# Urban Growth Management Advisory Committee Meeting - September 19, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 19, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5913 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5913?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-09-19 - **Last revised**: September 19, 2023 - **Length**: 18,990 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban Growth Management Master Plan Advisory Committee met on September 19, 2023, at 10:00 A.M. at 200 E. Main St. Government Center, Council Chambers. Larry Forester presided over the meeting, which included six agenda items covering welcome remarks, approval of the previous meeting summary, refinement of mapping materials, other business, committee questions and comments, and adjournment. The committee took seven votes during the session and heard no public comments. The meeting resulted in approval of the previous meeting summary, while the remaining agenda items were informational in nature. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on September 19, 2023: * Larry Forester * James Brown * Todd Clark * Alison Davis * Chuck Ellinger * Andi Johnson * Todd Johnson * PG Peeples * John Phillips * Kathy Plomin * William Wilson * Zach Worsham * Judy Worth * Dan Wu Alison Davis arrived late to the meeting. No members were absent. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included seven votes, six of which passed unanimously and one that failed. **Approve the previous meeting summaries** — Motion by Zach Worsham, seconded by Andi Johnson. Passed unanimously, 14-0. **Remove Areas C2 and C3a from consideration for expansion** — Motion by Dan Wu, seconded by Kathy Plomin. Passed unanimously, 13-0. **Include Area D** — Motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Kathy Plomin. Passed unanimously, 13-0. **Include Areas E1 and E3** — Motion by Andi Johnson, seconded by Todd Johnson. Passed by roll call vote, 13-1. Judy Worth voted against the motion. All other members voted in favor. **Include Area A2 for expansion** — Motion by Dan Wu, seconded by James Brown. Failed by roll call vote, 7-7. Members voting in favor were Larry Forester, James Brown, Andi Johnson, Todd Johnson, William Wilson, Zach Worsham, and Dan Wu. Members voting against were Todd Clark, Alison Davis, Chuck Ellinger, PG Peeples, John Phillips, Kathy Plomin, and Judy Worth. **Include Areas B1 and B2** — Motion by Dan Wu, seconded by William Wilson. Passed unanimously, 14-0. **Make this the final meeting** — Motion by Dan Wu, seconded by Judy Worth. Passed unanimously, 14-0. ## Contested Items **Inclusion of Area A2** The committee voted on a motion to include Area A2 for expansion. The vote resulted in a tie, which led to the motion's failure. This split decision indicated significant disagreement among committee members regarding whether Area A2 should be incorporated into the expansion plans. **Affordable Housing Considerations** Committee members engaged in a heated discussion about the impact of expansion on affordable housing. The debate centered on differing views regarding the correlation between expansion and land availability as it relates to affordable housing. Members held opposing positions on how the proposed expansion would affect affordable housing outcomes in the area. ## Welcome Planning Commission Chair Larry Forester welcomed the committee and provided an overview of procedures for casting votes during the meeting. ## Approval of previous meeting summary The committee reviewed and approved the summary from the previous meeting. Key speakers on this agenda item included Zach Worsham and Andi Johnson. The summary was approved without noted objections or concerns. ## Refining the Map The committee discussed various areas for inclusion in the Urban Service Area, taking into account public input and infrastructure needs. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Jim Duncan, Dan Wu, and Kathy Plomin. **Discussion** The committee considered which areas should be included in the Urban Service Area, weighing factors such as public feedback and existing infrastructure requirements. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal decision or action required at this time. ## Other business During this agenda item, the committee discussed next steps and intentions for ongoing work with the Planning Commission. Jim Duncan led the discussion on this matter. The outcome of this discussion was informational in nature, with no formal decisions or action items recorded. ## Questions and comments from the Committee Committee members Todd Johnson, Dan Wu, and James Brown raised questions and offered comments regarding the expansion areas and the associated process. The discussion focused on clarifying details about the proposed expansion and the procedures being followed to implement it. Committee members sought additional information about the expansion plans and offered their perspectives on the process. The outcome of this agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal decisions or resolutions reached during this portion of the meeting. ## Adjourn The meeting was adjourned after concluding all agenda items. Larry Forester presided over the adjournment of the session. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Remove Areas C2 and C3a from consideration for expansion - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Include Area D - **Motion** — passed (13-1): Include Areas E1 and E3 - **Motion** — failed (7-7): Include Area A2 for expansion - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Include Areas B1 and B2 - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Make this the final meeting - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Approve the previous meeting summaries --- ## Full transcript Good job. Alright, get a drink. And we're going to speed it up a little bit. And this song is feeling hot. You may be feeling a little hot right now. So we're going to fan ourselves on this one. So we're going to start with the tap out to the side. Okay? And then he says feeling hot, hot, hot. So we're going to fan ourselves. Hot, hot, hot. And then we're going to wipe the sweat off. Okay? hot hot hot wipe this one off we have in here a shimmy now a shimmy is just moving your shoulders front and back okay so when we do shimmy you want to plant your feet why because we're going to go to shimmy front shimmy back shimmy front so shake those shoulders if you don't want to show me you can just lean front and back but it's more fun to shimmy so give the shimmy and try then we're going to have punches forward and up or you can just do forward the whole time if your shoulders bother you we're going to have choo-choo legs so we're going to choo-choo arms we're going to touch our heel out and our arms are going to go around in a big circle like that okay and then we have a big wave ole ole ole ole or you can do it down here okay and then we fan ourselves again. All right, this is feeling hot. We have sparkle arms in here too. This is a good line for anyone. Touch out to the sky. Here we go. Last time, hot, hot, hot, wipe that sweat off. To the side. Three, four, band yourself. Sparkle arms around, big arms. Other way, put those fingers nice and strong. Again, shoulder issues, just stay down low. Last time, plant your feet, shimmy. Right back, now to the left Shake the boom boom boom boom Shake the boom boom, whatever that is Jimmy, come on Use those abs to go forward and back Big wave Work here Stand yourself Like this, right off Here's some of our punches forward, up. Nice strong arms. Remember, you can just punch forward if you want to. Up. Good job. Keep going. Choo-choo arms and heels. Big circles around with the arms. Shake it. Other side. Forward and back. Oh you don't have to shimmy, you just go forward and back. Or shimmy. Wave it. Good job. Shoulders pressed down, stand yourself, wipe off the sweat. Back to crunches. Big jump. Good job. Strong arms. Choo-choo arms and heels. Good job. Big circle. Posture check. Sit nice and tall. Chilling. Other side. Good job. Let's wave. Good job. Hand yourself. Wipe it off. Nice job. All right, get a drink, make sure you stay hydrated. And now we're gonna do another oldie. This is twisting the night away. So of course we're gonna have twists in there. So you're gonna twist your feet and your arms, okay? We're gonna start with a heel up, down, heel up, down, heel up, down, heel up, down. Now you can keep your hands on your hips if you want to. Okay. Or you can add the arms which are down, up, down, down, up, down, down, up, hips, down, up, hips. Let me think what else we have in there. Oh yeah. When we do twist in the night away, we're going to do tap, tap, tap, tap, twist in the night away. Okay. So get that twist in there. and then we're going to lean up they say lean up so we're going to shimmy again a little slower lean up come to center this is where you want to make sure you're sitting towards the front of your chair because you're going to lean back too and when you do that leaning you're going to engage your abs okay so be aware of that use those abs here we go twist in the night away Okay. Heel up, down. You can keep your hands on your hips or follow with your legs. Heel up, down. Heel up, down. Heel up, down. Keep going. Good job. Twisting. Good job. Heel up, down. Heel up, down. Heel up, down. Keep going. One more. Twist it. Now tap that toe right and left. Tap it. Now twist. Tap it. Heel up, down. Heel up, down. Heel up, down. Are you sitting up tall? And don't hold your breath. Sometimes when we think about what we're doing, we tend to hold our breath. Heel up, down. Here, up there. Good job. Keep going. One more. Tap in. Tap in. Twist in. I know you know how to twist. Here we go. Tap in. All right. Lean up. Come to center. Lean back. Lean up again. Use those abs. And back. Now we're going to tap out to the side. Here we go. Bring the elbows up. Good job. Here you go. Twist it. Heel up, down. Heel up, down. Heel up, down. Good job. Twist it. Heel up, down. You're doing great. Keep going. Heel up, down. Twist it. Tap it. Here we go. Right and left. Twist it. Tap it. Twist it. lean up, come to center, lean back, come up, and back, out to the side, tap it up, to the end. Good job. One last one. Nice job. Alrighty. We are going to do, this is called Viva La Swing and this is a French song. We're going to start with our snaps. So we're going to snap out, pull it in, snap out, pull it in. You're going to kick, kick, kick, kick, and then our shoulders are going to go up and down. Okay, so you just push them up and down, alternate them. If you don't want to kick, you can tap. That's perfectly fine. Then we're going to take tap out, come in, roll the arms, tap out, come in, roll the arms three times, and then we're going to shake our shoulders. Same thing, other side. Reach it out, reach up, and out three times, and then we're going to do our shoulders. We also have some runs in here. So we're going to run one, two three four five six seven cross open cross open one two three four five six seven cross open cross open and there's uh one section we're going to run for about three or four eight so you're really going to have to use your abs get those legs up there as high as you can if you want to or you just can keep it you can keep it low um that's it for this one so this is viva-less swing Bounce to the heels. Sit up nice and tall. Ready? Kick it out. And step. Shoulders. Again. Kick it and step. Good job. Kick it. Last time. Shoulders. Tap it to the right. Tap in. Roll the arms. One more. Shoulders. Other side. Roll. Tap in. Roll. Shoulders. Kick and snap. Shoulders. Kick and snap. Hold on, go on. out there. Tap it. Roll it. Tap. One more. Shoulders. Tap. To the left. Shoulders. Run. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Cross open. Seven runs. Gotta use those abs. Run. Cross, open, cross, open. Last time. Cross, open, kick it. You're going great. Shoulders. Come on, let me see those shoulders. Kick it. Shoulders. Tap it out. Tap and roll. Shoulders. Up and down. Other side to the left. Shoulders. All right. Run in. Keep going. Come on. Shoulders. Run seven. Cross it open. Two. Six. Good job. Again. Last time. Cross helping. Snap and kick. You did it. Shoulders up and down. Here you go. Again. We're almost there. One more. Hang in there. Shoulders. And giving a big finish. Shoulders up. Nice work. All right. Get a drink after that one. we're going to slow it down a little bit and this is another oldie this is be my baby so we are going to reach across we're going to reach reach reach reach and then we're going to do a walk. We're going to go one, two, three, lift. One, two, three, lift. And our arms are going to wash the windows. Okay. One, two, three, lift. One, two, three, lift. One, two, three. One, two, three. Then we're going to push out, be my baby. Okay. So it's push, pull, and push around. And then we We have some toe taps in here too. So this is Be My Baby. We're gonna start with the reach across and the leg goes out to the side. Reach. Here you go. Really stretch it out and push that arm extended. Now one, two, three, lift. One, two, three, lift. One, two, three, lift. Lift. Keep going. Back control now. Don't slouch down. That's easy to do. Ready? Reach to the right. Push. And come around. And come. You're using your abs. One more. Push across. And push. Really extend both the arm and the leg. Keep going. You're doing great. One, two, three, lift. One, two, three, lift. Lift that leg up off the chair. But don't come down like that. Keep your back tall. Good. Keep going. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. First up, I want to do a little tutorial here. The individuals that are on this committee, if you're not accustomed to using Granicus, When you're requesting to speak, there's a little button there, request to speak. Just hit that button, your name will come up and we will go in that order. And also we will now be able to vote via Granicus as well. So all our votes will be accounted for and should be posted up here once we get to that point. So just want to make sure that little laundry list of pieces out there. Welcome everyone and let's get this meeting started. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. You all are just doing remarkably. This attendance, and we're expecting Dr. Davis as well, so perfect attendance again today, and thank you all for that. I want to punctuate something that the chair just said about Granicus. Half of you, council members and planning commission members, are familiar with that system. The other half of you probably have not used it before. But it is a way to record your votes and to show the participation. So this is a work session, just as the other meetings have been, even though our setting is more formal and you're there and we're here and all dressed up and everything. But the point of today's meeting is to get some work done. So if in using Granicus you have any questions, please either look to your neighbor who may know something, or Donna and Rachel will be happy to help you with that. And the same as we go through today. So we want to make this a purposeful session for you all. So let's feel free to engage the staff and to continue the work that you all have done to get us to this point. Mr. Chair, I want to just review a few things from the last few meetings and certainly the public input meeting. Remind the committee that you all did receive the public input report as of the middle of last week, I believe, and we collected additional information which we sent out yesterday, I believe. So we'll continue to share the public input that we received with you all. And that public input meeting was very important, so we'll get to that in just a moment. But I do want to review some of the other things that we've done so far to get us to this point, which is now the last two meetings that we have scheduled for this work group, for this committee. We've been reviewing a lot of information, all towards fulfilling the council's goal of expanding the urban service area as part of the 2023 comprehensive plan. Council gave us some specific guidance to look at as far as the location of the land. And then also asked us to consider other factors such as infrastructure and rural land preservation and the horse capital of the world and some of those kinds of things. And so we presented that to you as well. We've talked about the PDR program and conserved land. We've talked about the rural settlements and where those interact with the lands that you all have been considering. And we've talked a lot about water quality, about sanitary sewer, because, of course, you can't have urban development without sanitary sewer, and it's a major component of any of these decisions. As part of this project, of course, we will need to ensure that we're addressing the sewerability of the new land. So if we're going to bring in new land, we need to have a plan for how we're going to provide sanitary sewer to that. But really as an extra part of this project, we have the opportunity to solve some of the water quality problems that we have right now to address some of the consent decree issues that we've been working on for the past 15 years or so. Some we don't. There are some in the vicinity that would address consent decree that do not, some properties do not meet the council's criteria. So there's a mismatch there. But in others, there are. So I encourage the committee to continue to keep an eye out for how we can address, in the public interest, the water quality issues of the community as we're working at this project. And Director Martin continues to support us with his presence today to address any questions like that. And just a few more words about sewerability. Of course, from the engineer's perspective, they're looking at contour lines because they're looking at how can sewer be served by gravity flow. From the planning perspective, we look more at property lines because that's a much easier tool to manage on paper and then on the ground once you start development. But to the extent that we can put those two together, we want to do so. There may be some areas where on your maps you're seeing property lines extend beyond sewerability lines. We'll be glad to talk with you about how we would recommend addressing that. And then there are other places, as we've said, that could solve some water quality problems. It may not even show up in some of the larger parcels that you are choosing to include, but it could be possible to address them through a smaller incremental decision through this committee. And then at some point we can also talk about how do we come back and address some of the other water quality issues in the vicinity, which we think may show up as a separate project once this one is completed through the Planning Commission in 2024. Happy to keep that conversation going. In the meantime, I want to give you a review of the public input that we received last week. Now, we're not going to review the comments, but what we have done is taken the specific comments that related to the maps from the property owners or the property owners' representatives and depicted those graphically so that you all can see what was said about who wants to be in the urban service area and who doesn't. That has been a recurring question from the beginning from some of you. Do we even know who wants to participate to be a part of the urban service area? Do we know who's willing to develop if their land is expanded? Well, thanks to last Tuesday night, we have a much clearer picture of that, and that should be able to help us as we advance through our work. So, just reviewing quickly, ABC clockwise, the properties on the west side of town, the ones indicated in green, were represented at the public input meeting by their owners or their representatives saying they want to be included in the urban service area and they are prepared for development. Area C, the committee's preferred area along Winchester Road and the east central area. On the far west of this area, the large parcel owners, most of them, or their representatives said, yes, we want to be included and we're ready to develop. The large parcel owners on the lower east said, yes, we want to be included and we're ready to develop. And then the two large parcel, two large property owners with about four or five parcels in the middle specifically said, no, we do not want to be included and we do not foresee urban development on our sites for the foreseeable future. Area D, we heard from one property owner here who said, yes, I want to be included and I'm ready to develop. And I will also tell you overnight, we received an email communication from the attorney representing this property where the letter D is and this property that we've called the Pond property. And the representative for both of those properties said, yes, we want to be included and we're ready to develop. Representatives and owners for the parcels off Todd's Road in Area E, the upper part of Area E, the upper parcels, said, yes, we want to be included and we're ready to develop. In addition, you heard from the representative, the property owner for the parcel off Athens Boonesboro that is surrounding part of the commercial portion of Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. This area had been shown in an earlier draft, but was not presented for public review at the public input meeting. However, the property owner said, yes, we want to be included and we're ready to develop. And then in addition, you heard from one other property owner near the Hayes Boulevard, aphids intersection along 8th and Spoonsboro here in Green, that said they wanted to be included as well and they were ready to develop. However, you have not reviewed this property or any properties around it as part of this project. So where we are now, looking at what the property owners have said that they want to do and they don't want to do, I believe that you are in a better position to start putting some ink on these maps and moving us forward, remembering that we've got a minimum and a maximum that we can achieve, and we can certainly help you go through those. So to get us started, we've taken the area C, which is your preferred area, going into the public input meeting, and sort of divided it along the lines of the properties that said yes and the properties that said no, creating three areas in this case. So C1 on the left, most of that said yes. C2 in the middle, most of that said no. And C3 on the right, the two large parcels said yes. The unusual inclusion in C3 is the rural settlement of Utengertown and Columbus, and we did hear some sentiment about that at the public input meeting as well. So to further break that down, if we were not interested in including something like the rural settlements and those smaller lots, then we divided it into four areas. Still C1, C2, C3A, and C3B. Sounds like we're auditioning for Star Wars here. So C, I'm not sure I've got, if your eyes are better than mine, I'm not sure I can read all that. But C1, I believe, is 1,017 acres. and I cannot read what C3B says, but it's listed there on the screen and on your maps. So, Mr. Chair, we could go through all the areas like this, but I tend to recommend that we linger on this one since this was your priority area to begin with and just see are we ready to start making some decisions about Area C. Okay, Mr. Duncan, thank you for the clarification and the development of the maps. As a committee, we have discussions on this particular map. You can do so by requesting to speak. Mr. Johnson. Just a point of clarification. I think Mr. Duncan is on the red. I'm sorry. Learning. Mr. Dunn, if I could just clarify one thing on C3B. I believe that the public input session that we held here in the chambers, there was record from the property. I don't have a pointer, but it's basically the Elam property. They were here to speak publicly about their wish to be included. Is that, am I remembering that correctly? Mr. Johnson, and the reason that's not colored in is not because we weren't in it, but they did not provide property addresses. So we weren't going to presume which properties were theirs. In every other case, the speaker provided an address. But yes, Elam Village, which is just to the left, right in here, we believe that that's the area that Mr. Elam or his representative was talking about. But yes, they did express their desire to be included as well. Okay, thank you. Mr. Duncan, I think in the public meeting notes, was it Greg Elam? Is that the gentleman you're talking about? Or the Elam property? Yeah, 3740 Winchester. Does it have that in there? It may have that in there. It's a lot of information. Okay. I'll just make sure you know. But yes, but to punctuate what Mr. Johnson said, yes. Okay. The vicinity of these properties that were represented by the person speaking on behalf of the Elam family, yes, they did want to be included as well. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. To me, this whole process at this point is kind of a math problem and a jigsaw puzzle of putting all these different pieces together and what combinations of these pieces will get us to what kind of acreage and also which of these areas and or properties gives us the most heartburn. So I think C is a good starting point, and I myself like this map that has the – it's segmented into four because I think keeping the rural settlements, the hamlets, out of consideration for the expansion I think is a really important piece. We've heard a lot of folks speak on that, about protecting the hamlets, and I think keeping C3A out of expansion consideration, I think, is a good move, and it only loses us 209 acres. As to C2, I think it's fairly clear those folks have directly expressed to us that they don't want in, and as we know, it doesn't show on this map, but the top of C2 north of Royster Road, there are a couple of big PDR farms. So in that sense, too, since having that buffering and distance from PDR farms is something that's important to us, I think that kind of solves that problem. So I think this is a start. Once we start cutting into C, that obviously means we need to start looking at the other areas to even get us to our minimum acreage. So I would make a motion that we remove C2 and C3A from consideration for expansion. So moved. Okay. Ms. Johnson, you're here to speak. Do you want to add something to that? Or are we going to? Yeah. We need a second first. Okay. You want to second that, Ms. Plum? No, you got it. All right. so we got a motion in a second now miss johnson do you want to add or i was just going to add that this may be a late submission mr duncan but i believe the property at 2575 the miller property it's half in half out um that those property owners had expressed an interest in in coming in and i think they had done that previously with a jobs related project. So I just, and this may not be the appropriate time for it, but at some point coming back to talk about some of those properties in C1 that are contiguous to the boundary. And I thought that 1900 Hume Road, there might have been some water quality reasons for potentially bringing that one in. But I just don't want us to forget about 2575 and make sure that that's part of the decision. Ms. Johnson, let's clarify. C1, so when we're showing the green there that just represents the speaker who came to the public input meeting. That's all still included. But the fullness of C1 there, yes, the Miller property, the Hume Road properties, all of those are part of C1. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Okay, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. So the motion is to remove C2 and C3A from consideration. Is that correct? That's correct. Yes. Okay, so I have a question probably pertaining to Director Martin. In our conversations around this area and the Greenbrier pump station, does this impact your fix on that pump station if these properties are removed? The conversation on how to be able to replace the Greenbrier 2 pump station becomes more difficult without getting permission from a property owner somewhere in C2 to allow us to build a new pump station. You know, I think we've talked about this in the previous meetings about whether or not it has to be inside the urban service boundary versus it'd be a separate agreement that allows the infrastructure to be outside the urban service boundary and be on a property that's that can't connect to it that's a separate conversation but i think that what you're asking me is is c3b has to go to a greenbrier pump station and the current one cannot handle that we would have to improve that but whether c3b is in or not we have to do greenbrier to pump station either way Right, and that was actually my question. My understanding is the consent decree will require the city to fix that problem at the Greenbrier pump station one way or another. So what would your options be to fix that pump station if C2 was removed? I think we still have to have a conversation with the property owner across the street. and then we would also have to have some type of council action that allowed us to be able to build infrastructure outside the urban surface boundary. That's been the past practice. Sorry, Chair. Since you're there and you mentioned C3B, which I'm assuming will come in another conversation here in a little bit, if C3B were to remain in later on in our discussion today, just to clarify so we can be thinking about it, the fix on the Greenbrier pump station, whenever that comes, could accommodate the sewerability of C3B? If it were added, it would have to. Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to state for the record, because I've said it several times about the inclusion of the hamlet, the rural settlement. I do personally think that they need to be included, but if all the areas surrounding the hamlets are not included, then I think it's fine to not include them in our consideration. So I'll support this motion, even though personally I think the hamlets ought to be in if the areas around the hamlets come in. So that's all I have, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Wilson? Yes, I will. I was getting ready to call for the question. That's all. Okay. So the motion on the table is to remove C2 and remove C3A, and it was second by Ms. Clowman. So we can vote via Granicus. Okay. Oh, yeah, it's going to come up. Remove C2 and... c2 and c3a okay We have we got all the votes. Todd, PG, Judy. Thank you. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Is it going? We had a unanimous vote. Mr. Chair, we're going to try to show that on the screen, but in that case it was a unanimous. It was a unanimous. Okay. Yes. With Dr. Davis not present yet. Okay. Yes. And do we have a tally where we are yet on the acreage? Okay. We'll get you a tally on the acreage as we're going along. All right. Thank you. Okay. So that seems to, at least for the moment, settle Area C. Yes. Okay. So areas D and E, again, the entire area surrounded in yellow is included. In this case, we have broken E into three areas. E1, the Todd's Road properties only. E2, the properties along Cane Break. And then E3, building back in the property in the vicinity of Blue Sky that was requested at the public input meeting Tuesday night. Area D is not broken down any further than you've seen it before. There we go. And we'll be happy to address any questions or guide you, walk you through this if you want to do anything with areas D and E. And just to punctuate area D includes the Brenda Cowan Elementary School. That's the odd shaped property. And then it also includes the upper two properties that have requested in writing to be included in the urban service area and are ready to develop. We have any changes, additions, statements, Mr. Phillips? Yes, first of all, I'd like to thank the providing the soil maps that were given to us here today. To me, it's very relevant information. So to add to my credibility later on, I note that Area D is perhaps the least favorable in terms of any kind of soil map or farming possibility, as indicated in the soil information there. And because we are required to find at least a minimum amount of developable land, and knowing that the Area D is really dominated by people who want to develop and from what information I've been given can do so quickly, I'm inclined to occur with Area D. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask a couple clarifying questions, Director. That southeast corner of D that is not included, it's basically that little triangle at the corner of 8th and Spoonsboro and 75. What is the reason that that's not part of the consideration area? That is presently part of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. So that's already included in the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, just as property across the interstate is as well. It's on sanitary sewer. It has urban zoning or the potential for additional redevelopment in urban zoning. So there would be nothing adding to the goal of new development areas if you were to include Blue Sky at this time. So my main question with that, and if we can get that map back up. My main question with that is part of our consideration for expansion is contiguity. So if we have patches of rural activity centers, does that break up the contiguity potentially? So let's say, for example, if we wanted to bring in those bottom two parcels of E2, they wouldn't be contiguous to the existing USA because of the rural activity center, right? So how does that impact that consideration? That E3 would be a question, Vice Mayor. This does not have any effect on D. All of that property meets the criteria. But should you choose to include Area E, even if you include the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, it is not adjacent to the urban service area. However, it doesn't have to be. The council criteria said on a major corridor or adjacent to the urban service area or in common ownership with one of those two. So your own criteria allow you to do that because it's on two major corridors. Okay. So that word or versus the word and is very crucial. Yes, that was an important conjunction. Yes. Okay. Okay. The other question I have, too, and this might be for other members of the committee, I can see the value and the reasoning for E1 being that the property owners want to come in. It's adjacent to some, I think, apartment buildings in that little upper triangle of 75 and Todd's Road. for me in my mind and obviously we're not here to determine what the usage is going to be but if we're already seeing some higher density residential there there's not a lot of residential existing around it so hopefully we wouldn't have as much pushback on building more density you know that that area makes a little bit more sense to me the question that I have is about E2 I'm I'm making an assumption here but it seems as though we're bringing in E2 mainly as a means to connect with E1 from Athens Boonesboro. So I don't know I'm asking intent here or if I'm asking other members of the committee to sort of either justify or tell me why E2 is important and why can't we bring in E1 without it. I don't know that that's a question for you director but if you want. I'm happy to address it if you'd like, Vice Mayor, or not. Go for it. Okay. So we had included, the staff had included E2 because it met the council criteria. It was adjacent to a corridor. And as you said, it also provides a corridor connection from the Todd's Roads properties to Athens Boonesboro. At some point potentially providing relief for this Todd's Roads property plus the other properties north of Todd's Road and in the vicinity of Polo Club, better access to the interstate than perhaps what they have now. Now, there's a lot of ifs that have to come together. Of course, you all traveled that road on a bus and you saw that it's in no condition to take a lot of traffic. But the right-of-way exists. And in some places, that right-of-way is 75 feet wide. So there's sufficient right-of-way in the future with another public project to build a connector road into the E1 area. That's the primary purpose of that. Of course, the E2 properties themselves lend dubious opportunity for development to the urban area. But I can also tell you, and then back to our earlier conversation, that including something like this at this time, And again, I'm not necessarily being a strong advocate, but I'm saying that these are the opportunities. So we've got years from now an opportunity for a road connection into the E1 development. More immediately, we've got an opportunity to look at the properties on the other side of cane break that do not qualify for inclusion based on the council criteria, but that would address consent decree issues with the sanitary sewer and could provide other improvements to these properties out here. So that doesn't necessarily get you your sanitary sewer improvements right now, but it sets you up for a future project that would just potentially be looking at what additional work do we need to do on the urban service area to address our sanitary sewer issues. So kind of two reasons for that. And that's, I'm not doing that. Yeah. Thank you, Director. Vice Mayor, I'm going to want to talk more about E1 and E2, but it seems to me like we don't have a whole lot of discussion about D. I would like to move that we go ahead and include D and then continue our conversations about E1 and E2, E top, bottom. Okay. We got a motion to include. D and have further discussion on E1 and E2. Is that correct? And E3? Okay. And we have a second by Ms. Plowman. We have discussion items. Mr. Johnson? I'm going to withdraw my request this time, Chair. I just want to do something different. Okay. All right. Mr. Phillips? Could you just restate your motion? Yes, the motion was to include D, remove E1, E2, well, excuse me, include D, have a discussion on E1, E2, and E3. For a separate motion. For a separate motion. So D is included, but I want to have further discussion on E1, E2, and E3. Chair, can I make a clarifying question on that? I'm sorry to interrupt you, John. Yes. Do we need a motion to discuss areas? I feel like the only motions should be adding and subtracting areas of consideration, right? But I don't know that we need a motion for continued discussion. I think Ms. Wirth's piece is, if there was other discussions on E1, E2, and E3, she wanted that option to be. Actually, that was a comment with the motion. The motion was to go ahead and accept D. Gotcha. Thank you. All right. Okay, any further discussion? Okay. Some is worse. Ms. Plowman, can she second on the screen? Ms. Plowman, can you second it on the Granicus? No, you got to hit your button. Oh, they're doing good. Thank you. All right, then we'll vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously with exception of Ms. Davis, who's not here. Why don't we see if we can get a tally on where we are on the amount of land we have. Yeah, we're about it. Chair, point of order. Have we accepted C1 and C3, or do we just not accept the others? Because I don't think we actually voted, did we, to accept C1 and C3 yet? I think you're right. Just as a point of reference to your point of order as such, there's a couple ways the chairs could handle this. Number one, he could wait until we had cleared all of them and then just vote them all in, the ones that we have identified as it, because we could wind up having to go back and retract something from someone else, depending upon what they find out in terms of the total acreage. So the Chair's got a choice. He can take them in one at a time or he can take them in as a group. Chair, do you mind if I address Council Member Ellinger's question? Where we are when we entered this meeting this morning is that we had voted to add all of C. That was our previous vote from this committee. So my motion removed parts of that. So we don't need to vote to include those parts because that's where we started. So we basically now have two chunks of C, and then we're moving on from there. I believe that is correct. If that's the case, can we have a running total then of where we stand? Yes, we do. That's what they're doing right now. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger, they're working on the running total now. They're going to show us. You're going to show us the maps as well. I can tell you. Thank you. So Area C1, I'll do the gross acreage first since we're on the lower end right now and gross and net is important. As you remember, you all have said you want to return net 2,700 acres. So Area C1 is 1,017 acres. Area C3B is 568 acres. and area D is 641 acres. So that's 2,226 gross acres, 2,046 net acres, 2,226 gross, 2,046 net areas C1, C3B, and D. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And Area E is still on the page. Mr. Wirth. I said I would have some more questions. As I recall, and I'm not opposing Area 3, I just want some more conversation about it. we brought that in at the end of a meeting and we were not given scores for e like we were for the other parcels so my question to planning staff is did you all have a score for that area like we got for the other areas and if so could you share it with us area e1 was not studied in the sewer ability study and that was the basis of a number of the scoring criteria. So no, there's no way to do a comparable scoring for the Todd's Roads properties as we did for the rest of the properties that are part of the sewer ability study. However, Director Martin, if you need to, he can speak to the viability of that area for sewer ability. Yes. So you remember, let's see if I can work this thing properly. Is it, whoops. Here, help me out here. I didn't get the training going here. Which one gives me the highlighter? Oh, it's the top one. Yeah. Ah, okay. So you'll recall we talked about, this was originally, this pond parcel was in area D. And we recognized that was an error in the sewer ability study because it wants to drain. in the direction of E, the two green parcels up here. And that's how they really came into the discussion. It started out was, this wants to drain across the interstate. We should probably look at these other two parcels as well. As it's turned out during the public comment, that they obviously are interested in developing. And so from a sewerability standpoint, the most efficient way to sewer this area is this area right here. It could be done. It would not be a very difficult thing to do. It would actually be one pump station. It would actually be serving more acres rather than building a pump station right there at the interstate and then maybe potentially having to build another pump station over on the other side of the interstate. Doing them as one is the most efficient way to do it. Does that answer your question? Yes. Yeah, who's that? Phillips. Johnson, this is an area that came to our attention, I think, because of your request. I don't want to say it's a high priority, but it obviously has landowners willing. This would be a preference to you? I think for the future development for the community, this is a good property to consider. I don't know that we came with any bias to priorities on any of the land that we've been talking about. But because of the sewer ability of this property, the history of the people who are involved in ownership and looking to develop the property, its location in proximity in the community it seems like it would be an ideal place to develop in speaking with the developer of one of the parcels there i know that they have already got a plan for housing pretty much ready to go as soon as they would be able to and i think it would probably be a project that you would see develop quickly if this property was brought in to start providing benefit for the community. Council Member Ellinger? Oh, you're good. All right. Mr. Johnson, you done? Ms. Johnson? I just wanted to speak in favor of E. I think there was, was there a map that had the three different areas up? Yeah. So I think on behalf of the business community, and I think we all saw this on the bus tour, E3 is in an area surrounded by commercial activity, and I think that the property owner is willing to develop that, and that makes sense from a jobs land perspective. So E1, E3 from housing and jobs seem to make sense and are reasonable and just want to support those being included. and is it appropriate at this time to make a motion? Yes, you can if you choose to. I think if we can go ahead and consider including E1 and E3, and then if we want to come back to E2 and continue to discuss that, we can, but those seem to have consensus. So my motion would be to include E1 and E3. I'd second that. We have a motion to include E1 and E3. We've got a second. by mr char johnson um any discussions to that motion question to mr duncan uh in terms of developing that area i know there's been a recommendation that we do a small area plan for the rural activity center how do you see developing that area around there frankly the rural activity center is kind of a mess right now how do you see that working out in terms of collaboration cooperation, go your own way, how would that work? I think at first, Ms. Worth, we would ensure that if this is committee and the planning commission includes that property, that that would be subject to the master plan. So we would want that at least addressed as part of the master plan. I could see, and this is kind of off the top of my head, but I could see the master plan making some general recommendations, at least for the Blue Sky properties in the vicinity, not necessarily the fullness of Blue Sky, some of the commercial properties around there and how they would interact with each other to ensure that there was good transportation connections and safe access and that kind of thing. And still, yes, still as a separate project, we would like to see a small area plan for the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. And I think as development gets closer and starts to touch Blue Sky in this way, that that will become all the more imperative and that the The property owners in Blue Sky will be very interested in the good outcomes of that. Mr. Phillips. Thank you, my friend there. I just have a real problem with moving down to the activity, the rural activity center. I would really prefer this to be a vote on E1 and E1 alone. And this is only my preference. It's your motion. But if you start including E2 or E3, I would have a problem with that. And I would prefer, if possible, to have it just a motion on E1. Yes, I'll move that as an amendment then. Thank you. Okay. You want to rephrase that? You got an amendment vote to take out E3? Take out E3 and further discussion on E2? E2 wasn't in? Just E3 then. Just E3. Yes, that's right. Johnson kept E2 out. I would move to amend that. All right. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion to that motion? Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate the amendment, but I would support including E1 and E3. The E3 primarily because as long as I've been on council, we've heard from the property owner at E3 on want to be included. And I think with all the commercial activity that's taking place at Blue Sky, I think with the expansion area master plan, they can recommend potential uses that will help further support the activity that's already in that area. So I would support, I'm not going to support the amendment, but I will support the original motion. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. So we got to take the amendment vote first, which is Mr. Phillips wanted to eat three removed. And then we had a second by that motion by Ms. Wirth. So we're going to take that vote first. Who seconded the amendment? Ms. Wirth. And then we have an amendment on the amendment? No, it was just the amendment. So we're taking a vote now on the amendment. Yes. Okay, that motion is denied. So now the original motion is back up on the table, which is to include E1 and E3. And that motion was made by Ms. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Johnson. So we'll take a vote as it comes available. include E1 and E3. Okay, that motion passes. Duncan, you can give us a total again. All right, now we've added E1 and E3. E1 is 350 gross acres. E3 is 43 gross acres for a total of 2619 gross acres. E1 is 340 net acres. E3 does not lose any acreage, that's 43 acres net as well. The tally for net acres is 2,429. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And Mr. Chair, have we tied the bow on E2 or is there more to discuss about that? I'm not sure we have consensus on E2. I think we want to move on. As I think I recall, we had Mr. Duncan talk about E2. I'm fading here. I'm getting old. Did we have Mr. Martin talk about sewer ability? Yes, and that doesn't address a consent decree, but it does address other sanitary sewer issues. Mr. Martin can speak to that. E2, as it's shown right now, is somewhat awkward to sewer, because it does have two separate drainage areas that go through it. So we're not basically encouraging it. We're not discouraging it either one. We could sewer it either way. You can do anything as far as the sewers. But E2 as it stands right now, based on the lay of the land, as I understand it, would require two pumping stations. Hello, man. Thank you, Chair. Director Duncan, this is kind of a general question that I have. So when we talk about exclusion and inclusion, how did folks out in the area know that they could come forward and say that? Was it only those at the public meeting that we had? I know we had attorneys that said we wanted to be excluded, included. I just wondered how that was handled. Councilmember Plummer, are you talking about the way that we coded the map, whether people wanted to be included or not included? How did we pull? How did we find out if they wanted it? I know some were at the meeting and said, I just didn't know. That's the only way. That's the only way, and they knew about that. If the other properties have not said one way or the other what they want to do. But they knew they could. I'm sorry? They knew they could. Well, I don't know if they all knew. I don't know. There was not an outreach to every property owner. Yeah. Okay, thank you, I just wanted that clarification. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Blumman. Mr. Johnson. Director Duncan, my interest in this area would be the proposal that you guys brought to the table on this for the connectivity from a planning perspective, which I'm not a planner, but just as someone exercising common sense and kind of looking at what makes sense. That connection makes a whole lot of sense for that area. Can you tell us how valuable, since E1 and E3 are in, or E1 is in, from your perspective as the planner, how important is that connection to you all and your scope? I'd be interested in that. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. The connections are very important for dispersal of traffic, first of all, and then to create other options for transportation, for travel. And in this case, because there will be potentially thousands of people living in the E1 area, having another access would be important. I'll be honest with you, the complication is, of course, the improvements to a road like that would likely largely fall as a public project. I don't believe that the properties on either the side that are shown in E2 or if there was a subsequent addition on the right side, the east side of Canebrake, that those property owners could be reasonably compelled to participate in improvements of the road. So that would be a public road project. But it is feasible if we felt that that was something that was going to help disperse traffic and provide opportunities. I do believe, Mr. Johnson, that in the master plan, whether the committee and the planning commission includes Area E2 or not, I do believe that we will work with the master plan team about setting up a potential for a future connection. It could be 20 years from now. but just to ensure that the Todd's Road's properties are not designed to be isolated. Right. Well, I really appreciate that insight and information. If the committee would support bringing in E2, I would support a motion to do that, just for the reasons that you stated and the importance to the connectivity. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Do you want to make a motion on that? Okay. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. My inclination on E2, first of all, the E1, E2 area were not in the original study. They were added a couple weeks into our process. The only reason that I'm more inclined towards inclusion of E1 is because the owners have told us that they want to develop. Mr. Johnson has said that these projects are, you know, close to ready to roll. It's already near some higher density residential. I am not inclined towards E2 because it feels as though all those properties, it looks like about a dozen properties, are being brought in just so we can widen the road, which I agree connectivity is important. Director Duncan, without bringing in E2, how do we go about creating that connectivity? I wouldn't say, Vice Mayor, that it's completely lost. Of course, you all know, being on the tour, that that cane break ends in a loop road, so it doesn't go all the way through to touch the Todd's Road properties. So there would need to be some cooperation on some of those properties on the E2 side. And then, again, as I say, I believe that even whether that's in the urban area or not, well, it would probably need to be in the urban area in order to do a major complete street-type road there. Whether you include it now, and I don't want to sound like I'm equivocating because we certainly want to set up connections as early as possible. We've seen the, especially the members of the Planning Commission and the Council, know how challenging it can be to come back 30 years later and try to connect a neighborhood to a sub street, stub street that's always been intended to connect, but it's developed around it and all of a sudden that's not so appealing. So as much as we can do to set this up for future connectivity, we'd like to do that now so that we don't have to have that fight 15, 30 years from now. I appreciate that, Director. In some ways, in the same way that we have a bunch of different considerations as to why we bring in land, sewer ability being one of them, but for me, and connectivity being another, for me, I don't think we can bring in land for one of those reasons only. that's kind of my issue with this i would have as people like to say less heartburn about it if multiple property owners in e2 had come out and told us that they would like to develop and that there was kind of a future for it i would feel better about it but we don't have that information we don't have any sort of real data on that area it hasn't been in our sort of major study so i feel like that connectivity issue can be solved in other ways and also moving forward in the future. And then one of the things I want to reemphasize with this whole process, this is not the last bite of this apple when it comes to expansion. I have spoken to a lot of folks on kind of both sides of the issue, and we've agreed that we would like this to be the last time we expand in this manner. And what we are building that we put into Goals and Objectives in Goal 4 was to create this more robust data and need-driven process that hopefully will be finished by the end of 2026. And then I would love to see us get into just a regular cycle of expansion based on need and data. So will E2 be expanded at some point? Maybe, you know, but I'd like to consider it in a different way than the way we've approached it. So I would not support bringing E2 in. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Now with that being said, and Mr. Johnson, you had a thought that you want to put the motion on the table to include E2 as a committee that we want to move on? I don't have a motion at this time on E2. Okay. Okay. Everybody's shaking their heads. Okay. Duncan, move on. Mr. Chair, that leaves the west side of the urban service area, areas A and B. And again, the properties colored in green were represented by the property owners at the public input meeting that they would like to be included in the urban service area and that they are prepared to develop for urban purposes. Oops. Thank you. Just as a reminder, we are at 2429 net acres. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. Is there any way that we can hear from Mr. Martin about the sewerability and the needs in this area? And if you can, kind of tell us where the infrastructure that you're talking about may be placed or would be preferred. Just a refresher. Let's see if we can find a more descriptive map, Mr. Brown. Yeah, I usually go with the blue lines. That usually helps me figure out where I'm at. I don't know where the property lines are all the time. But generally speaking, there is the existing Mint Lane pump station roughly about right there. That is behind Dunbar High School. It is basically landlocked back there. It is a consent decree driven project. It is under capacity. it's probably the second worst overflowing pump station we have during wet weather at some point in time we're going to have to deal with it right now the current schedule calls for having it mitigated to the satisfaction of epa by december 31st of 2026. the stream that it drains into roughly runs right along these property lines here i'm shaking here a little bit but it impacts these parcels right here and you remember from goal four when we talked about this a year ago in june is that you could put the pump station right across the boundary on the immediate adjacent of parcel or you could move farther downstream parcel by parcel by parcel until you get all the way to the kentucky river so it's really a matter of preference about how far you want to move it down you're going to have to build that pump station and a storage tank that goes with it whether you add a blade of grass or not you're going to have to do that at some point in time and so much like what we talked about in area c before if if there's no addition in this area it's going to be a conversation with the adjacent property owner about whether or not we can put infrastructure out there or not there's there's the map that i was was hoping for is the no It doesn't like that one. Okay. Well, go ahead, go back to the one you had. The pointer won't work with that one. So, again, what I was saying was is the pump station and storage tank are going to have to happen. If you move farther downstream, it's really a preference of this committee about how far downstream they want to go. If you don't want to go downstream at all, then the Division of Water Quality is going to have to have a conversation with the adjacent property owner about their willingness to allow infrastructure on that parcel. And then us going back to council to get basically a resolution that allows us to put public infrastructure outside the urban service boundary. And just one more point of clarity. Is it my understanding that areas B coming in are contingent on area A in regards to being soarable, or is that not the case? Area B is contingent on the outcome of A in particular about Mint Lane Pump Station. Area B has to go through Mint Lane Pump Station, whatever configuration you have. So under its current configuration, if we didn't do anything at all, I would basically wait list everything in Area B because it can't connect. There's no capacity to it. So an improved mint lane would have to take into consideration to B if it were added independently of A. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. One more question. You're not a geologist, but you're an engineer. So we've been told there's a lot of karst in Area A. Can you talk to that and about that in terms of sewer ability? Carst creates a lot of challenges for any underground infrastructure. But like I said, I'm not a geologist, so I'm very much of an amateur about that, and particularly in this area. But we've overcome it in other areas and stuff, and so it's just something you have to deal with. Like I said, I don't really have more of an opinion about it. Obviously, it would just be a concern. And across the street in the Beaumont area, we've got caves and stuff over there as well. And they were obviously able to manage that in some manner or another. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Just one more question while you're up there, Mr. Martin. If I remember correctly, and I asked Vice Mayor about it too, I couldn't find my matrix. If I remember correctly, one of our first meetings, we looked at the scoring matrix that the planning staff did. and this area scored, I believe, pretty high overall on the matrix, if I remember correctly. Did it score well in the sewer ability study as well, independent of the matrix overall? When we evaluated it, it was area two for us at that time, and we've changed it. It scored well for us because of Mint Lane. Like I said, if you'll remember our early meetings, I kept bringing up Mint Lane and Greenbrier because I don't have a plan for those. I don't have a plan. And so my whole plan has been predicated on what the outcome or the decisions made by this committee and by the Planning Commission moving forward. Council Member Paloma. Thank you, Chair. And this does not have anything to do with the sewer building discussion right now. But looking at A, we have to protect that area. I mean, there were 50 historical sites in Fayette County. 10 are in the Bowman Mill area. Also, we talk about being the horse capital of the world. I mean, drive through there. It is a signature area of our community. Also, the airport, when you fly in, you fly out, you're looking at, again, our signature products, all that area there, the history that goes there. There was actually even a Hamlin over there closer to the airport, little Georgetown, But that has nothing really there left. We can look at doing some type of marker and recognition. But that area is almost sacred, A, in my mind. So I wanted to share that and put that out there so that you knew what we're dealing with. We've got to be careful. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Phillips? Yes. Just to be very clear, Area A, to use Dan Wu's expression, gives me major heartburn. It is the heart of horse country. If you go down past Area A, you start dominoing major farms. It is a major farm itself, Area A. But if you domino that area, you are going to impact horse country. There is just no doubt. It ranks in the highest 1%. I referenced the soil maps previously. Its soil map is probably the strongest we have, maybe other than C, which is right up there. As Ms. Ploman mentioned, it is a registered historic place. The entire area of A is in a registered historic place. We don't have a lot of those. We have a few, but it's one of them. The property to the north of it is absolutely committed to not developing. I don't think we should develop simply because of a landowner wanting to develop here. We have to be the balance for the community. And as I said, one of our key principles here is to support the idea that we are a horse capital world. And that's one of the most visible, and it sets up the first domino of a whole series of visibles. We have a community that basically surrounds a that has a hair on fire, has their hair on fire. They're very upset with it. So it's not a popular move. Now, yes, it could be a sewer assist, I have no doubt. But as we've noted, that's because of Mint Lane. And something's going to have to be done, whether it's done at Mint Lane currently or done farther down the road. I just think that if one of our charges is the horse country charge, the horse capital of the world, this is the domino that I just don't want to knock it down. And I've gotten more feedback from more people on this. I've gotten a 90-page reference to the historical qualities of this community. It's likely to be not very dense housing, most likely single-family housing if it gets that way. I would strongly, strongly oppose this inclusion. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Ms. Davis? Yeah, I think of all the areas that we're pursuing, this one also causes me heartburn, mostly because I know our charge is around thinking about affordable housing. And I'll echo John's comment that this is not going to be, the land is going to be really expensive. And I just don't see that fulfilling that purpose. I did a study multiple years ago where we asked residents all across the area to talk about sort of their iconic, what they thought about Lexington and central Kentucky as iconic. And this was an area that they talked about as being really important. We talked to industry leaders that said it's critical when we pick up possible folks from the airport to show them around town that this area is going to reflect the horse country. So I think, I mean, putting the horse country feel away, because I know we've talked about this, I just see this as being a $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 housing area. And I just don't think that is in line with, I know we'll have a mix of that, But I don't think we're going to see any affordable housing options in that area. And I know that was beyond the sewer ability. That's the only thing really I can attest to with the data that we are provided. So I would be really against A. Thank you, Ms. Davis. Mr. Wilson? I'm looking at the math now. Basically, what I've heard Mr. Duncan say, we're at 2,429 net acres, correct? Okay. Okay, now we've got a real challenge here because if we take out this particular section, that means we've got to go back and put some others in to get to the 2700 minimum. I mean... Yes, so you've got to find 300 or so net acres to meet the minimum. And I guess my question is, these are the only areas that have been considered, so we would have to go back and start a little bit from scratch maybe. We haven't done B1 and B2 yet, have we? B1 and B2 yet? Yeah, this is just... Just A. Oh, just A. Just A. Okay, well, okay, then if you left in B, if you left in B, and I assume that the green is where we heard responses from the people, correct? Yes. Okay, so B1, no one objected. It was just no one. We didn't hear anything. Picking that up based on the chart that you gave, that's 336 net acres. That would put us at 2,765. Just make that observation. And if everybody's happy, we can go home. Now, if no one's not happy, then we can stay here. But Mr. Wilson, thank you. But also, I would like to hear from Mr. Washington too on the affordable housing piece. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I have stated in the past that Area A, particularly outside of just the composition of the surrounding neighborhoods, does provide challenges for the construction of affordable housing based on its proximity to the airport and the noise pollution that comes with overhead air traffic and the way that the federal government looks at allocating resources in that area. So I would concur that you're likely not to see much affordable housing built in Area A although I do feel the need to say that it's my belief that the more acreage added at this time, the more land available for housing developers of all income bands is going to drive land prices down around the rest of the community, which is going to be another tool for affordable housing developers to be able to make projects work. So I would suggest that in all cases we consider that the amount of acreage staying towards the minimum does take some tools away from the ability to construct affordable housing, even inside the existing urban service area. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Johnson. Just to clarify, are we only speaking on A right now? Yes. Okay, I'll hold. Okay. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I think Mr. Wilson is right. We have essentially a math problem, and we have a charge to get to 2,700 net acres. So at some point with what we're considering now between A and B, we have to pick something. So we can't exclude all of it. I'm really torn about A myself because on the one hand, we have owners who are telling us they want to be brought in. And on the other hand, all the arguments that we've heard about the essentialness of our character being horse country. I would propose, and I'm not making a motion at this time. I'm going to see, I've talked to Chris's over there. Can we bring up that map? I requested that they make us another map that splits A just for us to be able to make maybe a more nuanced consideration on A, to split A into two and see what the acreage is and see if we can come to a compromise, maybe including the right half of A and excluding those three properties on the left on the west side of A as a possibility. And I would love to know the acreage numbers. I can't see them from here. I appreciate Chris and Chris over there making maps for us on the fly. So thank you. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. While we're getting those calculations, I'd like us to get an update from Water Quality about this proposal. Thank you. Let's see if our pointer works on this map. It does not. Okay, sorry, the pointer doesn't work. This is what I was trying to allude to before. Yeah, you want to give me the old one, maybe. We'll try this. Third time's the charm. Let's see if that works. Yeah, there we go. Okay, so Mint Lane pump station is sitting right there on that red line. And what I was trying to allude to, you could choose any location as you move downstream here. And so what the vice mayor has proposed is following property lines. And if you considered A2 independent of A1, that works. We would build a pump station and a storage tank somewhere in this general location and be able to serve the properties that are tributary to it, which are most of A2. The way the property lines got drawn after the sewer ability study, the actual divide is actually roughly about right there. So this little hook here or boot actually drains in this direction. We see that blue line, that stream travels to the bottom. So it would have to be handled a little bit differently, but the rest of A2 would be inclusive of an improved mint lane pump station. since i'm staying here i want to make sure i was clear because i was talking to some other people and i felt like maybe even before i wasn't when you talk about areas a and b is is that if you do be without doing mint lane pump station basically you've added property that is immediately wait listed because i don't have a solution for them to be able to be included that same conversation goes back to c when we were talking about c3b because it pumps to greenbriar you know if we whatever decision was made but immediately if they came with a development plan we would have to put them on a wait list until we solved that pump station problem same thing here got to solve the pump station problem before we could add anything more to mint lane pump station Thank you, Director. Can we get gross and net acreage on A1 and A2, please? Vice Mayor, area A1 gross is 224 acres. A1 is on the western, the left side. A2, adjacent to the urban service area, is 290 acres gross. A1, 224. A2, 290. A1 net, 207. A2 net, 275. Thank you, Director. I know we're not talking about B2, so the reality of what we have, if you look at the map as it is now, we have B1, B2, A1, A2. To get to our minimum acreage, we need at least two of those areas, and whatever the combination is that people want. We need 271 acres because we're at 249. Yeah, that's correct. So it depends on that. You only need one because one of them is 275. Yeah. If A2 is 275 net acres, isn't that correct? That's correct. Thank you, Chair. Okay. That would get you to your minimum. Yeah, so from my inclination, I mean, literally splitting the difference geographically, but also between these sort of two schools of thought, that would be my, I'm not making a motion at this time, but I would lobby for inclusion of A2, but not A1. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With all respect, Dan, because we worked a little bit together, I think that's a poor idea. All you've done is shift this problem down the road. To me, the Maginot line is man of war. It is a distinctive, whether they're floodplains or streams or ridges, that's Imagino line. And what we're going to do is we're going to, if you pull in one of those two areas, that whole area is owned by one person. You're just going to be back here in another five years to get the next section of their property in. And I said, so it is the half of a domino, if you will, as opposed to the whole domino. B1, B2, they're already an island. Remember what the landowner said. It was very difficult to farm the B area because it was essentially surrounded by suburbia. Well, you throw in one of the A's there, and you have absolutely made B1, B2 an island. And you just can't farm that. So if you're going to throw something in, throw it in on the inside of man-of-war, because that's the most logical. It's right up against suburbia anyway, as the plaintiff requested, or as the plaintiff, excuse me, As the landowner, I'm sorry, I'm going back 30 years from my old career. As the landowner suggested, it was hard to farm. So now you're just pushing that domino out a little bit, and they're going to be here again. And I'm repeating myself, but B1, B2, they're already going to be an island if you put A in there. And that just makes no sense at all. And to me, the Maginot line is Man of War right there. It's logical. It's what the community wants. It's what the community wants to see and feel. It is that character that's close to the airport that the community feels and identifies with. It is a historic district. The whole area is a historic district. And now you're proposing to cut the historic district in half, the registered historic place in half. I realize we're looking for compromises here, which is why I compromised and said the new E was fine, even though it was good soils. So I was willing to do that, but this is prime, prime land and the symbol of horse country and the first domino, whether you make it a full domino or a half domino. Again, I strongly object to any of A going in. Mr. Phillips, thank you for your comments. Thank you. Okay, Vice Mayor Wu, I see you pulling down here. I would like to move for inclusion of A2 for expansion consideration. Okay, we have a motion to include A2 based on the revised, that's what we're going to call that, revised map. Okay, do we have a second to that motion to include A2? I'll second for discussion. Okay, Council Member Brown seconded for discussion? Yeah. So, thank you, Vice Mayor, for the motion. Thank you, Mr. Phillips, for your comments. My concern, and it just has to do with the B areas, if we bring them in with no durability and they'll get waitlisted, I don't see how that's going to be a benefit to the charge that we have before us to find land for development. I do understand the challenges with what we're facing, but if we're really trying to be intentional about growing this community in a way that's going to be beneficial, I think it would be unproductive if we brought in areas that we knew weren't going to be developed in years coming just because of sewability issues. That's just my opinion. I'm interested in seeing what other folks think about it. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Director Martin, did you say that this pump station at the Mint Lane area that's in discussion here in this A2 has to be completed to satisfy the EPA by the end of 26 or sometime in 26? I just wanted to clarify and make sure I understood that. Yeah, the current schedule calls for it to be complete by December 31st of 2026. Okay, thank you. So clarification. Hold on, Ms. Wirth. Mr. Phillips beating you to the punch. Just as a comment, getting that clarification, that's not too far down the road. And I'm not sure where I am on this motion right now, But if it has to be completed by 2026 either way, I think that's important to have in our minds as we're considering this based on Council Member Brown's comments. Mr. Phillips. It's a very fair comment. I mean, I remember Mr. Johnson commented that some of this area, for example, in C1, it would take possibly 8 to 10 years for some of this to develop. And this area is likely to, the Mint Lane station is likely to be online. That's the very point. It is probably one of the closer things that we will be able to develop, frankly, because we have to have the Mint Lane Station solved. So to the point that Mr. Brown's point that it's going to take a long period of time before this is developed, I just don't think that's true because we have to have the consent decree come in on the Mint Lane Station anyway. So I just respectfully disagree with that because we've already voted on many lands, many farmlands, out in the perimeter that are going to take a lot longer than what this would take. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Ms. Worth? Question to Mr. Duncan. In terms of where the fix for Mint Lane would go, So we've got a property owner. Is this the same property owner for B2 and A2, A1? Ms. Worth, the B2 and the upper portion of A1 appear to be the same property owner. They are the same family. And then the balance of A1 and A2, not including the Cave Hill property, I believe are of the same people. So there's a conversation to be had about bringing in B2 and possibly a fix for A1 with permission from the property elder to fix that? A fix for A1. I'm sorry, for Mint Lane. In terms of... Right, so I believe what Mr. Martin has said is that if he is able to address Mint Lane, that enables B2 to develop... No, I'm not talking about enabling. I'm talking about conversations with the property holders and how many property holders we're talking about here. Are we just talking about one property holder for B2 and in the area of A, same property holder conversation? I don't get involved in the property owners. I look at it as far as contours and how I can serve an aggregate gross amount of land. And that's really why I addressed my conversation, Mr. Duncan, because this is a property holder question. Yeah, but just to point this out again here is that these two blue lines here that are inside the circle here, those are what stretch up to serve that B2 area. So depending on where you move that red line that has separated A into A1 and A2, you could bring it farther back towards Dunbar High School as long as you didn't cut out that other blue line there. Because both of those blue lines are streams. And that's how B gets into A is by pumping down Man-A-War and dropping into what would be a future gravity sewer. Does that make sense? That's not really the question I'm trying to. I'm trying to talk about horse trading here. So, Ms. Worth, as I recall from the public input meeting, B2 and the upper left portion of A1 were represented by the same person. And in the balance of A1 and A2 were represented by another person, all members of the same family, or both members of the same family, but B2 and a portion of A1 was represented by one faction, one branch, one part, and the remainder of A1 and A2 by another. Mr. Phillips? Oh, you didn't have any. Okay. Mr. Washington. Yeah, I think there's one point that hasn't been made about Area A that I think is worth consideration for this committee. because the landowners have expressed interest in developing this land and doing it quickly, I don't know that it's the purview of this committee for other criteria to tell them that they don't have the right to do what they would wish to do with their property. That's my only comment. Thank you, Mr. Walsham. Can we do that? Yep. Hold, hold. Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. Yeah, I know. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I think to your point, Mr. Worsham, we're here to determine X amount of land, and we're in no means telling people what to do with it. So I think just to clarify, but we are determining acreage. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Oh. Ms. Worsham. I'm going to make some good friends angry in what I'm getting ready to say because I have heartburn about both the B portion and the A portion. But if I am really not a fan of sprawl, and I know it's extremely expensive to taxpayers if we sprawl, so my preference would be to say let's fix Met Lane in a consent degree maneuver and bring in B1 and B2 because we can do higher density development there and it doesn't take us outside of man-of-war mr. Phillips and yet we're not looking at this issue. Where the FOB came up yesterday with 131 officers for the existing area that we have, and yet we're not looking at that issue. We have public transit issues, we're not looking at those issues. We have a host of issues, and this is just a process that I hate to reiterate this criticism, but it's balanced. And so I hear all the other conversation, And in a vacuum, in a vacuum, it's fairly compelling. But it's not in a vacuum, we all know it's not in a vacuum. And here, we do have some facts. And the facts are very compelling. A historic district, a key to the horse country which we're supposed to honor. And yet, and yet we change the people. Because I tell you, if we split this historic district up, this so many factors that we are asked to consider, which is worse than you, has got to be given equal weight with superability and all the other factors. I know I'm never angry myself, but I feel better. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. You know, this is a really tough one. It really is. And, you know, with the property owners wanting and coming and compelling the committee to bring them in for development, and as Mr. Phillips said, you know, there's a lot of compelling arguments to consider this, and I certainly appreciate your facts and passion and concern over this. given the facts that we know about this property where we've got to go with this committee moving forward for the rest of our work I would probably be inclined to support Vice Mayor Wu's motion that's on the floor right now but it is a difficult decision to make on this because, I mean, I get both sides of this as we're discussing it, and it's just really tough. Thank you. Council Member Paloma? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And it is. I mean, I know everyone here is sitting here thinking this is a tough decision overall because we don't have the big pictures. You know, we're kind of guessing on just a couple things, and I don't think that's right. I will remind everyone that the language of the goals and objectives of the comp plan references preserving the unique bluegrass landscape that made Lexington Fayette County the horse capital of the world. There's like four or five mentions throughout. B, theme E, goal 2, support agricultural economy, horse farms, general agriculture farms, local food production, ag tech, and the rural character of the rural service area. On the next one, theme E, goal two, protect and enhance the natural, cultural, historic, and environmental resources of Lexington Fayette County's rural service area and bluegrass farmland to help promote the general agriculture brand and ensure Lexington County remains the horse capital of the world. And it goes on. I mean, theme after theme and goal after goal. And that's not one of the factors. We're talking about sewer building here. I mean, come on. Our economic impact, all that I just read, is so critical to the livelihood of our community. We're talking about an area that is precious. And I just don't understand why that doesn't have a bigger consideration across the board. that goes away if it's if it's compromised think about it so i totally concur mr phillips with you and other folks that have supported uh not having a in there let's let's look at b b1 and let's be done with it with the least amount that we have to take from this community so thank you thank you Thank you, Ms. Plowman. Mr. Phillips. Am I accurate in saying that if we took in B1, B2, that we have met our minimum? Mr. Phillips, I was going to ask Mr. Duncan what was the acreage on B1 and B2, because we're at currently 2,429. So if we took, according to my math, if we took in B1 and B2, we would meet the minimum? Is that correct? How much is? It is correct. Is it correct? It's a rhetorical question. They don't ask me the question you know the answer to. Well, my point is that our answer could be solved without, and by the way, the landowner in B2 would be happy. So it's not like he loses out. It's not like he doesn't get to develop and make the big score. So he does get a win there. But we could solve this problem very simply if we don't go over the Maginot line and just do B1, B2, and that would be the minimal acreage, and we could be done. Mr. Duncan? What's the question, Mr. Chair? Just as a reminder, I'm certainly following the discussion and the concern and the passion, but as a practical reminder, B1 and B2 do not develop without the solution to Mint Lane, so they become property that will not be developed for the foreseeable future. So it'll be stagnant, pretty much. Until the Mint Lane pump station is resolved. Um, Ms. Johnson. I just want to, and this may be a question for Mr. Martin, just to bring back to the original question or statement, Mr. Duncan, that you post to the committee, you know, are we addressing the water quality issues through this process? And so, I mean, I completely understand the sensitivity in a and B. But I just want to have some clarification on if the properties in B were to come in, what exactly is the consent decree process for being able to upgrade the Mint Lane pump station? Or you do need a portion of A2 to make that happen? Director Martin, just to help clarify some of the infrastructure questions. I would need about two acres in A2 adjacent to that stream to build a pump station and a storage tank that would be able to serve not only the problem we have from the existing service area, but also to handle the new flow coming from either B1 or B2. But it would have to be on the other side of, on that, some property of A2s, because there's no room behind Dunbar High School to build it. the existing pump station has to stay in service through the entire construction period, obviously, and right adjacent to it is a sinkhole and a baseball field. Can I have a question? Ms. Davis, hold on one second, Ms. Davis. Yeah, there's a follow-up. Mr. Martin, we've heard about Mint Lane for a while. I don't mean in this process, I mean previously. If we were not contemplating expansion right now, how would you be recommending that we solve the mint lane problem? Because we'd have to solve it with a consent decree. We would have to be approaching that property owner in A2 about acquiring the two acres that we need to do that. Irrespective of expansion. Irregardless of that, whether we were adding a blade of grass or not. that would also require me to request a resolution from the council to have permission basically to do that because a common practice has been to not place infrastructure outside the urban service boundary without council approval. Thank you. Ms. Davis. Thank you. I just want to, I know 2026 seems like a really far time away and it's sad, but it's not that far. It's only three years away. And I don't think that, again, the horse country should be held responsible because of the consent decree. And I think that's what we're basically trying to do here. I'm not going to talk more about horse country. I'm going to talk about the two purposes of why we're expanding. And one is for affordable housing, and two is for jobs. And I think where A1 and A2 are, we're not talking about industry. We're talking about single family homes that were going to be on pretty expensive land. And we're talking about services, restaurants, retail, if that occurs. And I just don't see that as being under the guise of what we were asked to accomplish as a city. And so, again, I understand and I am particularly heartburn, have heartburn over this, but I am having a really hard time with any part of A. Thank you, Ms. Davis. Mr. Johnson. I didn't realize I had signed up to speak next, but I will comment that there is a housing need outside of affordable housing in our community that's been suffering for years as well. And we do need, with our inventories of housing, there's a need in all price ranges of houses in our community right now. Okay. Thank you. We've had a lot of discussion on this motion. go ahead. Unless there's anything new or additional, we can vote on this motion. They want to go back and restate the motion and that's to include A2, Vice Mayor? And that was seconded by Council Member Brown, correct? Okay. So we can, if there's no other discussions we can vote via granicus on this particular application motion fails mr. Brown Tide vote that fails. Still fails on top vote. We made that discussion in the first meeting. All right. So we're at 2,429 acres right now. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. At this point, excluding A2, and if we're not going to bring in A2, we're obviously not going to bring in A1. So we essentially have one option left to complete the charge of this committee, which is to get to 2,700 acres net. So I move that we bring in for consideration B1 and B2. So moved. Okay, we got a motion to bring in B1 and B2, and it was seconded by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. What's the total acres on that one? Mr. Chair, including areas B1 and B2, the gross is 3,012, 3,012. The net is 2,801. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Go ahead. All right. Let me say this. This has been on my mind for quite some time, and it started off when we started, and one of the reasons that we wanted to bring more land into the urban service boundary was to provide affordable housing. And that certainly is one of those other elements that we have not brought attention to. I don't think it's within the purview of the committee to mandate anything as such, but in the limited amount of research that I have been able to do on this, and I think a lot more needs to be done, I have not found a correlation between bringing new land in and affordable housing. the correlation that i have found is whether or not we can get developers to work with us and to in my mind incentivize now some people would go for inclusionary zoning i don't like to make people to do anything but i would like to figure a way from the planning commission's perspective to incentivize developers to bring in the the affordable housing act because right now it's kind of sitting there uh... is part of the other elements that we were not considering as such But it was one of the reasons why we were here to begin with as provided by the instructions that were given to us by our planning commission per se and by the council. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Phillips, you have anything? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to understand what kind of report or map or how are we issuing these decisions to the Planning Commission. Because I totally agree with Mr. Wilson. There are a lot of things we haven't considered. and one of the planning commissioners said we've got to make a case for things that in light of our intense discussion here, we would recommend, whether they have any force of influence or certainly not law, but we would recommend. And I'm totally committed to Mr. Wilson's point of view. I think affordable housing is one of our biggest issues. I agree that expansion and affordable housing, with all due respect, are not necessarily correlated. And so there are a number of things that I would like the planning commission to consider police schools, and we've listed them all because this process has been so difficult. And therefore, I was curious as to whether we issue a report, if so, who writes it? And could we as individuals supplement it with our own observations as observations given to the planning commission? Thank you Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, first we've been keeping the planning commission apprised of this process. So they're aware of it, and they're aware of your work, and I'm sure that some of them, the others who are not in the room are following it as well. So I believe that they will be an easy learner as we're presenting this to them because they have followed it. What our intention is is to present the work of the committee, certainly the final work being the draft map that you have proposed and recommended to them, along with the work that took us to get to that map, including the comments of this committee, the public input and the input that we received, and then certainly the staff comments on what can be addressed with this. And what, again, just because it leaves you doesn't mean it leaves the council's charge. The Planning Commission still is charged with addressing this according to the way the council directed. So we want to present that to the Planning Commission just as soon as possible as we've told you, so that we can engage the consultants. And we've already talked with the consultants informally. They're not on the clock yet. But Mr. Phillips, many of you, some of the issues that you have raised were included in the RFP, and we will expect them to be addressed