Petersburg Borough: Planning Commission Meeting 6.9.2026

All right, I'll call the meeting to order. Please do the roll call. Chris? Here. Heather?

Jim? Here. Sarah? Here. Joshua?

Here. Micah? Here. Thomas? Here.

And Heather's excused, so thank you. Um, Okay, uh, do we have any amendments to the agenda for today's meeting? Hearing none, um, do we have a motion to approve today's agenda? So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Um, do we have any amendments to the minutes from the previous meeting?

Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Do you have any public comments unrelated to items on today's agenda? Please step to the microphone and state your name. Hi, this is Judy Ulmer, and I'm just speaking for myself. Mainly, it seems like a lot of the stuff that we've been working on since October through either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Assembly is kind of coming to new, new places, and hopefully it's going to be a good thing for Petersburg and the people that live here.

Just wanted to give out a huge shout out though to the work that the Planning and Zoning Commission has done. It's been exceptional, the amount of work that's been put in and the alternatives that have been created, even though they've been kind of blown off the map. But, um, the overlay that you're bringing forward and the ordinance changes related to things important here are commendable. Thank you. Thank you.

Any additional comments? Okay, hearing none, we have nothing on the consent calendar. Um, we have public hearing items. Uh, first two on the list have been postponed. So we're down to a consideration of an application from Suzanne Webb for conditional use permit for a home occupation at 500 Unimac Street.

Do we have any public testimony?

Hearing none. Um, we have a motion.

I move to approve the Resolution 2026-601 to allow a home occupation at 500 Utamack Street, subject to conditions of approval. Second. Discussion? It's pretty straightforward to me when I was looking at it. She just wants to run— what is it, a kind of a massage business out of her home?

I was wondering, so the conditions of approval is, is that only what's listed on page 10? Home occupation permitted is a massage therapy business. Is that the condition of approval? Right. It's just limited to that type of occupation.

Very good. I am glad to see expansion or the new phase of this massage business. I think it's great for this town, and I, um, our law office was nearby your massage business in the PIA building, and people always seem very calm and happy with the service. So I'm thrilled to support it. I just wanted to comment that, uh, it just goes back to me with my history background.

I really, it goes back to St. Augustine, City of God, the idea of live where you work. And that's— I reckon that's what you're doing, isn't it? You're living where you work. Well, congratulations to you. Any additional comments?

So I did have a little concern. It's a one-way street, so I walked my dog through there and you were using off-street parking, which, um, but I felt that you had at least 3 spaces in your driveway, so I was fine with that. I wouldn't park on the street personally, is what I'm trying to say.

Yeah, probably best. Yeah, appreciate that. Thanks for— thanks for asking. My name is Suzanne Webb. This is my application.

Yes, I'm instructing my clients to park on the driveway, not on the street. Thank you. Any additional questions, comments? Yeah, no, just a comment on what you just said. Commissioner, I'm sorry, we got here.

It's Floyd. Floyd. Well, yeah, it, uh, in reviewing the statements provided by the applicant, sounds like there's just going to be maybe 1 or 2 vehicles a day that might, might. So it's very low-key. Uh, yeah, I will be in full support of this.

Okay, would you please do the roll call? Joshua? Yes. Sarah? Yes.

Jim? Chris? Yes. Micah? Yes.

Thomas? Yes.

Okay, moving on, uh, Recommendation to the borough assembly regarding an application from Skylark Park to purchase borough property described as Government Lot 26, Section 33, Township 58 South, Range 79 East, and Government Lot 27, Section 33, Township 58 South, Range 79 East, PID 01028150 and 01028151.

100. Do we have any public testimony?

Hi, my name is Erica War Hatch. I'm here to represent myself, and I did have a few questions. I got a notification and it looks like the map's kind of old, um, and I just don't know where the boundaries are. Anyways, so that's one thing. And then the other thing I did have a question on, I think somebody else asked this at the last council meeting, maybe as to why these aren't going up to public bid.

And maybe that was answered already, and I, I'm missing something, but I just thought I would ask again. Maybe someone can clarify that. Thank you. Liz, correct me if I'm wrong, but we're recommending sale, but the borough can choose to sell it however they want. Is that correct?

