNELLING.

UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MERSEYSIDE COUNTY, UM, ZONING CODE AS THE USE IS ALLOWED IN THE C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE, UM, WITH A, UH, APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

ONCE AGAIN, THE PROJECT CAN BE FOUND EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 1 53 0 1 CLASS ONE EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE SEQUEL GUIDELINES AS THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN AN EXISTING PRIVATELY OWNED STRUCTURE, AND NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THE BUILDING.

AS PART OF THE PROJECT, THE PROJECT WAS PRESENTED TO THE SMELLING MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JULY 15TH OF THIS YEAR.

AND THE MAC VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE PROJECT NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HANDLING.

WHERE'S THE MAIL TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE AND PUBLISHED IN THE MERSEYSIDE SUN STAR ON AUGUST 27TH, NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED AND STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION.

ONE THAT YOU DETERMINED THAT CP 21 0 1 2 IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

UM, AND TWO THAT YOU APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE PROJECT FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

AND WITH THAT, UM, I CAN ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO BRING THIS MATTER BEFORE THE PUBLIC AND ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OPEN, THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON IT.

THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO SEEING NONE.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING THIS BACK BEFORE THIS BODY.

I REMEMBER WHEN THAT WAS A BOAT REPAIR SHOP, NOT THAT LONG AGO.

UM, BUT YEAH.

YEAH.

WHAT IS THE WILL OF THIS COMMISSION? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR EMOTION? I'LL MOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT CUP 21 0 1 2 IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15, 3 0 1 CLASS, ONE EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE CECO GUIDELINES AND BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT.

THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE, AYE, CHAIR VOTES.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT DETERMINATION.

I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CP 21 0 1 2 BASED ON THE PROJECT FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE.

CHAIR VOTES.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED AGAIN.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO COMMISSIONER ACTION ITEMS, NOTHING ADDITIONAL, SIR.

DIRECTOR'S REPORT NOTHING AT THIS TIME.

COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS SEEING NONE.

WE WILL ADJOURN.

THANK YOU EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Speech-to-Text.