Planning Commission Worksession   5/14/2026

Mm.

Mr. Kuhn.

I was gonna say you've got it in your agenda packet and standard answer any questions.

Does anyone have any questions or want to discuss anything on either of these since they go together with these two separate actions?

We have an opinion that it was ready to move forward unless you all have some amendments you'd like to make.

Mr. Coon, is that you or is that Ms. Buckler?

And Ms. Buckler has worked on some updates to the definitions to coincide with more of the intent that we felt that was originally adopted several years ago when we had the campground.

Again, by no means are that is this a directive of this language from the board, but it's a starting place for the Planning Commission to look at these items and see if they want to make changes or have questions about what we've drafted so far.

Mr. Quarles.

What's the definition there?

So that's part of the conversation that we wanted to have before you.

kind of vague because you got to figure out what that means.

people that are coming here working in the area and staying for months at a time and that's that's not really the intent of what the campground definition was so that's where you know we wanted to have the conversation and see just like you said do we want to set a limit is it you know x days per month x days per year you know something like that just to better address the intent or is it something that we feel is okay

So those are my concerns.

Thank you.

Had there been much thought given as to which that was or just trying to just say 60 days

But I mean, like you said, if you wanted to do July to June 30, follow the fiscal year any 12 month period, or, you know, do calendar year, I don't think any of those would be

So if you just kept the phrase in a 12-month period, it could be looked at from an enforcement standpoint.

It would probably be more of a rolling 12-month period, where if you wanted it to be a calendar year, you would amend it to 60 days in the calendar year.

But OK, to a point.

I would like to elaborate on this.

Mr. Painter.

Maybe there needs to be a campground thing, and there needs to be a workforce.

I would agree with that.

I think if that is the Avocado Planning Commission, that if we want to

We'd be happy to work on bringing that definition.

You found a place such as that, and a lot of my peers at the time used, not RVs, but a camper.

A camper that you would typically see at a campground.

It's the health side of it that really catches more than anything where are we putting these at that we can have some idea and control

A little bit higher requirements levels than a campground just because if people are going to be staying there for a lot longer than a week or two, if it's going to be several months or things, you may want to add some additional standards, but we'll look at options.

What I remember from the board we just Talked about campgrounds and sent that to the Planning Commission, but was it did it have to do with Workforce housing for outages or was it strictly talking about campgrounds?

But honestly, having a second definition that clearly splits it, it would probably be a better solution than

And I didn't have a clarification on that myself.

Mr.

Mr. Quarles.

And I think that's not the intent.

And then it becomes an issue as to how many bites of the apple do we get?

because obviously if I apply for Mr. Kersey to be there and then I apply for, you know, the next one to be there.

So then they'd be able to do that up to five RVs or something like that whatever they wanted and then the Planning Commission and board would review it and approve it and then they'd have to go through those standards but it wouldn't have to be

of campers to qualify?

So I mean, we deal with that every day.

Well, that kind of defeats that purpose, doesn't it?

So they'd have separate drain fields, is that the idea?

I'm not asking you that right now, but the idea is that they wouldn't be tapping into

That's not something that would be allowed.

and they apply for a campground and then the next thing you know it's just for the intent of

you know the grandson who wants to you know throw the use my RV out there in the back and well I mean if they that's gonna be what Planning Commission the board have to determine through the CUP process that if we require a certain level of infrastructure being installed for these uses I'm not sure that someone's gonna want to spend that kind of money for the infrastructure they'd be necessary for one person to live.

I understand, thank you.

So I had a question in looking through it and this is just to understand as you all were putting this together what you were thinking on these different things and that had to do with the the zonings that you were saying we could do this with a CUP and the zonings where

We're not going to allow this.

What was the thinking in that?

No, that's fine, that's fine.

I'm just trying to get a sense of all these things.

Then do we need to

If we were to do separate campground and workforce housing, then I guess there would be two separate ordinances and you all would draft us some language for workforce housing.

We'll need to add a definition for workforce housing and add standards.

I mean, what's the thought?

I would certainly agree.

So it would make sense to make it more accommodating all the way around.

If we completely X everything out, you kind of walk in and say, I don't really know what to do here, how to provide for that sort of thing.

But we definitely can have more conversations about that.

Or are we setting up for some large scale rezoning?

It's the A1 and A2 right now.

You know, but I mean, the rest of it sounds like pretty much the same kind of thing when you're setting it up.

you might have some different requirements there.

Because then you start to blur the lines?

All right.

Would I be able to rezone only that portion that's used as a campground?

I'd have to check with the new laws on being able to do that.

Just kind of curious.

I'd have to check on that.

Yeah, but that was like we want to continue on.

Yeah, and that was how it was done in the past and it's been in effect, but I don't know if we can double check that.

All right, that takes care of me.

That's the biggest part for me is that we have some semblance of control, the waste of it, and it's not just in a pole in somebody's field or pasture.

appropriate and we'll add a definition standards and matrix and our intent is we'll probably expect to use travel trailers as kind of what would be utilizing this temporary housing at least for right now and but I mean we can look at other localities and see what else they offer they may offer some you know modular units on permanent foundations or something like that as well that we'll look up and see there's alternatives that meet the intent

When we check into that, can we check and see if any of the other localities require buffers on these when they do that?

I would want a buffer that no neighbor would have to see.

Instead of, why don't we just go and look at successful buffers instead of if other localities do it we'll just say the expectation is going to be there's going to be buffers included and we'll try and look at what would be best for this.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dickerson.