Right, that's up to the borough assembly on how it gets sold, but these lots have never been proposed for sale before. But they don't go through a process where this is the process.

It's up to the assembly. Yeah, and that decision hasn't been made yet. No, it's fine. We don't get to make a decision of how they're sold. That's the borough assembly's department.

We just recommend whether or not the borough should put them up for sale. So, yeah, that leads me to a question that I actually have. It's a really good question. I'm assuming that it's because he has to ante up and he has a non-refundable $500 fee just for asking. I'm assuming that that's kind of the levy of this.

So is that correct, Liz? It is a $500 non-refundable fee to apply to purchase property. So anyone can do that, right? You just say, hey, I want this, and it's your ante of $500 that you lose one way or another. Is that correct?

Correct. So, yeah. Hey, okay, thank you. And if you have other questions, I'm happy to get with you, run you through the process. Yep.

I had another question about this too, and I, I'm learning it along with you, um, this whole process. Uh, the term flag lock configuration Um, forgive my ignorance. Could someone explain what that really means? It's on the 3rd— it's on the, I think, the 2nd page of the 3rd paragraph down. The ability to create one additional lot through a flag lot configuration helps distribute infrastructure costs across more lots, reducing the financial burden on future homeowners and supporting the project's affordability objectives.

Just the term flag lot configuration— how is that different from another type of configuration? Um, so I just for clarity, this, that you're— I have the same question, but that's part of the agenda that was removed and postponed. So that's not part of today's, but I also wonder what a flag lot is, but just isn't a flag lot where we've got a lot in the back with an easement road going to it. If I'm correct, Liz, it's well, sort of, sort of. Okay, it's not an easement.

The lot itself is sort of, it's configured like a flagpole with a flag, right? So the skinny part, which is the pole part, actually touches the road, is the driveway to the driveway, but it's actually part of the lot. And then there's the regular full-size lot that is connected to it. So you need a variance because we have a standard for that. We require a certain amount of road frontage On every lot, and a flag lot generally does not meet the road frontage requirement.

So, for single family, it's 80 feet. The minimum for a flag lot is 30 feet, and so it requires a variance for that.

But again, it's not part of any of the applications before us, but we can discuss it thoroughly. What it is. Hopefully that clarified things. Yeah, OK, I, I was just curious. I'm sorry.

Yeah, any other? Yeah, I was just curious because there was the part, the other thing about the other lots on the agenda, and then now it's not. If there's a correlation between— that's postponed. I see that's postponed. That's a different section of what they're proposing, if I'm correct.

Correct. I just— my question is, is there a correlation? Because at one time there was talk of a road going through there. Is this a totally different project, or are they going to—. I don't know how they're going to get access to these two lots.

They haven't said what they're doing. Well, if you look at the map, they own Skylark Trailer Park, and these lots look like they're adjoining— they border the top of their trailer park already, so they could probably extend their road already that they already own. Yeah, and they also own the two Lots there next to the trailer park, right? The yellow one, the ones in yellow. I'm familiar with the spot.

It's right at the very end of Skylark Road, and it's got kind of like a— like, I think it's the snow removal area, so you can kind of see a little berm where it's like they're raring to go on this.

Uh, before we get too much discussion, uh, you need to make a motion. I move to recommend to the borough assembly to approve sale of borough-owned property described as government lot 26. Government Lot 27, Section 33-T-58-S-R-79-E, on the condition that the properties are rezoned to single-family mobile home. Second. Okay, now we're open to more discussion.

Thank you. So, if I may. Yes, so, excellent question. So, originally, when The agenda was put together. We're expecting to have both of those things on there, and these 2 lots are— the intent to purchase them is to continue the development of the subdivision that is going to be proposed for the 2 lots to the north that is postponed from the agenda.

So it should all tie together. Unfortunately, since that part got postponed, you actually don't see how it could work together. So I understand now it sort of seems here's a place there's no road to, it would be cost prohibitive to get to and put utilities to because there's no plan for the land in between, right? Right. Yeah.