by the master plan. And that includes certainly not only the housing and the jobs options, the infrastructure to support those, whether it's transportation, public parks, but then also the other facilities such as schools and neighborhood commercial. We're even working on a new zoning ordinance text amendment right now that is going to be tailor-made for the new land because it's an opportunity to make sure we get it right from the beginning. So all of that will be given to the Planning Commission, and we hope that they will make their tentative decision about the urban service area land so that the consultants can know what land to work with. The Planning Commission will not be asked to add any of this land to the urban service area until the master plan is complete. And that schedule has us coming back to the Planning Commission with a final plan in November of 2024, a year from now. at which time if the planning commission consents they will then adopt the master plan and add the land to the urban service area and then it's part of it. So Mr. Phillips I believe we can include anything that the committee would like that would be relevant to helping the planning commission but it looks to me like you have also sent them a strong recommendation and it would be our advice to the planning commission that they follow the recommendation. You're not sending a split vote to the Planning Commission, and that's important. And Mr. Wilson signaled that the very first meeting we had that we'll work as hard as we can to get consensus, and you ought to have done that. So I believe you have made the job of the Planning Commission easier in saying that this is the land they want, and certainly the Planning Commission, by the nature of their work, is very much aware of what the needs are to support this land and support the people who will be living there. Mr. Chair, that's a long, long answer, but we do intend for this to be a success, and we intend for it to get started as soon as possible. Okay, thank you. Council Member Brown, did you head your – Yes, sir, and I'll be brief, and thank you. Thank you, Director Duncan, for that summation of what's going to happen next. I just wanted to circle back around to a lot of the comments about affordable housing. That was a priority when we were talking about the comp plan and the goals and objectives. But the council's charge in regards to expansion was really about housing availability. It's about housing at all price points. I think there's an emphasis on affordable housing, and I think that there's also been a charge to the planning commission to come back to the council with some recommendations on how to make that happen in areas where it's challenging. But it's really about housing and jobs. I understand the willingness to keep this expansion to a minimum. I truly understand that. But I think all the areas and who we've heard from and the things that we're considering, I think it was really meant, and I think we have worked to address some of the needs that were identified. But I think there was still some meat left on the bone, but I'm fine with that. And hopefully the Planning Commission can take this recommendation and move it forward in a way that's going to be productive for our whole community. So thank you all for your service, input, feedback, and everything. So thanks. Thank you, Councilman Brown. Can I add one comment to that? I think it's incumbent on all of us, and I'm speaking for Planning Commission members and Council members as well, to say when it comes time to develop the new data-driven process that we all push for that. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I agree with some of the comments about affordable housing. I personally don't think that affordable housing and expansion areas go very well hand in hand. I think affordable housing is very important to everybody up here and the council, and I think we're going to work towards that, whether by other means, infill and redevelopment or anything else. I would recommend, and I'll defer to the director on how we should do this, but I would recommend that if we have personal feelings that go beyond the purview of this committee in terms of emphasizing certain things to the expansionary master plan, the consultant planning commission, or even planning staff, that we should be free to do that on our own but not represent this committee as a whole. I feel like the report out from this committee is obviously the map that we've drawn and the kind of the history of how the meeting is. But I would hesitate to try to speak with one voice on any sort of opinion from this committee because there are obviously a lot of different voices on it. I think we did what we were charged to do. We stuck fairly close to the minimum acreage, which, given all of the public input that we've taken in, concurs with a lot of the things that we've heard in person, over email, over the phone, people that have talked to us. So I also want to commend this committee of being a great bunch of folks to work with and to kind of go back and forth. And I think the sort of robust debate and chopping stuff up to get to where we need to be, I think is very important and done very well. Again, you all know those that followed it during goals and objectives, I had a big push for creating the process, which we will hopefully do, we will do after the expansionary master plan. We're going to hit that 2025 into 2026. And so my hope, once again, is that we don't do this again. We don't do the thing that we just did in the last eight weeks, that we go by a different and much better process for incremental development and expansion as needed, based on need, based on data. So thank you all so much. Thank you, Chair. Go ahead, Mr. Peebles. Yes. Mr. Chair, I just want to circle back personally to the very first meeting we had. And in that meeting, my attempt was, whether I did it or not, was to speak very strongly about the need for affordable housing. And I've been pleased with the follow-up that this committee has had to that same issue. And if that's where I think we are right now, I just want to say thank you, committee, for the efforts that we've put forth to support affordable housing. I want to go back to what Bill just said. We want to make sure that we do incentivize it since we can't tell people what to do. But I don't have much trust in leaving to good faith efforts. I've been doing this job 54 years and I haven't seen that pay off too well. Thank you, Mr. Peoples. Ms. Davis? I think the one request I have, and I've lived in this region for about 18 years and one thing I've noticed is that Fayette County often operates a bit in a vacuum. And I understand this discussion around housing. I just did a national presentation and looked at the underproduction of housing all across the nation. And I mentioned before this is not a site-specific issue. But I would like to recommend, if possible, that a new housing study be done soon that's regional, that doesn't consider that the lines outside the county stop. And to really understand how the rest of our neighboring communities are thinking about their growth so that we understand we are working as a region not as a hub without you know placing a placing a lot of attention on our spokes i do live in jessamine county and i think that county more than others is really embracing growth in ways that many some you know many agree with many do not but we are building a lot of houses and i don't know if they're the right type of housing but everyone's operating in a vacuum and this city is growing at a pace that cannot do that in the future. And those 2017 numbers will be outdated, particularly with COVID and folks moving more inside the country. And I think that Fayette County study is limited because it just assumes that there's not a single house available when you walk across that county line, and that's just not true. Thank you, Ms. Davis. Councilmember Blumen. Thank you, Chair. On behalf of my constituents, we've all been talking about the 12th District. And I will tell you the number of calls and emails, and they're confused. They don't know what does it mean to come into the urban service boundary. They really don't. And so I think we need to have a coordinated approach in communication. Director Dunpton, I don't know if that can come from the planning. It probably should. So that they know what it means. They really don't. And we can go one-on-one and try to explain it, but it will take the rest of forever to do that. So I'd like to suggest that that's done. Obviously, we came to a conclusion today. What does that mean to these folks? They're very confused. We just need to detail that and next steps so that they have knowledge and at least they're more clear on where things are going to go now that their land has been brought inside the urban service boundary. And I will also concur that our region needs to do a much better job Since the 12th district is contiguous to all the counties, there is lack of communication. On one end, where the zoning is on the Fayette County side, what is the zoning on the other side for that county? We need to be talking because there's a lot of mistakes that can be made. So I think that's really important. I'm glad you brought that up. But again, we owe it to our folks out there to tell them what this means. because they didn't know when they were calling us. And I just think it's a next step that we've got to be clear about. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Duncan, with those additional comments, do we have to come back next week? Mr. Chair, that's what I was getting at. If you all feel that you have concluded your work, then we can certainly cancel the next meeting, and this will be the last meeting of this. But before we do that, I want to punctuate what we heard you all say and make sure we're all on the same page here. We don't have a drawing of this, so just bear with me. So what we have said is that we are including area C1, which is all of this area, the white and the green, for a total of 1,017 acres gross, $891 net. Area C3B in the lower right, south of Winchester Road to North Cleveland and back in around Greenbrier. 568 gross, 553 net. We are not including anything in Area C2 or Area C3A north of Winchester Road. Area D in its entirety. For a total of 641 gross, 602 net. Area E1, the parcels abutting Todd's Road, 350 gross, 340 net. And Area E3, south of 8th and Spoonsboro, 43 and 43. Area E2 is not being included. And then area B1, north of Parker's Mill, 230 gross, 209, 209 net. Area B2, south of Parker's Mill and adjacent to Beaumont, 163 gross, 163 net. and there is no property in Area A that is being included. The total gross acreage is 3,012 acres. The total net acreage is 2,801. This committee consented to return to the Planning Commission a recommendation of no less than 2,700 acres net. And by our calculations, you all have meant that. So, Mr. Chair, unless you all need to come back, We would be fine with this being your last meeting, and we will set about transmitting this information to the Planning Commission. Do I need a motion for that? Well, we did adopt a schedule, so perhaps it would be a good idea to cancel that last meeting. I need a motion. We got a motion. I got a second by at least three people. You can pick whoever you want. It really doesn't matter at this moment. We can vote via Granicus, and we can vote raising our hands. I think you're going to have a unanimous vote. Okay. That's fine, Mr. We're not having any discussions. Mr. Duncan, are you going to get the report to us as the committee or just to the planning commission? I know it's public, but how are you going to distribute that? I'd like to share that with the audience, if I could, Mr. Chair. One second. One second. We've got one piece of information Mr. Duncan wants to. Okay. The Chair asked if we would share this information, this report with the committee, and we'd be happy to do that. We will be putting that together over the next few days, and we'll be glad to share that with you. We'll post that on our website, and then we'll be making that report to the Planning Commission. Just as a reminder, I mean, you need to know about this. This is a recommendation to the Planning Commission. I feel confident that they will go 99.99% with you. So, but nevertheless, the Planning Commission will still have to make a decision about this, and that will be coming up, and that will be noticed, and that will be made available to the public as well. Mr. Duncan, thank you for, and your staff, before we go, because you guys and ladies have done a lot of work. So I want to make sure that you're also recognized for getting us all this information and dealing with all the personalities that are on the committee. And I appreciate the committee to come together. Honestly, it was good. I mean, everybody had a piece that was involved and was needed. So thank you. It shows that the community can come together. So I appreciate it. And you have a good Tuesday. Yes, ma'am. This is not the meeting summary is not approved. Okay, take a motion to approve those meeting summaries. We got a motion by Mr. Washington, a second by Mr. Johnson. And no discussion, all in favor? Aye. There you go. Thank you. Meeting is adjourned. Boom. In the USA. Oh, no, she came to USA. Yeah, yeah. Back in the USA.