City Council - Regular Meeting

Kayen, are we good with set up?

Not sure. Okay, we're going to go ahead and call the March. Well, let me go ahead and call Never mind. Okay, we're going to go ahead and call the March 4th, 2026 zoning workshop to order. Uh we'll start with a roll call. Ward one, two, three, four, five, six, and at large are all present. Um I will ask Councilwoman Morning to lead us in our pray. Sure. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Gracious God, we are grateful for the opportunity to serve our community. Guide us with wisdom and strength and

clarity in our decisions. Bless this workshop and our city and our shared commitment to the common good. Amen. To the flag of America and to the standy for all. Thank you.

All right. So, we do have uh Bob Barber with Orion here on uh Zoom with us and he is gonna we're going to kick this off. We're gonna let him kind of give us a review on how we got to where we are today. So, I'm gonna go ahead and turn this over to uh Bob and thank you for being here today.

Mr. Bradford, thank you council mayor. uh appreciate uh the opportunity to uh present at the workshop and do exactly uh what you just said uh which is kind of give an overview as to how uh Bay St. Louis has come to consider and a revised zoning code and uh I'll go through that. uh a as I do I want to introduce my myself uh I know there are people there uh probably most many of you have encountered us before and uh appreciate that some of you may not know us we uh we are a planning and design group that works all over the country we're celebrating our 15th year this year uh the map on the screen which I'm assuming you can see as I share my screen will indicate uh our project locations where we've worked across the country and and even internationally. And we've been very fortunate to work in many communities on the Gulf Coast stretching from Orange Beach uh all the way over to uh Bay St. Louis and Wavelin. So, Orion planning design as you uh consider that work about 75% of this work is comprehensive planning and coding meaning zoning codes, development codes, that sort of thing. I am based in Hernando, Mississippi, just south of Memphis, Tennessee. And then we have other partners uh and one in Montana, one in Georgia, we have folks in uh uh in Maine and in New York as well. So, uh, in terms of the the zoning code itself, I did want to introduce us to the law in Mississippi, the planning law

in Mississippi. This is uh what we are operating under and what we have to uh comply with when we consider plans and codes for community development in all Mississippi communities. This is in uh the state code se uh 1771-1 and it goes through 1-27. Uh in that area of the code that the authority to plan is established. Um uh a comprehensive community plan is defined with uh uh required elements uh uh in uh to be included in the plan. And then the basic method of of developing a plan and the codes that follow um uh is outlined in the law as well. And this provides a central and fundamental critically important role to the planning commission. Uh the planning commission uh or in Bay St. Lewis's case, a planning and zoning commission uh is authorized to create and recommend a comprehensive community plan. And then the planning commission is authorized to create and recommendation uh make recommendations for rules of implementation. Uh typically those will come in the form of zoning and subdivision controls but may also include other kinds of development codes as well. uh and a a critical component in the law says that the the rule whatever rules are adopted they must be uh created in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan. Now that's the planning commission's roles is critical. It's fundamental. It's very important. Uh and then ultimately uh of course the governing authority council,

city council, mayors and boards of alderman, they are empowered with the final approval of planning commission recommendations. So that's the that's the legal background for uh what it is we're doing. and any quality community in our state and really in the country uh has uh some quality planning going on at at the heart of it. So, and Bay St. Louis's efforts are appreciated, very much appreciated. Uh and and certainly a good um a good uh element of uh leading the community. This specifically now the Bay St. Louis 2045 is the project timeline. The last city plan was created post Katrina back in '09 and there's a zoning code your current zoning code uh that you're operating under was created uh in this time frame in ' 09. Uh Bay St. Louis has obviously undergone lots of change. Uh there's community dynamics uh are more complex. The community has emerged as an incredibly desirable place uh both to live and as a tourist destination. Uh in 2022, Bay St. Louis determined that uh it needed a fresh vision and a new comprehensive plan. So we were fortunate enough to be engaged to to create the plan. Uh that was uh it's called Bay St. Louis 2045. uh and it sets the direction. It complies with that legal criteria but sets the long range vision and direction of uh of Bay St. Louis until amended, adjusted, discarded, whatever. But it it current status as the adopted