And so I, I mean, I don't want to sound like I wouldn't support this, but we know there's another piece to the puzzle that's not being brought forth, you know, that's not ready to be brought forth. And if you've been on the commission, or there— this has been a long process in developing their development plan for this housing development. Do you think we should consider postponing this piece to match with the Flag Lot piece? Well, it sounds like they're going to correlate and be kind of— eventually they're all going to be one project. I think that we still have the option to talk further about this, uh, um, when it comes down to the development and the subdividing and, and all of that.

So I don't see a reason to hold up, uh, recommending it for sale, uh, at this point, because we still have— when they go through and do the subdividing of the lots, we'll still have a chance to comment at that point. So, I agree with Chris here on this, um, that, that area I went over there and took a look at it. Uh, it's a designated recreational. I didn't see any trails or any real use by anybody. Um, it is adjacent to the development that's already proposed to expand, and it does sit between another property that may also become a part of this project.

So, I don't— I'm not planning on holding this up any longer. I'll vote yes for this. Any further comments, questions? I do remember a couple of years ago, we set apart a green space for the housing developments to the left of it. That's— you can see the green against this, against the housing development over there, and that's that section.

So, all right, if there's no more questions, comments, or anything else, please do the roll call. Micah? Yes. Jim? Yes.

Joshua? Yes. Thomas? Sarah? Yes.

Chris? Yes. Okay. Now we're moving on to consideration of our initiation of a rezone of Government Lot 26, Section 33, Township 58 South, Range 79 East, and Government Lot 27, Section 33, uh, Township 58 South, Range 79 East. PID 01028150 and 01028100 from open space recreation to single-family mobile home.

And these are the 2 lots that we were just discussing. Um, do we have any public testimony?

Hearing none, do we have a motion? I move to recommend to the Borough Assembly to approve. We're just gonna, we're just gonna initiate and then it's gonna come back to you again. Yeah. Oh, okay.

Sorry, am I on the wrong? No, you're, you're fine. It's just correct term. It's just that they don't put in an application for the— they didn't put application in for the rezone, but we're not going to sell it as open space because you can't develop it. Yeah, so we need to rezone on D. So we're just going to initiate.

Yeah, no, that's fine. It's just, it's a little confusing. All right. Just scratch what I said. But you do need to make a motion to initiate.

I guess it's me. I move to approve to the Bureau Assembly initiate—. You move to initiate a reason. Thank you very much. I move to initiate a reason.

Yeah, sorry, it's a little confusing. No, you got it. Any further discussion? It makes sense if we're recommending to sell it that we recommend to rezone it or initiate the rezone. So, So this gives us the go ahead to send out letters, letting everybody around know that we're proposing a rezone.

And then that, that process will happen at the next, at the next meeting, and then you can make the recommendation to the assembly. I guess we've got 2 parts here. The sale and the rezone are separate items. Yeah, I'm here. I got it.

Okay. All right. Any further discussion, questions, comments? Roll call, please. Joshua?

Yes. Oh, there's my mic. Thomas? Yes. Chris?

Yes. Micah? Yes. Sarah? Yes.

Jim?

Yes. All right, moving on to a recommendation to the Borough Assembly regarding an application from Brian Newman to purchase borough property at 1205 Lake Street. Do we have any public testimony?

Hearing none, do we have a motion? I move to recommend to the Borough Assembly to approve sale of borough-owned property at 1205 Lake Street. Second. Discussion? I always like to see, um, uh, people adding things to the, uh, borough tax rolls and developing their houses and land.

I think it's an inspiring and interesting process, so I'm all for it. Seeing on item number 9, you said looking to expand without having borough utilities or infrastructure, also adding rental or housing. So looking at it from our perspective, sounds like a freebie, right? Yeah, I think I like to see people putting money in effort into the borough and— yeah, I recommend it. I would.

Any other comments, discussion? Just on the wording on page 35, I had a little concern. Uses outlined in Section 19.20.020, blah, blah, blah, but are not limited to single-family homes, two-family homes, and accessory buildings. I just want to remind people that You can have— he has two choices when he buys it: consolidate the two lots, or he has to have an apartment or something before he can just build a shop, because we went through that before. So just want to reiterate that.

