Monday, August 28, 2017 Ė 6:00 p.m.

Shawnee County Annex


Roll Call and Announcement of Hearing Procedure:† Pat Tryon, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. and asked for roll call to be taken.


Members Present: Pat Tryon, Brian Jacques, Jerry Desch, Judy Moler, Matthew McCurry and Brian Aubert.† With five members present, a quorum was established and the meeting was called to order.† Brian Jacques arrived after roll call was taken.


Members Absent: Christi McKenzie


Staff Present: Barry T. Beagle, Planning Director; Joelee Charles, Administrative Assistant; Joni Thadani, Assistant County Counselor.


Approval of Public Hearing Minutes: †There were no public hearing minutes were available.


Communications:† Mr. Beagle received an email from Mr. Alan Ribelin and provided a copy to the Planning Commission for their review.


Ex Parte Communication by Members of the Commission:There were no Ex Parte communications expressed by members of the Commission.


Declaration of Conflict of Interest by Members of the Commission or Staff:There were no declarations of conflict of interest by commission members or staff.


Public Hearing Item:


1.    A Public Hearing on the Shawnee County 2037 Comprehensive Plan


Mr. Beagle stated discussion would resume on the proposed plan.† The August 14th meeting was continued by the Planning Commission so the public could review the plan and provide comments.


Mr. Tryon opened the meeting for public comments.


John Birtell, 6420 SW 93rd Street, Wakarusa, KS 66546.

         Asked if his wife could sell a portion of their 160 acres in the future if she needed to and sell more at a later time or would she have to sell it to a developer.

         A developer would probably pay less for acreage so they would lose money.

         Thought the developer was the one who would benefit from this process.

         Farmers may want to leave the farm to family.† Plan would limit them from selling land, if needed.

         Didnít seem fair since it was their land to sell.

         Thought if an individual built a million dollar home, they would pay more taxes which would offset the cost of services.† Taxes would be paid yearly and there would be a one‑time cost to put services in.


Mr. Beagle referred to the future land use map to show what the expectations would be for development and opportunities in the different land use areas.


Mr. Thomas Dow, Project Manager, RDg Planning and Design, said in the proposed Exclusive Agricultural Use Area, farms/ranches could have in addition to their home a home for family member or employee.† The plat exemption process could be used to divide off a minimum three acre parcel to sell to another individual for a residence.† If they wanted to divide off more, they would have to go through the regular subdivision/platting process.† Urban/suburban scale development would be discouraged in this area.† It was important to remember the plan was not the same as the zoning and subdivision regulations.


Joe Ledbetter, Attorney, 1734 SW Van Buren Street, Topeka, KS 66612.

         Opposed to the plan.† Representing himself, The House of the Lord Church and Fred Sanders.

         No plan was needed in order to exercise zoning and subdivision regulations.

         Landowners may want to convert their land to other uses.

         Didnít need government telling farmers what they can do with their farm land.

         Need to think about the long term results of changes to the people in those communities.

         Didnít need additional regulations and thought it was an unfair process.

         There didnít seem to be a rush from the public to have a plan.

         Didnít see the economic development potential in the plan.

         Farmers were happy with what they had and wanted to be able to choose whether to develop or not.

         Thought the definition of farm land needed to be further explored.


Ben Marple, 10249 SW Wanamaker Road, Wakarusa, KS 66546.

         Opposed to the plan.

         Full-time farmer.† Owned a number of farms and a lot of acreage.

         Asked if the plan would keep his six grandchildren from each having their own building site.

         When District #8 put the water line in from Osage County, it allowed a lot of people to build houses.

         Thought the rules were working.† Couldnít understand why there should be a change.


Mr. Beagle said existing farm tracts could have a primary/secondary residence associated with the farm.† A parcel, not used for farming, could be split off with a minimum of three acres.† Future rural residential development would be located closer to existing services to minimize public costs.† Rural areas would be retained primarily for farming.† Land could be sold to be used for farming.† Parcels with three acres or less were scattered throughout the unincorporated area resulting in a fiscal impact since they were not confined to certain development areas.


Mr. Dow said the cost to extend services to an isolated million dollar house was cost prohibitive.† It was expensive to put in services.† No one would want to pay for them.


Ben Marple, 10249 SW Wanamaker Road, Wakarusa, KS 66546.

         With township approval, they created a road on 77th.† The township also had to agree to accept it and then it became a township road.

         Paid for a water line on Wanamaker Road.