comprehensive plan. Now uh once the plan was completed the the existing zoning code did not really align with this new fresh vision uh that is expressed in the comprehensive plan. I'll touch on it briefly in a moment. So as a part of the implementation of the plan a code rewrite was requested that was in the fall of 2024. Uh and again we were fortunate enough to be engaged in that process uh fall of 24 and uh we used uh we use a best practice methodology for code rewrites or code rights, code composition and that starts off with an assessment uh of any existing code uh which we did and presented to the planning commission and council in November of 24. Uh and then after we had an assessment which uh we'll look at momentarily briefly uh we went into the drafting phase that took most of 2025. Uh that was reviewed internally uh with city staff uh and quite thoroughly. Uh and then once it was determined that it was in a good uh uh condition or um ready to go for planning commission review and public comment uh we presented that and that was in uh January of this year. We presented it to the planning commission. Uh and this being the current status officially the the code is before the planning and zoning commission and we're in a period of public comment receiving public comment for adjustments uh um you know

positive aspects uh concerns uh things that we might want to include whatever the public comment uh may be. We're in that period there. And then the final component in the scope will be to uh take in the public comments, make appropriate adjustments, present it back to the planning commission for recommendation uh and then uh follow through with uh a presentation to the city council. So I hope that's helpful just to give the context and perspective of the timeline of the uh of the overall project. Again, the the code here is written uh to implement the the comprehensive plan B St. Louis 2045. We went through the planning process. I'm going to kind of breeze through these slides real quickly. Um that this, you know, we did an analysis of various kinds of data projecting community growth going forward, the magnitude of it. We had uh a incredibly robust public engagement process. Um, you know, we had really thousands of of touch points. Uh, we did focus groups, uh, trying to craft the vision for the community. Um, uh, open houses, workshops, all these things were prioritized and then ultimately uh, distilled into some key uh, values, community development values of Bay St. Louis that were expressed. Those included preserving downtown environmental production, improving the suburban commercial areas, balancing the community change, uh extending and improving mobility components, expanding mixeduse development uh uh uh style of development, increasing parks and recreation uh facilities, and strengthening

development uh standards. Those were the key elements of it. So again implementing the plan moving into the coding we we want to uh uh we're required to code u based upon the plan this is a best practices summary that sort of led us into the assessment of the plan uh we address formatting regulatory content process and administration uh according to uh to best practices. So if I could share, I mentioned that we started with the assessment. Uh this assessment report was presented in November of 24. Uh and you will see as I scroll through it. Uh we completed a survey of sort of an attitudinal survey of uh code users. Uh was it a friendly the existing zoning code? Was it friendly? Where could it be improved? uh was it uh you know functioning well in the community? Was it achieving good outcomes? Those sorts of things. And basically the findings indicated it met uh basic functional requirements but lots of potential for improvement, clarity, efficiency and aligning it with the plan. Now when we looked at the we took the next step and looked at the uh structural analysis of the current code and what this chart in the on the right hand side of the screen indicates is uh across the top are the elements of a good solid functional zoning code. Down the left hand column is was the is the way the current Bay St. Lewis code presents itself. And if if it were well organized structurally, you'd have a

pattern of dots that kind of follow this black line. But as you see, they're kind of scattered across all different sorts of elements of the code. Uh and there's uh opportunity there for clarity and streamlining in that. Then uh from there we move into uh organizing the code the the proposed code itself. Uh this is a best practice organization in square one. This is the way the current code is organized and the like colors are a similar subject matter. Um and when so we color code them, see what we can group, see what we can collapse and combine and end up in table number four with a streamline proposed table of contents. So the assessment covers uh uh multiple other things. I'll just mention a couple that are pretty important. Um this is the uh zone to place type alignment. So the plan has place types. These are the place types that function as a future land use map. These are these are the existing uh zones where they align. We mark it. We also create notes as to what kinds of changes would be made to align the code with the plan. Uh and then we describe the districts in a different kind of propose describing the districts in a different kind of way that gets at the character of the neighborhoods because the neighborhood character is so critical. Uh it gets at the character of the commercial areas uh and the uh the naming conventions are more aligned. they're less less uh technical and more aligned to the kinds of character that are uh that's being developed. I sure