Yeah. So I did have some concerns with the road. Uh, they plan on putting a floating road here, but, uh, that's common practice, and it won't prohibit a legitimate road from being installed and to develop that area later. So I don't have any concerns with this.

It's just that it will be a private road until such time as it's brought up to borough standards. Is that correct, Liz? It's not private in the sense that Anyone can drive on it, right? But they're responsible for maintaining it. Yeah.

So if it— but if it ever gets built as a borough road, then the borough would potentially take over maintenance, right? But it has to be built to borough standards for the— at that point, I just want to make that clear. Yeah. So, like, it looks like if Petersburg were to grow, if you look at the parcel viewer, it continues on to, like, what could become another block if our population dramatically increases.

All right, um, any further questions, comments? Please do the roll call. Thomas? Yes. Micah?

Yes. Chris? Yes. Sarah? Yes.

Joshua? Yes. Jim? Okay, next we have recommendation of the Borough Assembly regarding an application from Brian Newman for a special use permit to fill a portion of of undeveloped Lake Street right-of-way for access to 1205 Lake Street. Do we have any public comments?

Testimony? Hearing none, we have a motion. I move to recommend to the Borough Assembly to approve a special use permit for 10,000 square feet of the Lake Street right-of-way for access to 1205 Lake Street, subject to conditions of approval of this report. Second.

Discussion. Um, this is kind of a continuation of the prior agenda item, and it sounds like people are more or less okay with the floating road under the conditions set forth. So I'm also for it, and I just want to indicate, um, Dave Omer's letter of support for this project. It's always nice to have neighbors saying they support it. That means a lot to my decision-making process.

So I'm— I support this.

Yeah, I think it's good to allow it for access to that lot. So I think it's worthwhile. Any further comments? All right, let's have good neighbors. I got good neighbors too.

We're nice, please. Sarah? Yes. Joshua? Yes.

Chris? Yes. Jim? Yes. Micah?

Yes. Thomas? Yes. All right, moving on to commissioner comments. Um, I believe we're going to discuss at this point the, uh, um, overlay or the wireless communications.

Um, it sounds like we have some, uh, parts that need to be filled in.

So, um, I have a question, a comment that I solicited from residents in Scow Bay. My, um, my husband's parents live right in Scow Bay, right across from the bay, and so I asked them what their opinion is on the Scow Bay portions of the proposed overlay. Um, which would be the rock pit areas that we suggested. And, um, I, I, they are opposed to including it in the overlay. They would like it to go through the regular process that if the wireless communication facilities tower ordinance is passed, that it would go through the Planning Commission rather than being a by-right use.

So they support it not being a by-right use, and they would— they were requesting that the Scout Bay portion of the proposed overlay be removed. Um, which, um, and the reason that they had, um, they had a few reasons, but also the main one that was important to them was there's a creek that they used to drink well water from. They don't anymore, but it's a good drinking water creek that gets muddied up with construction. Um, and so they are hoping to preserve that as much as possible and not include the rock pits in the overlay. Um, I appreciate their comments as residents, but I also, um, from our conversation, the— it sounds like the rock pit portions were of maybe limited use, um, to, uh, potential tower companies, that they would have to wait until the rock pit is completely used up before they could put a tower there.

So I think it makes sense to remove it from the overlay.

Um, so those are, those are my comments.

Any other, uh, comments, questions? Seems like we've got enough other options to, uh, account for that. It's not a big loss. Um, What about the development standards section on this, Section G? I like the idea of having something in there.

Yeah, it may not have to be too strenuous, but, um, some basic standards may be a good peace of mind for people.

But I don't have an example of that. Right. How do you apply standards for something that we don't really know what they're going to want to put up? How do we feel about accessory structures? Things other than towers built on the overlay?

I think any of the other zoning uses— this would just apply to the wireless. So any other uses that would be allowed under that zoning would be acceptable. So it's, it's not gonna— it's— if this only applies to, like, cellular towers, so saying that it changes the code to make it so that they can build without having to go through conditional use process. Whereas, uh, but everything else would fall under the regular other parts of the code for that zoning, because this is kind of an overlay that goes— it goes across many zoning. If you look at the properties, or some property that's completely unzoned.