Would this be like a short-term rentals where it's by complaint driven or people actually going out from the county looking for issues to enforce?

short-term rentals it'd probably be an actual CUP so normally they're a little bit easier because we just pull up the CUP in hand or code enforcement would have the CUP in hand with the conditions that are required and if it's not to that standard but until we have everything vetted out I'm not gonna be able to answer how we would enforce it

Whether it's complaint based or whether or not the county is going to actively go out and look at these CUPs that you have.

It could change how it was enforced.

That safety aspect of it I think would certainly have to, and I would, that'd be a minimum requirement to me.

Any other comments?

All right.

Well, thank you all for the initial proposal and for taking this further as we refine it and produce something a little bit better with it.

Do you think that would be an idea of how to form and shape this thing?

What questions are you trying to get asked and answered?

I mean, obviously, it's too early right now because we're just now putting this together, but putting ideas together.

Before we venture too far, I think Mr. Quarles has a very good idea here because

Mr. Quarles, would you like to work with staff in pulling all that together?

Sure, let me know.

Would anyone else like to work with Mr. Quarles and staff on that?

I hope that was cool.

And between you all and contacts with local campgrounds, sounds like we can get some good information together.

We'll do our best.

I guess we can move on to the next item, which is the zoning methods for reducing growth.

That's step one in the direction that we're going.

This is step one, too, in zoning.

Talk about how we came up with some of these topics, what they affect, what they do, and so forth.

And this is where Commissioner Hicks and Commissioner Goodwin had some comments on it.

So that's a big reason why we put these two options up here is to discuss the pros and cons of both ways.

Which way we're directing?

That was really good.

Or is that those setbacks for all structures on the property regardless?

It's hard to find that complement in between.

There may need to be some different requirements or allowances if they get past a certain acreage.

So, what if I want to put a barn back there and have some animals?

So

I understand about the homes and the question had was not

But if I want to do, you know, something like animals and I want to put a barn in the back and have some pasture back there.

I wouldn't see why that'd be an issue.

I mean, ultimately, so the question was, what kind of structures can you put back?

So and that's just that's where if the individual wanted to utilize the land, it is their land.

Mr. Quarles.

Don't you open yourself up to, again, we see barns that people have weddings out of, electricity and all the amenities at home.

So they come through Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for that.

Because some of these barns are very nice.

And those are two completely different things in the building code.

That far apart?

So I mean, the home is a lot more stringent than pole barn or something like that.

Understand.

Sorry, Mr. King.

A residential use.

And it's got to be attached.

No, it doesn't have to be attached, just 50% or less of the main.

Because that's a livable structure.

But we wanted to bring that to you all.

I think there's benefit in that.

So I liked the bands as well, to compliment.

Anyone that they could do a family division to would have to hold it for two to three years But then they'd be able to sell it so those people in the community have been here for a long time would be able to get a little bit more benefit than someone that purchases it and Immediately does the family division then that whole period or retention period would need to be 15 years So that's something that we were trying to do a sliding scale to try and benefit people who've been here longer than people that just come here

So if we put all those in place, any family subdivision would have to meet each one of those requirements as well.

Is that correct?

No.

We're not changing the requirements of family subdivisions.

So I can if I have if I buy land for sent family subdivision and hold it, I could cut it up any way I want to and you put housing where you want to and you're done no matter what we do with this.

So the setback from the road is probably the only one that would really affect because even the 400 foot road frontage, it's not necessary for a family division.

So unless that were to change that may not affect as well unless it had road frontage.

So just just trying to clarify that in my head.

changes to the zoning part of the land development regulations, not necessarily the subdivision requirements.

So, if you make the 450 foot road frontage, then that, I would think, applies to family division as well.

So zoning requirements apply as far as minimum lot size setbacks and that sort of thing, except for frontage requirements because the state code specifically says they can be accessed often for right-of-way or easement.

So the frontage requirements do not apply.

And chances are, if they have to hold it for a number of years, they're going to go invest somewhere else.

But people weren't upset about that length of time except for the ones that were going to circumvent the ordinance anyway.

So we can try and work on that and provide any more information as you all would like.

as a total vision, you know, step one, two, three, four, all as one as we culminated together in a grand plan versus one to their docket every month or two.

And then we can take it.

Any comments from any commissioners?

and let's weigh it out before we make a hasty decision.

Would I fall into these guidelines?

I feel with the scenario that you depicted here in this picture,

Would it look the same?

But if we're going down this path, we want to at least discuss it that this is what we're trying to take into consideration and make sure those options are available.

What comes of that 10-acre parcel if it can't build in that setback?

It would just be 10 acres.

World character.

So if that's completely forested, what's the benefit of not allowing that person with the 15 acres to build towards the rear of his lot?

What now?

If you're in a completely wooded site there, area there, what benefit would you have at that point?

It's just up to planning commission and the board, what they think is the better decision moving forward.

It is taking something of value and we're working on the programs behind it to bring that value back to them the best we can.

So it's, this is the whole package we're talking about, instead of one at a time.

I'm sorry, Mr. Barlow.

And just the reason why we wanted to come with these individual steps is just because it is going to be such a large complex

And when we start adding stuff to it, now there may be different ideas or thoughts come out.

So I do think there needs to be some hold period on the back end, no matter how long the property's been in the family.

There needs to be some hold period on the back end.

I'll make sure that we look at the division timing control and verify the

like I said the requirements I think with us being a high-growth locality there's certain stipulations that we can utilize but yeah I'll look into that and see what our options are with that.

Any other comments?

I was trying to follow along with what you were trying to present to us and it's not in this.

So I can send it to the group.

I think it'd be helpful to me anyway.

So in that case, thank you all so much for this and we are adjourned.