won't put your eyes out with this, but we go through the uses, modernize the use chart, take care of the antiquated uh components, proposed changes and adjustments. Uh that's there and then uh internally bay bay St. Louis had already been collecting a number of comments as to how to improve the code. So, so that's the assessment. Um, and as I mentioned, that was kind of gave us our marching orders uh to move forward once we presented that to planning commission and council and uh uh to move forward. So, so that's where we are. I know you want particular there going to be particular comments on particular aspects of the code which are very much appreciated. We want to perfected um and we want to um uh we want to get it in a position where it is productive and achieves uh achieves the outcome that uh that you're looking for. So, I don't know what screen I should stop on. Uh, Councilman Brad or uh Chairman Bradford. Um, but that's kind of where we are. You have any questions on that? What I covered was sort of the law of planning, what we have to march under in terms of complying with the law, the timeline of the project, the the uh way we got to the draft through the assessment, and now it's sort of before you for for the uh for the comment period.

You know, so my plan from this point is to open it up to the council and we'll just go down if you have any questions to go ahead and and ask those now. Uh but I also did want to request if we could uh this presentation if we could add it to I know the assessment uh the presentation that was just presented if we can add it to the uh website city website that way because a lot of it's really small hard to see on the screen we have in front of us. Um but that way we can put our eyes on it.

Yeah. Uh absolutely. I I will mention one other thing before you move on. Um, but it in the back of the the final section of Bay St. Louis 2045 is what's called an implementation agenda. There are 35 or 40 strategies here that were developed. Uh, and this is the adopted Bay St. Louis plan. uh one of the key uh implementation strategies was to align the code to uh to this particular to to this particular plan and uh it's mentioned you know there's several several coding issues that are mentioned in the implementation uh matrix and I just want to call it to your attention to know that that that's kind of what's driving the uh uh driving the process. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and start. Councilwoman uh Morning, did you want to did you have any questions to start with Bob? Or if not, we'll just work our way down.

Well, I had uh you know, I have some specific questions. Uh, one one question that just came up uh today that I was looking at is the legacy uh in relation to uh legacy district in relation to uh the new zoning district. And it states that and it might be a typo and if it is we probably need to change it. Uh in the um Oldtown Low, it's described as the uh legacy part as R1 and R1A. Could you That seems awfully um diverse.

Uh did they site a did they site a particular page reference? It's in uh three where the um I was just trying I wasn't really ready. Is it table 31 that references the legacy districts? Is that what I believe she's talking about table uh 31 where it references the new zoning districts and the legacies. I know lila is that the GIS u

the GIS person. So, I've been working with her to try to get a an overlay to kind of clarify. I think that would clean up some of those. I think it would help with your question. Are you saying showing where some of those other districts, those legacy districts are in relation to the new proposed districts? Yeah. Yeah. So, that that's something that uh there's kind of in the works of an over overlay. I need to touch I haven't touched base with her since Friday. Um, but I need to reach back out with her and continue to to work on that. But I think that would help.

I don't know if you're familiar with if she showed it to you, Bob, or not, but her her and I went back and forth. Yes, we've conferred on it. And that overlay, you're looking forward to to analyze how that's how that's uh laid out currently, uh, is in process. Yes. and and

and the the the the table is simply intended to translate the current districts into their their most um their most closest equivalent district. the the proposed district uh translated into their most closest equivalent in the old code.

Okay. Is that all? Did you have anything go at at the moment? At the moment. Yeah. I'm waiting on the zoning map, the individual maps as well. Um the issues that I had received already So, I'm assuming are we going to address the actual comments tonight? Yeah. No. So, we're going to open after we run through the I mean, you can bring up whatever you would like to bring up specifically, but um as far as tonight if we have any questions for Bob, whatever they may be. Yeah. Just some of the comments that already submitted

and and then we'll use this time tonight as well to get uh collect more uh public comment. We do have the court reporter to document it. And then Bob, once all these comments are submitted and we pick a definite date to cut off public comment, we are going to have a complete list, a complete uh set of public comments compiled for us. Correct.