So, I mean, with the development standards fall into lot size and things like that, Liz, that would be required. Is that what we're referring to here? That they need to have a lot bigger, as big as, you know, big enough that the tower falls within the lot, things like that. That's the kind of thing. Yeah.

So, could we bring that over from the, uh, um, what we're requiring for, uh, in the cell tower code to some degree. I mean, some things would be limited, but we want to make sure they're putting it on a big enough parcel that it's not an issue, right? We could bring over the— what is it, 110% or something? 110% Of the height of the tower, unless there's a breakpoint, right? Right.

Um, I, I like the idea of including that. That's my favorite part of the ordinance, I think, is the 110%. It just makes a lot of sense, and it seems to be a pretty repeated criticism that people in the community have of proposed designs is a short setback. Yeah, it's, uh, um, if you look at code across the country, that seems to be a common thing that is included so that, uh, um, if a tower does fall, it falls within the property, so it's not hazard to any surrounding property and things of that nature. Um, I'm trying to go— what else in the development, in the standards?

I don't have the other code right in front of me, so that we put together. Um, I think there was— yeah, I don't have it in front of me either, but I'm remembering that there was like, um, maintenance and keeping it within FCC standards for emissions. It's kind of basic language, which is basically making sure they follow whatever the FCC standards are. Um, what is going to follow up and follow through to confirm that they're doing that enforcement? I don't know.

Yeah. How do they assure the public that they're following the rules? I mean, I don't know where— where's the FCC police? You know, I know. So to me, that's one thing, because, you know, most people, companies that do this kind of thing, I think a lot of where potential harm could be, a lot of people operate under the ask for forgiveness instead of permission, you know.

My understanding that the FCC, the way that they assert their regulatory compliance is through the actual manufacturing of the devices that are installed on the towers. So, it's at the point of creating these devices, and patents are involved, and that's where the governance comes in and Yeas or Nays, a particular way of admitting those transmissions. So, um, as far as, uh, what we can do here, I don't know, uh, enough about it myself to be able to apply language to, um, assert into that. I know the FCC does have an enforcement arm that goes out, and I don't know how often they would come up here, but they do go out across the lower 48 looking for people leaking radio frequency onto, uh, into bands that they do not have access to. And they do enforce.

There's been, uh, there was a case just recently about, uh, somebody who had a radio that had an automatic repeat feature on it that was repeating police band onto a non-police ham radio band, and they went after him for that because you can't be doing that. So Um, but, uh, there, there is an enforcement arm of the FCC. Again, how prevalent they are up here, I don't know. So, a slight change of subject, but it also occurs to me if we're going to put the, um, FCC compliance, that we can also put FAA compliance about, um, lighting and tower height. Tower height, yeah, just putting it in there that they must comply with.

FA requirements. We could just say must comply with all federal and state regulations and cover it that way. We could do it that way. Yeah, I mean, they, they have to anyway, but they have to, but it's good to say, might as well. So, uh, the FAA thing that we had in the other one was there is no lighting except as required by FAA.

That was the main thing.. And then also that they got a FAA, um, certificate— certification, you know, no dangerous— that it's not dangerous to flight operations. I think the FAA certification makes a lot of sense, especially I keep on remembering, um, Assemblymember Scott Newman coming in here and telling us about his perspective as a pilot and how scary towers are. Um, so I like the idea of the FAA certification. Um, having no lights except for those required over 200 feet, I'm more ambivalent about.

Curious what other people think. Well, I think, uh, I think the FAA has something to say about that too, is even on shorter towers, if they're close to a flight facility, you know, airport. So because I know there's requirements if you're getting close to an airport that that number goes down quite substantially. So, and there are cases where they don't actually need to They're not required to notify FAA because they're far enough from an airport. So that's not required for every tower.

I know people on the ground are often more concerned about light pollution, you know, shining into their houses and disturbing their sleep. So, um, light trespass, right, right, right.