         A developer or landowner had to put in the utilities and build the roads. Not the county.

         On one of their parcels, they installed a water line at their expense because the existing water meter wasnít in the right place.† The water district was unwilling to help.


Mr. Beagle said the Marples had prepared their property.† Unfortunately, individuals purchased land with no consideration of the services they would need.† It would be difficult for the county and townships to provide the expected level of services for the people moving into the unincorporated area.


Randy Long, 4537 SW Auburn Road, Topeka, KS 66610.

         Would the plan allow multiple family members to build homes on 160 acres.

         Could they put in their own roads to their homes without the 200 feet of frontage.

         It would cost $26,000 to extend a water line to where he wanted to build.

         Wanted to know why the city had any involvement.


Mr. Beagle said the current regulations allowed one primary residence per parcel.† A parcel would have to be divided into tracts that were each a minimum of three acres and 200í frontage.† An individual could build a public road to an interior property which would create frontage and access.


The population of the unincorporated area would constitute the eleventh largest city in Kansas.† There was a cause/effect and fiscal impact associated with development patterns.† Maybe there was a more efficient way to grow into the future instead of just creating three acre lots anywhere.† By statute, the city was allowed to extend subdivision authority in the three mile area in order to plan for future urban growth and expansion.


Mr. Dow indicated discussion with the city about shrinking the three mile area was being proposed.


Mr. Marple stated he was not happy with the 40í culvert requirement.† Mr. Beagle suggested he contact Tom Vlach, Director of Shawnee County Public Works.


Alan Ribelin, Menoken Trustee, 4920 NW Landon Road, Topeka, KS 66618.

         Dealt with people that moved from the city who wanted paved roads but no money was available.

         The township would prep the road if all the people on the same road would pay to pave it.

         Each individual living on the same road would have to pay $10,000 to install a new water line.

         It wasnít the countyís job to provide utilities.† If people wanted them, they had to pay for them.

         He was the sole owner of land on his road eight years ago.† Eight houses were built since then.

         There was some good parts to the plan and wasnít opposed to all of it.

         Should have the freedom to choose and sell his property if he wanted to.

         Opposed to bigger government and tired of being encroached on.

         Knew the plan was proposed to fix things.† But donít fix what wasnít broken.

         Donít throw the whole plan out.† Suggested more time was needed.† Donít rush it because there was a deadline.† Hear what the people have to say and make some revisions if needed.


Mr. Beagle said a plat of subdivision could be filed.† The plan would provide some guidance as to the most appropriate location for that development.† It was preferred to have that level of development occur closer in to the city.† The Planning Commission voted to continue the first meeting so everyone would have the opportunity to review the planís recommendations before the second meeting.


Mr. Aubert asked for the neighborís parcel sizes.† Mr. Ribelin said they were three acres and sold for $37,000 each.† Most didnít like three acres due to the maintenance.† Local farmers were haying a lot of them.


Mr. Desch said they were aware of the number of three acre tracts and the issues to provide services. †He understood their concern about having the right to make decisions about their property.† The plan was a concept and would be reviewed each year and revised if needed.† The plan would help them make decisions on cases that came before them.† Every county resident paid taxes.† A portion was used to maintain the roads.† Utilities were shared.† Unplanned growth was a concern.


Mr. Ribelin said the taxpayers and townships paid for the roads.† Menoken Township took pride in their roads and spent $130,000 per year for gravel.† He served on the fire board also.† The lines werenít big enough to afford fire hydrants and any change had to be approved by the fire board.† People needed to think about services when they bought property.† The plan shouldnít affect peopleís property rights.† The county wasnít providing utilities except for the existing roads.† Additional traffic would eventually cost the county more.† The county was getting the tax money and also getting money from houses being built.† The township got a percentage of the tax money.


Leroy Russell, 8141 SW Urish Road, Auburn, KS 66402.

         Owned 40 acres and property in other places.† Ran a cattle operation.

         Currently an Agriculture Agent with K-State Research and Extension.

         Saw both sides.† There were some good things and lots of bad things including the ability to manage their property.

         A lot of houses were built on Urish.† Road tops were being oiled so it wasnít so dusty.

         A lot of folks wanted the roads blacktopped.† Others moved to the country to be away from the city.

         A lot of traffic on the road and those folks didnít appreciate the farmers or watch out for them.

         Talked to a lot of farmers and not one farmer said they wanted the plan.

         Concerned his two children would not be able to each build a home.

         Was concerned about not being able to split his property if needed.