Most definitely. We will compose, we've already made a preliminary list, but uh you know comments are still filtering in and and um uh we will create a report uh that addresses each of the comments. Yes, we'll group them, cate categorize them, analyze them for uh report them to you for your your review, but uh provide responses and adjust the code accordingly. Yes. Yeah. And I I would say for the last two weeks, I probably received the most comment from the public. So, I think everyone's finally starting to get aware of uh of this being proposed. I don't know if it's if it was the advertisements, but I think everyone's talking about it now. So, uh they're going to be coming in probably even more frequently after this meeting as well, I would imagine. So, you guys

Yeah. So, first off, Bob, appreciate the opportunity. Uh I think this is the first time we've been able to collectively meet as a council and with the public to address some of these uh the proposed zoning ordinance with you. So appreciate your availability and time in doing that. Um you know about a year ago we were going through this process and I was truly anxiously awaiting to see what would come about. Um, you know, I represent W 4 and W 4 is one of the areas that we've been most inundated with some of the higher density development and that probably about a year ago and Bob I think you were here you know when we were discussing going into the zoning ordinance you know I specifically mentioned a couple areas in W4 and I won't get too granular but I but I do want to to point out uh when we were talking about what may come what the zoning may be in the future. I referenced an area by Ballentine. So it's between central and third. You know those kind of areas and I have many examples of that throughout W four where conditions have changed meaning now Ballentine is is right now sitting at an R2 zoning district. So that's uh single family and then duplex but of those of that specific area 34 of the homes are single family. And so again those that was zoned R2 years ago but conditions have changed. And so my goal was how can we, you know, encourage and necessitate the uh the need to to withhold uphold the lower density, not have, you know, the inundation of some of the the smaller and subdivided lots. And so much to my surprise and dismay, in that specific area, it's zoned R2 10,500 ft, 75 ft lot widths. It's essentially been cut down three by 3,000 square feet to 7,68 foot lot widths. So it really went to the opposite direction of what the feedback from the citizens in that area that we've been getting what we had anticipated envisioned as that condition changed from it being zoned R2 where it really is the conditions being single family and I've got instances all throughout W 4 where that's a similar scenario. We've got areas over by Shieldsboro it's the same thing back in

2021 we had to fight very hard back in when I was on planning and zoning. In fact, we had developers coming and saying, "Hey, we need to take two lots, make it into one because we can't move those small lots." So, we fought to get it to the R2 standards. Same premise that's being pushed out on this new zoning ordinance is we're going backwards in terms of the high density. So, that's my biggest concern and that kind of leads me and I know we'll get more granular. I've submitted some comments and I'm I'm sure we'll get some answers on, but that seems to be the overarching theme and concern at least in Ward 4 areas that are historically R1 with 12,000 square feet goodsized lots. We we we no longer have that. There is not a comparable zoning district in this new proposal that meets those same requirements. Everything is more dense. The lowest density is still higher dens than what we currently have. So I guess my question, you know, going through the scope of service that you provided, uh the council um I think section 1.4 does state um you know, you're going to identify a group of stakeholders that will be electronically surveyed for prioritiz prioritization of code revision components. Amongst those will be planning commissioners, staff, developers, real estate professionals and then citizen groups. And so I guess my question is during this process, I know in the comprehensive plan we had we did have some meetings. We did have an advisory committee, but to my understanding up to this point, this is actually the first meeting we've had collectively with the council and also with the public stakeholders. It's my understanding again there was meetings with developers, with real estate agents, u with contractors, uh with architects. And I'm not knocking that. But when when we're extrapolating information from those individuals, they they're there to make a living. So they're not there to make things harder to develop. They're there to see how can we make things easier. And that's again, no knock on them. And that's our responsibility to extrapolate this and understand, you know, what do we need to uphold what we need to do as far as the ordinance. So I guess my question too is so during that during that time of