The majority of the community here in Petersburg is far more concerned about radio frequencies, however. I have heard more of that. Yet to talk about how we monitor the amount, if not the effects of the radio frequencies that are close to residential communities and people at large. Just thought I'd bring that out, you know, behalf of a lot of the people who've spoken at previous meetings. And the other consideration we need to talk about is the, um, If we want to proceed with this now, we— with the overlay now, we need to remove the areas outside of Service Area 1, because right now there's no jurisdiction for the borough outside of Service Area 1.

But we can always add those in to the overlay once that whole portion passes. So, but we can, we can do the overlay on the portions of the map that we put in that are inside Service Area 1 right now. My—. Given kind of the flow of things, we're— the ordinance is starting over from zero because they've amended it and they're going to put a new version, um, from what I've heard, on the, uh, June 15th agenda. So we're kind of starting the clock over on that.

And who knows, maybe this clock would start over again if it could go through multiple iterations. So, and right now, the everywhere is by right. Use for towers, um, well, except for residential. Um, so I think until the tower ordinance passes, there— the tower overlay is not yet necessary. Um, so I'm— and I think also the tower overlay is more impactful when you can see in the entire map as— and not as piecemeal, but as the whole picture for the borough.

So I, I support waiting and keeping it together, but I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts. I could do it either way at this point. I would just think if people wanted to get the ball rolling on it, we could separate off those, those lots, and then we could start the process now. But another comment that I wanted to make, just, and just to throw this out, you know, the rest of the commission. Um, I kind of feel a little guilty because I think that the one thing I voted on, um, I was the one who voted down the 1,000-foot sensitive area setback that was voted down by Stanton Gregor, apparently because he thought it was overly restrictive.

Maybe I know, but, you know, that's what they— that's what happens, you know, with— we get voted down sometimes because we vote with our hearts and somebody else disagrees with us. And maybe I should— I would I would be willing at this point to go back down to 1,000 foot, and maybe in the interest of having it pass— Stanton Gregor mentioned that in the paper, so I just thought I'd throw that out there. What do you guys think? Well, what I think is if he had wanted to amend it to 1,000 feet, he could have, and he didn't. He didn't make any amendments, which really grinds my gears, if I'm going to be honest.

Um, but we're starting over, so we've got a new version that's going on the agenda, so I'll You know, we're, we are going to progress here. Um, but no, I mean, we all vote with our conscience and we all do our part, and if they wanted to amend it, they could, and they still can when it goes up before them. So that's my, that's my take.

Please step up to the mic and state your name just so it's on the record. So Becky and I, I got the impression you guys are a little more casual here about speaking. We just, we just need to have it recorded for the— yeah, so it goes in the train. So you got into this discussion, and I think that's my big question, is where you're going from here because of the failure of the ordinance to progress on a 3-3 vote. So I guess this is a question for Liz as well.

Um, will the revised, or whatever you call it, the new ordinance be at the behest of the assembly, of one or two assembly members, or will it be at the behest of the public? And that's kind of a rhetorical question, but, um, something to think about since there's been so much public input here. As I understand it, Liz, correct me if I'm wrong, this is going to stay— it stays at the assembly level. Now. It's not coming back down to us.

So it's— it has a new ordinance number, it's a whole new ordinance, and, you know, in theory, and unless they vote to send it back to you, it does not come back to you. So they haven't— they have not done that, right? So it's— it's still with them. So does anyone get to see it before it goes? Yeah, it'll be published in the packet.

Okay, yeah, so, um, if people read it and may want to have suggestions, comments, there will be time prior, or do you bring that up at the meeting where at like, um, uh, Sarah stated they could make amendments and changes there at the assembly meeting instead of just stopping it and having to start over again? So it has 3 readings, right? One at the next 3 meetings, and the second reading, which is, I think, the first meeting in July, is the public hearing meeting. Um, and they'll have a separate public hearing on the ordinance at that time too. So people have the next month and a half to comment on it.

Thank you. Thank you. My impression of the reason why it's coming back on the agenda is, um, public requests, public outcry directed at active assembly members, probably primarily Member Muchi, um, you know, heard people being cross that it wasn't continuing and requested that it be put back on in a new form. So a little bit of both.

