LAPEL PLANNING COMMISSION
June 15, 2026

IN ATTENDANCE: Matt Wood, President, Andrea Baldwin, Vice President, Justin

Mayes, Dan Plumlee, Alicia West, Kristi Worthman, Jenny Reske — Town Manager, Marcellus Johnson — Planning Administrator and William Cain — Legal Counsel

ADOPTION OF MINUTES:

None

AGENDA CONSIDERATIONS:

None

PUBLIC COMMENT:

None

OLD BUSINESS:

None

NEW BUSINESS:

Second Reading of Amendments to Planning Commission Rules and Procedures

Discussion was held regarding two proposed changes to the Planning Commission rules: Removal of members: Consistent with new state law, members serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority. The office holder, board, or committee that appointed a member can remove that member at their pleasure. For board appointments, the entire board must have the exact same membership to remove a member without cause. The other change was an order of considering petitions: To place the petitioner's presentation and questions before the staff presentation and questions during meetings or public hearings.

Motion made to adopt the rule changes by Worthman, 2^nd by West. All in favor.

Public Hearing for Adoption of the UDO

Discussion was held on amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), including changes based on the previous month's workshop, addition of a definition for "amenities", a change to Section VI .87 (1.8.7) to require an improvement location permit for a change in the primary use of a property, an exemption for subdivisions involving the combining of two or more parcels into fewer parcels, edits to agricultural and three residential districts to remove "type three" and adjust related tables and a change to the masonry requirement for building materials, reducing it from 50% to 20% as a temporary measure to comply with new state law (House Enrolled Act 1001) aimed at making housing production easier and less expensive.

Public Comment:

A member of the public requested a copy of the amendments, noting they were available on the town's website. Questions were raised regarding the practicality of masonry requirements for certain housing types (e.g., modular homes) and the need for variances. Commissioners discussed the need to revamp the entire residential section of the UDO and the fairness of current requirements. A member of the public asked if the UDO would apply to existing houses, such as rebuilding after a fire. It was clarified that while some standards (setbacks, dwelling size) have flexibility, material and architectural standards would apply to new construction or significant rebuilds. The Planning Administrator explained that the UDO is being revisited due to state requirements (House Enrolled Act 1001) to facilitate more affordable housing and other changes, with many provisions taking effect July 1st.

Motion to send a favorable recommendation of the UDO to the Council made by Worthman, 2 ^nd by Baldwin. All in favor.

PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION:

Planning Administrator Report

Two requests were processed using the new, recommended process.

Lapel Vet Clinic: Approved a use classification for the Lapel Vet Clinic to move to the former clinic on Main Street, finding it substantially similar to a medical clinic.

Mr. Hartsell^ls Moving Company: Approved a use classification for Mr. Hartsell's moving company to use the Leaf Farms property for storage and parking, finding it substantially similar to an agricultural products terminal. There was also a plat that was submitted to combine two lots in the Brookside Acres subdivision and is currently under review.

The required public hearing for all housing regulations is planned for next month's meeting. The plan is to present the staff report section by section, with public comment and votes between sections.

Code Enforcement Case Updates

Five complaints have been drafted, reviewed by Inspector Dennis Nail, and will be sent to court. One complaint may be resolved prior to filing. All previously outstanding complaints and fines have been processed to this stage.

A commissioner raised concerns about a motor home appearing to be a permanent residence at a property and the property's condition. It was confirmed this is not allowed as permanent residence and should be enforced via the complaint-driven system. Concerns were raised about an old mechanic shop on Main Street regarding its lack of heat/AC and whether it meets code for business rental. Staff will investigate HVAC requirements, and any repairs/renovations requiring a permit would necessitate compliance with building codes. Discussion about the enforcement of ordinances, including those related to aesthetics and public nuisances (e.g., trash, overgrown weeds, inoperable vehicles). A suggestion was made to issue a community communication encouraging property upkeep and offering resources before strict enforcement.

ADJOURNMENT:

Motion to adjourn the meeting, with the next meeting scheduled for July 9^th made by Baldwin, 2^nd by Mayes. All in favor.

Back