Canton commissioners voted unanimously to approve the second reading of an ordinance rezoning Parcel 200.50.580.001 to a planned development district.

The presiding official (Speaker 3) told the board the commissioners held the hearing and first reading on Nov. 3 and that, if approved, the ordinance would be published on Nov. 20 and become effective Dec. 10. ‘‘A motion is required to approve the second reading and authorize me to sign it and have it numbered and published,’’ Speaker 3 said.

During discussion, Speaker 2, identified in the transcript as the person providing development details, told the commission that questions at city hall had focused on whether the development would include private roads and that ‘‘the answer is no’’. Speaker 2 added that ‘‘All the streets will be normal with city standards and public’’ and summarized proposed design adjustments as ‘‘smaller setbacks from 7 feet down to 5 feet and . . . narrower lot widths, and they’re not asking for that to apply to all the lots’’.

Speaker 1 moved to approve the second reading and authorize signing and publication; a second was recorded (not specified in the transcript). The clerk then read the names as part of the affirmation: Commissioner Carlson—Aye; York—Aye; Garbers—Aye; Mary (recorded variably as ‘Mary Lester’/’Mary Lundstrom’/’Mary Lenstrom’)—Aye; and the presiding official—Aye. The motion passed as recorded.

The meeting also approved the consent calendar earlier in the session by a recorded affirmation (all in favor) and adjourned after brief closing remarks.

What the action does and what remains: The ordinance as approved at second reading authorizes rezoning to a planned development district for Parcel 200.50.580.001 and, per the presiding official’s remarks, will be published on Nov. 20 and take effect Dec. 10. Staff/representative remarks in the meeting clarified that streets within the development are intended to meet city standards and be public; changes to setbacks and lot widths were described as applying only to some lots. The transcript does not record any votes opposing the ordinance or any amendments to its text during the second reading.

The commissioners had no further new business and adjourned the meeting following the votes.