Mr. Aubert was hearing family splits were most concerning.† Stripping off frontage.


Mr. Marple said Williamsport Township had a budget of $800,000.† There were 4,000 residents in Montara.† Half of the budget went to Shawnee Heights Fire Department for 911 calls.


Mr. Desch never lived on a farm and understood their concerns.


Mr. Birtell was concerned about paying for road maintenance and wanted to know how the taxes from new homes figured into the road maintenance costs.


Mr. Jacques said there were many three acre lots, piano keys.† If those lots were part of a subdivision, the cost would be significantly less.† The city wasnít going to extend their water and sewer. Services needed to be considered if three acre piano keys continued being built throughout the county.


Mr. Birtell didnít think the county was paying for water and sewer. †The landowners paid for those.† New houses would generate the money to pay for services.


Mr. Jacques said law enforcement coverage was a lot easier within a consolidated place as opposed to spread out down the highway.


Mr. Tryon didnít think there was an absolute answer.


Mr. Dow said some analysis was completed in the transportation and infrastructure chapter.† They had considered the cost of providing and maintaining the infrastructure based on three acre lots along a section line road versus a platted planned subdivision with more homes closer together.† There would be less linear feet of roadways, water lines and sewer lines within a platted subdivision.† The plan would consider a county budget for capital improvements as well as one for all the other local units of government.


Mr. Ribelin asked how many counties in Kansas had a comprehensive plan.† Mr. Beagle said 20 counties had comprehensive plans as far as he knew including those counties surrounding Shawnee County.† The plans werenít identical, but they each addressed conditions and issues that exist within their respective countyís.


Mr. Tryon said they reviewed other plans and had visited Riley County.


Mr. Beagle said the plan was created from information compiled indicating the countyís present/past conditions so projections could be made for the countyís future.† RDG did a good job of looking at existing population characteristics to make projections for the future.† Through 2040, it was projected the countyís population would grow by 14,600. †At the same time, the city was hoping to grow by 11,000 leaving 3,600 to live elsewhere in the county. They needed to determine how to grow in a fiscally conservative manner also realizing environmental consequences of growth and development.


Mr. Dow stated the county could still grow by 14,600 in the unincorporated area even if the city captured 11,000.† The county planned for enough development to capture all growth in the unincorporated area.


Mr. Ribelin asked if the plan included the homeless as well as a reason why people were moving out of town.


Mr. Beagle said the plan recognized there was interest to move into the unincorporated area; however, would we continue the same practices as we have for the last several decades or could we accommodate the same growth in a different way to minimize some of the public costs.


Mr. Russell was concerned about some of the counties requiring 20 acres in order to build.† He serves on the board for RWD #3 in southwest Shawnee County.† They have had some challenges with the large amount of people coming in.† Most recently, they have had to enlarge lines, put more towers up and add more equipment.† There were enough new meters coming in so they could handle it fairly easily.


Mr. Desch asked where RWD #3 got their water.† Mr. Russell said it came from the city.


Arlen Kirkwood, 6638 NW 46th Street, Topeka, KS 66618.

         His family served 20 years in the military fighting for freedom and proud of the time they served.

         Thought the 160 page report had nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with a few people setting behind a desk trying to control everyone.


Carol Marple, 10249 SW Wanamaker Road, Wakarusa, KS 66546.

         Opposed to the plan.

         They paid for their land and it should be their right.

         Taking the rights away from those who want to move to the country and have three acres.

         Lived in several places that had a septic system or a lagoon.

         Need to think about why people wanted to move to the country.

         Had not heard anyone say at any of the meetings they thought it was a great comprehensive plan.

         The townships paid for roads, fire departments.† They work toward the challenges that they have.

         A fire hydrant wasnít on every corner but had pumper trucks and could call in mutual aid.† Thatís what the country was about.† We all help when we need to.

         Plan would be reviewed if approved but it didnít matter because the standards were already set.

         Shouldnít be able to dictate that an individual could only have one additional residence on a parcel.

         Disputed a comment from the last meeting.† If they sold three acres to a person to grow grapes, it would not affect their farming operation because they had safeguards in place.† And, if they sold the land, they would have to live with their decision.

         Trying to be responsible property owners.† The county had no right to infringe upon their rights.


Mr. McCurry asked if they were okay with more people moving to the country and if the county should control the growth.† Ms. Marple said if someone bought three acres next to hers, she was fine with that.† She didnít always agree.† It wasnít her business.† There were enough rules that werenít enforced and didnít think the county should control the growth.