Hey, um, do we have any more discussion on this, or do we want to try to put this on the agenda, or we do want to, um, backburner this for a while and bring it up under commissioner comments again when we feel it's ready to go on, uh, onto, uh, public hearing, or time is of the essence? I think— well, yes, I know, I, I agree that, but I think for me, I think it would make most sense procedurally if we wait until probably the August meeting, because that will be after If it does pass in 3 readings, the ordinance, then we're working— correct, correct. Then we can proceed with the tower overlay knowing that there's an ordinance in place. We can always bring it up for discussion at the next meeting and say, you know, just kind of get a— you know, we'll have more of a feel of what the borough assembly is feeling, and then we can kind of decide where we need to proceed with this. I think that'd probably be the best bet, and if we don't feel it's, it's, uh, um, far enough along for us to move, make any recommendations next meeting.

We just put it off till August. So I think that makes sense. We can do under Commissioner comments next time. That'll be after 2 readings, and then we'll be ready or not to move it as an action item in August. Yeah, that timing would work.

It would give us a chance to work on the, uh, the standards. Okay, and it'd be nice to get a couple more lots in there if we can. You guys have been working hard on that. Um, any, uh, further, uh, Commissioner comments on this or anything else? All right.

Um, yeah, sorry, I eventually— I would like to get back to the data center ordinance. Um, I, I would like to, um, I understand that Power and Light is working on a power standards ordinance, which I think is an important component, but it's not the only component that's necessary. Um, I think light and noise pollution. I mean, noise pollution, but also water pollution will be important to be a companion piece to Power and Light's power usage. I think we need to hear what their recommendation is before we can develop any sort of standards.

Yeah, because our standards are going to rely on their standards for power. I agree. So I think I just want to keep people, um, top of mind, but it's, you know, it is on the back burner until Power and Light does their piece. Yeah, because it's, it's something where it's— we've got to rely on other people's input to put together what needs to be, uh, the regulations. So I kind of, kind of think we need to wait till we hear from them.

I think that makes a lot of sense, but I just want to let people know we haven't forgotten about it. So are you saying that, um, this would— as we meet until we get that information from Power and Light, this is a time for people to comment or bring concerns or information forward to us. I think that's a great way to think about it because the ordinance drafting process is, um, it's time-consuming no matter what. And I think we need to— I, I would like to start, you know, I, we, we started with the Anchorage ordinance and we have some examples for noise and water pollution in that ordinance, but, um, it definitely needs to be altered for Petersburg. So, um, and I'm very interested in people's feedbacks.

I've got a question for people who know a little bit more about this than I do, um, dealing with data centers. Okay, and regulation— are the ordinances strictly regulatory, or can they also help businesses, um, by infrastructure, or I don't know, tax rebates, things like that? You know, just XYZ, um, you know, does this process help people, or does it just regulate? I, I think Anything that would do— that you're talking about as far as, uh, um, would be, would be at the borough assembly level. That's not going to be something we have at our level.

Our level would be the standards by which they can do their development, but we, we can set the standards, but that's all we can do. The anything that— if it's tax rebates or if it's something trying to do some sort of infrastructure project, anything of that nature, that would have to be at the Borough Assembly because they're the ones who control the purse strings. We do not control the purse strings. Uh, we are just in the regulatory slash quasi-judicial, uh, um, uh, section. That's our job.

That's our lane. So, and I think, uh, though it does in a way, it does, it doesn't just hurt developers. Um, when you have standards written down that the community supports, then you have less outrage and less worry and less concern. Well, it also helps developers because they know what they have to do just by reading the standards, and it makes it very straightforward for them, uh, and that's kind of— it actually helps them, it saves them money, right? So I think that's kind of the smarter way to do it.

Um, so there is one person online that has their hand raised if you want to hear a comment. Sure.