Ed Peck, 3736 SE Stubbs Road, Tecumseh, KS 66542.

         Most rural people never had an opportunity to have a job in town with a retirement plan.

         Probably bought their acreage years ago and at a reasonable price.

         All prices have gone up.

         Small acre tracts were going to bring in a lot of money.

         Most were concerned because it was their retirement and didnít want restrictions placed on their property.


Jim Houchins, 5236 NW Landon Road, Topeka, KS 66618.

         Opposed to the plan.

         Bought 80 acres about thirty years ago and built a house.

         It was their dream to build a home out in the country but it was also part of their retirement plan.

         If their health declined, they would like to do what they want to do with their property.

         Taking their freedom away.

         Thought they were all good people and had a job to do.

         Served in the military.† The county was trying to take their freedom away from them.


Joyce Kneale, 6600 Lewelling Road, Topeka, KS 66619.

         Owns 640 acres with her brother.† Neither have children.† The last two of the family.

         Retired teacher and has her KPERs retirement.

         Her brother farms and has cattle.† The farm was his retirement.

         Property has been owned over 100 years, the house was 117 years old and they planned to stay.

         People have asked if they could buy their property and they declined.

         Was important for her brother to be able to sell it.

         Attended the meetings for the Mars project.

         Can see both sides.† Need to stop and think about the people.

         Farmers work hard.

         Her brother said he should have worked in town and had a retirement instead of farming.


John Reilly, 2247 SW Hodges Road, Topeka, KS 66614.

         Lived out southwest.

         Agreed with most of the people who spoke.

         Seemed like the county wanted to control peoplesí lives.

         Wanted to know if they believed in live and let live.


Mr. Houchins asked them to put themselves in a position if they were depending on their property as a retirement and nest egg.† He wondered if their attendance made a difference.† He hoped so.


With no further public comments, Mr. Tryon thanked everyone for their comments and closed the public hearing.


Mr. Jacques asked for the history on the three acre rule.† Mr. Beagle said it went into effect in 1992.† It was modified two years ago when the city set new standards within the three mile area that deviated from three acres and 200í frontage.† Prior to 1992, there were two options by which land could be divided to build a home.† One was three acres and 200í frontage.† The other was maintaining 50í frontage and 500í separation between dwellings.† The latter became impossible to determine as properties were developed over time.


Mr. Jacques said Wanamaker Road was horrific before it was widened beyond 37th Street because no one had any idea how many people would be coming into the city.† Mr. Beagle thought it was part of the disconnect that existed under the current situation.† Typically, in the unincorporated area, infrastructure support and development was reactive.† The infrastructure was always trailing the buildup of population to certain areas.† It was reacting to one and two homes being built at a time strung out along a roadway or even with a subdivision.† Over time, weíve had to react to improve the infrastructure instead of planning ahead and being proactive.


Mr. Jacques asked how the plan would change the reactive approach.† Mr. Beagle said the predominantly agricultural areas would be expected to remain agricultural.† Future growth and development would primarily be in the urban rural transition and the urban growth areas surrounding the city.† The traditional three acre lot splits would be allowed in those areas.† Currently, there were over 2,200 vacant residential parcels within the unincorporated area.† Without attaching any additional standard, individuals could get a building permit for those.† If those lots were developed, it would go a long ways in meeting the 3,600 expectation in growth in the future.


Mr. Jacques asked if the roads would be expanded from two to three lanes in the agricultural transition area.† Mr. Dow said Public Works identified the projects to be completed through the end of the countyís half cent sales tax in approximately 2035.† It was assumed those projects would be completed because the voters had approved them.† There were projects that specifically identified roads going from two to three lanes as well as some going from four to five.


Mr. Aubert asked if they would be complete streets.† Mr. Dow said a complete streets policy was adopted and it was supposed to apply to all of the county road projects.


Mr. Aubert asked about the cost of one million per lane per mile.† Most of the county roads he knew of were chip and seal including some well traveled commuter routes.† He wanted to know what a chip and seal road would cost.† He didnít think they were spending one million dollars.† Budgets would have to be larger to maintain one million dollar roads consistently.† Mr. Dow said the one million per lane per mile was an average that the sub consultant from CFS Engineering provided based on reviewing projects that were completed.† Tom Vlach and Tom Flanagan from Public Works provided a tremendous amount of historic data.† If chip and seal was used, it would probably save some money.