Hi, I'm David Beebe. I'm speaking on behalf of myself, and in regards to regulatory standards, I think that there is actually a legal standard that— a double standard, as a matter of fact, based on the borough manager's comments that there's— everything is legal in this regards in terms of this veritable explosion of cell towers and now a data center. Um, the fact is, is that if there is going to be some sort of legality imposed here, we need to start at the, the most basic level of regulatory action to begin with. And that regulatory action by the FCC has been adamantly in contradiction, certainly legal contradiction, to court orders for establishing public safety. Given this, I don't see how any ordinance can be faithfully applied, especially by a home rule borough which has, uh, functionally given up their their powers of sovereignty by understanding that in the absence of FCC regulatory standards for the 21st century, that there needs to be a moratorium placed on all of these actions because there will be no ordinance that you can pass with any level of confidence if, after all, you know, it just seems so logical to me that there is no way to pass any ordinance with any confidence without a ruling by the FCC that complies with court orders in regards to public safety.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Thank you. Thank you, David.

Okay, yeah, to David's comment, um, the thing about, about data centers, I hear the concern, and, and cell phone towers. David, I do believe that there is a safe way to do this. I have confidence that the technology is, is in our hands and the powers of our intelligence to use it if we do so judiciously. We just have to have a little bit of patience with us. We're working out the process and trying to iron out the kinks.

Thanks, David. Okay, thank you. Um, any additional commissioner comments?

I do have one thing. I was hoping that at some point— I know we've got a lot on our plates, but as I mentioned to the development folks, with our mix of land uses in Petersburg, I know there's been an attempt in the past to try to clean it up and make make some of our, our zoning more, more comprehensive to, you know, an overall community of growth where residential areas don't have to worry about an industrial lot right next door, what's going to happen there, give people confidence to build moving forward. And I was hoping that maybe we could take up that, if not starting next meeting, sometime in the next few months to at least discuss ways of trying to convert some of our zones over to a more readily usable zone that is being practiced in adjacent properties. But it's just a conversation I think we need to have, and I'd like to put it on the agenda at some point in the future. From experience, we've tried doing creating buffers and stuff in between before, and it's always ended up with a huge amount of resistance.

So I'm just stating that fact. Um, Liz, do you have anything to add in that?

Yeah, I think—. I mean, we made an attempt at that, uh, for quite— for like a year, I think, at least. Yeah, right. To turn some residential lots into commercial 1 in between residential lots and industrial and, uh, or commercial 3 actually is what it was, uh, and, uh, which would have been just warehousing only to try to create a buffer. And there was big resistance to it.

And I think also tried to discourage or eliminate housing in industrial districts so that you wouldn't have people building houses in industrial. And I think that was met with even greater resistance. Yeah, I think it's just, you know, we just need to make it very clear that people build residential in industrial. There's no protection to somebody putting something very disruptive right next door to you. So, I mean, then again, there's also like mixed use, for example, right?

Like, you know, the, the young woman who wants to live within her business, which is a massage parlor. I think that's fairly low impact. The other end of that, you know. Yeah, so it's— I mean, I, I'm very, very, uh, um, uh, much in support of people, uh, having home-based businesses in a small community because of the fact that it's, uh, otherwise there are businesses we just won't have because there's not enough demand for it to be a full-time and pay for an industrial or commercial site., but, uh, somebody can do it part-time running out of their home. So I, I kind of am supportive of it that way.

Um, but, uh, anyway, um, any more commissioner comments? Okay, well, in that light, uh, I'll do some more research. I've spoken to a few people, and, um, and I understand there was resistance in the past. Uh, I, I do see a way where we can piecemeal something through over time, just giving folks on individual lots the opportunity, uh, if there's an incentive in place, uh, to conform to nearby properties and uses. So I'll look into it some more, and maybe I'll bring it up next meeting or the meeting after that.

All right, any more commissioner comments? Liz, staff comments. Oh, I just want to make sure you do want— you want the overlay on commissioner comments for the next meeting on that agenda? Okay. Yeah, and then the only thing I had for development standards were the 110%, right?

Right now I want to go back through the cell towers. I, as I said, I don't have a copy in front of me. You want to hold off on Yeah, okay, we can, we can work on that some more. Okay, so, okay, and I think we'll have other agenda items, so I'll have a meeting in July for things too. All right, July 14th works for me.

July 14th is our next meeting at noon. You said you'd be here? Zoom. You think you'll be here? Good chance.

I'll be here. I'll, I'll at least be able to Zoom in. I'll be here. Be here. Okay, so we have a quorum.

Sounds good. All right, uh, do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.