Mr. Aubert thought the three acre plat exemption had caused a lot of heartburn in making commuter roads.† Those roads were chip and seal and probably were cheaper than indicated.† He lived north on a three acre lot and loved it.† There were cows behind the house.† His children grew up rural.† He grew up six miles north of Silver Lake on a three quarter acre lot.† His family owned 80+ acres and ran cattle in Pottawatomie County.† His grandmother still lived at the old farm with 80 acres that his uncles farmed.† A lot of the comments about the agricultural land use really hit home with him.


Mr. Tryon said with any progression of a plan, some people would like it and some wouldnít.† He struggled knowing people had purchased property larger in size in order to leave it to their children.† On the other hand, the county had developed into areas with the piano keys mile after mile after mile.† It couldnít be ignored.† It was real.† He thought the plan started to address that issue.


Mr. Jacques thought it was a resource issue.† It was the same discussion about having to build commuter roads into the county because there were so many piano keys.† The county would then have to pay to update and expand those roads.† There was additional cost for law enforcement because a larger area of population needed patrolled.† They would also need to consider the cost for the expanded use of the townships, fire districts, etc.† It wasnít saying they couldnít have their three acres.† The county wanted people to build in a place where there would be support and move towards having growth in the right direction.† Move from a position of being responsive to being progressive.† Growth would be planned and directed in a way that would be beneficial to the county.† It wasnít just a sprawl everywhere.


Mr. Aubert thought 46th Street had the traffic because of the subdivisions.† The congregation of people has caused the traffic.† Mr. Jacques said eventually those people would have to go to school.† They would have to consolidate some place and thatís what it was on 46th Street.† But even the people from the three acres were coming there.† They all have to go to school some place.


Mr. Tryon said they had one of the most unique school districts probably in the state with Washburn Rural.† It was mandatory for every child to ride the bus.† There was no opportunity to walk to school.† It was a large school district.† He thought the countyís regulations had contributed to that.† It was the way the land was developed.† There werenít any sidewalks.† There wasnít any infrastructure to support a way to get to school except to bus them.† He wasnít saying it was good or bad or indifferent.† If they lived a block and a half away, they had to be bussed.† Was that the best resource to get the person to school.† He didnít have the answer.† It was unique across the state.


Mr. McCurry said from the comments he heard, people didnít want this.† He has always lived in the city and liked his water, sewer and cable.† His father lives in rural Wabaunsee County and his water came from a natural spring.† He couldnít be paid to live out there.† His father wouldnít want anyone to tell him what he could do out there.† Like the gentleman said live and let live.† If your neighbor sold all their land and you didnít like it, youíd have to live with it.† He didnít think people would support it.


Mr. Desch said the biggest complaint he heard from the two meetings held was they couldnít sell lots off their property. †He thought the plan defeated that completely because you can plat a subdivision.† He understood their concern.† But the stripping of the road fronts has caused a lot of problems.† He said previously the plan would be looked at every year.† He struggled with this a great deal.† He understood exactly what everyone was saying.† He didnít think it was that restrictive and it would change because of everyoneís concern.† In a section, 90 houses could each be built on three acres versus taking those 90 houses and platting them out on 25‑30 acres.† They have talked about changing the three acre lots.† Maybe they should have proposed a different amount.† He would vote in favor because he thought it would be refined.† They would still have their farms and they could sell them.


Mr. Tryon thought the best place to start was to offer a motion to approve the plan as presented.


Mr. Desch moved to approve the Comprehensive Plan as presented, seconded by Ms. Moler.† Mr. Tryon opened it up for discussion.


Ms. Moler heard what they were saying.† There were others who werenít present.† Jim Kaup did speak in favor.† There was one person who was in support.† There were two compelling items. †Shawnee County was designated an urban county.† We should plan and be stewards of our land.† Secondly, there was a lot of talk about people moving to neighboring counties.† But in reality, those counties have plans too.† That was why she was in favor.


Mr. Jacques believed a plan was needed.† He appreciated Mr. Deschís comment that it wouldnít prevent anybody from creating a subdivision.† There were problems with that because the same travel issues would exist.† He lives in the city.† He has 60í street frontage.† It was more than he wanted to mow.† He grew up in very rural area in Vermont on his grandfatherís farm where his dad decided to build a house.† His brother built a home there as well.† He thought about making an amendment to the motion to increase the number of related, direct descendant lots to three as opposed to one.


Mr. Tryon suggested voting on the motion as presented.† Mr. Jacques requested an amendment to change the number from one to three but they had to be blood relatives.† Mr. Desch said if it referred to only relatives, they would not be able to sell a lot to someone who wasnít related.† It would solve the problem if they wanted their children to live close.


Mr. Beagle said the plan would allow for the primary and accessory dwelling be farm related.† The amendment would increase the number to three and they would be tied to the farm through a familial relationship.† If it was a 60 acre farm, all three houses could be placed on the farm.


Mr. Desch asked if one had to be 20 acres.† Mr. Beagle stated the plan indicated an existing farm could have a primary farmstead and an accessory dwelling.† There was no minimum acreage required.


Mr. Jacques said that wasnít his intention because then you end up with a small apartment complex.† His intention was to say they could split off property to family.


Mr. Beagle said on an original farm tract, they could have two dwellings and split off a minimum three acre tract that had no connection with the farm for a separate residential dwelling.† Mr. Jacques said they talked about it before as a hired manís quarters or a mother‑in‑lawís suite.† He didnít think that adding a third there made sense.† He did think if they could figure out a way to split it off.


Mr. Jacques withdrew his motion.† If they wanted to give their child a lot to live on, he was sympathetic to that issue.† Prior to 1992, there was one set of rules that said if you spaced houses 500í apart you could fit a whole lot houses on your property.† Then it changed to three acres.† No one liked to be regulated or liked to have rules.† But sometimes the rules made sense for the common good versus an individual good.


Mr. Tryon wanted to know if a person who owned a farm would be prohibited from dividing it up for his children.† Mr. Beagle said if you wanted to subdivide land today, you could do so provided you maintain three acres and 200í frontage.† The exception would be within the three mile area where some additional dimensional criteria would apply.† You can only have one principal structure per lot.† The plan was recommending if you had an existing agricultural tract, you could have up to two residences on the same farm provided they were related to the operation of the farmstead.


Mr. Aubert had a problem with the maximum depth of two to one because it didnít just apply to the tract being split off.† It also applied to the mother lot.† If he already had a lot that made perfect sense to split off three acres, he might not be able to if it was already a fairly long lot.† He didnít know how that applied to farm tracts.† A really skinny long farm tract was not that appealing.† He thought it worked somewhat within the ETJ.† But he thought it was still pretty restrictive for people to have property lines that were developed years and years ago and they try to make a split and now have to go through the complete platting process.† A surveyor was expensive and you didnít know if it was going to be approved.† Agricultural farming was a business and business decisions were made.† These people that have farms here in Shawnee County and thereís people that want to live there and there were others who wanted to sell.† So, there was a customer and possible property owner that wanted to sell.† He thought they should be allowed to do it.† And the reason they were doing it was because it was a business proposition.† He thought they were getting in the way of an agricultural method of doing business.† They should be able to split it how they wish.


Mr. Beagle asked Mr. Aubert if he meant splitting it regardless of the two to one ratio or the number of tracts.† Mr. Aubert meant the two to one.† In the ETJ, that restriction was in place already.† He thought it was too restrictive but the city had jurisdiction in the ETJ unless they could somehow shrink it.† As far as the space between driveways, he thought that was restrictive as well.† They should be able to split it how they wish.† He thought three acres was the minimum because room was needed for a septic system.† He did believe a farmer should be able to include their children.† Some of the children might not be part of the farm.† There may only be one that farms.† The others would have nice houses next to each other.† He wanted to keep the three acre minimum.† He believed the plan was written with an idea of that being the enemy.† Shawnee Countyís plan seemed to be removing their rights.


Mr. McCurry liked the plan and it would be needed in the future; however, since the people werenít in favor, he didnít think he could support it.


Ms. Thadani said the recommendation to the County Commission would be the Planning Commission didnít recommend the plan as written.† It would go to the County Commission to make a decision but it wouldnít necessarily be an approval dependent on their final decision.


Mr. Desch moved to accept the Comprehensive Plan as presented, seconded by Ms. Moler.† With no additional discussion, Mr. Tryon asked for a roll call. †With a vote of 4-2-0, Commissioners Aubert and McCurry dissenting, the item was recommended for Approval.


Mr. Beagle said the County Commission would make the final determination in September.


Public Comment on Non-Agenda Planning and Zoning Items


There were no comments on Non-Agenda Planning and Zoning items.


Discussion of Planning Related Issues


There was no discussion of Planning related issues.




Mr. Jacques moved to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Moler, a unanimous voice vote declared the public hearing be adjourned, which was at 8:18 p.m.