discovery, who was involved? who are the main stakeholders and who was involved from administrative side to show you some of the background because I can give you many more examples of Ballentine of Shieldsboro those areas in my ward that have a lot of historical knowledge that could have shed some insight as to you know why that wouldn't warrant denigrating the the lower density and providing higher density. So who who did you meet with in the the administration to find out what the needs are? We we we met well first of all as I mentioned earlier we're coding the comprehensive plan uh we had you know a very robust engagement uh process in the comprehensive plan. When we got to the uh when we got to the coding component uh we did survey the uh the the users from the list that we were provided from the administrator's office. We worked with uh uh your planning director and your planning um uh and your administrator. I'm sorry, but my Alexa is going off. Hold on one second. Sorry. Alexa comes on with the news headlines at this every night. At this time every night. Um we um uh we worked internally. We uh we conducted the assessment. We provided it to the planning commission. Uh we did the survey and we uh worked with uh worked with the adopted comprehensive plan. Now when you mention the areas uh first of all I disagree they're not high density uh they they are still medium and low density zones. Uh there are changes yes uh proposed. However,

would you agree that and sorry, you would agree based on the square footage of those zones, it is entire it's more dense than anything we have now, even the the the lowest density based on the the square footage in the lot width, right? I just want to make sure we're talking the same terminology.

And we we're talk Yes, I I I do agree, but uh that we had two competing um or two goals that emerged from the process. Uh it was our information that there was lots of variances, lots of variance requests. Uh and the variance requests uh had to come before um the authorities and the the zoning is mismatched in many instances to the lots on the ground according to the diagram that I shared with you. Uh so we adjusted that uh to respect the spirit of preserving the uh character of the neighborhood but also address this topic of the variances. If that's uh if that's not the direction we can I mean we'll just change the minimum lot size back if it's not uh

but that's the reasoning for that particular thing.

And Bob just so I can better understand. So, so this is predicated on the fact that based on the variances that have been requested and granted, we made we made a change based off of that because I I think quoting in on page 160 of the compressive plan, a zoning code is only successful when administered and enforced consistently and that's on us. That's that's city council. That's plan zoning, but that's city council ultimately. But we shouldn't base a decision to change the zoning based on past and historical data or what variances were given so that somebody doesn't just have to come after our variance. That's our jobs to make sure we take one each case subjectively case by case because not everything's the same. But ultimately what I have an issue is if we're doing a broad stroke of well we're just going to look what see what variances were out there and we're given and we're just going to make it to where they don't have to ask for variance. That's I don't I have issues with that. I don't think that's what the decision should be predicated upon. We should be upholding up here and I've made mistakes planning and zoning city council. that probably all have and I that I regret, but I don't want to be held to where those mistakes will now set forth the the future of our our zoning that could change the landscape forever. I mean, that's why we're up here and we have to look at each one individually, but that shouldn't be the basis of the decision.

Well, it it was our conclusion that uh the the zone in many instances was mismatched to the existing development patterns. uh and so to better match it, the adjustment was proposed. But if that's not the direction that you want, if you if you don't want to do that, again, we can we can change that. Uh it's as simple as that.

I will ask the audience to not interrupt. I know there was an outbreak, but that that's the whole the whole purpose for the for our our comment period is that appreciate the comment understand that's that's where we are and I just have one or two more. Okay. Um so Bob I know um in in the throughout the zoning ordinance it makes reference quite a few times of director of planning and this is a question too Mike. So, do we have the director of planning right now named is that we have that individual in the city.

Okay. Is is he here tonight? No.

I think that would be relevant for a director planning because he has cited many times throughout this ordinance and there there's a lot of autonomy um and leeway actually in decision making capability. On page 52, it gives the director of planning the complete autonomy if there is a application that's submitted that may not be spelled out in the chart of use. It gives the director of planning sole ability to to approve that without any direction from the P&Z or city council. So I just want to make that abundantly clear. So we do have that individual. They're not here tonight. Do you think it would be relevant? So Jeremy was involved. I think Heather had mentioned Jeremy and Mike Reese were heavily involved. worked tirelessly on this working with Bob and this is this is kind of what we landed on. So, you know, again, this is the first time really hearing definitively that we've made the basis of these decisions off of past ordinances. I'd love to hear from other council, but I for me, just one person up here, I don't think that's what we should be basing this ordinance off of is just what ordinances have been given or variances have been given in the past. Um, one other item too, Bob, I was looking at page 157 on the comprehensive plan is a detailed buildout calculation. And so roughly it's uh we've got about 2,232 acres of vacant land left in the city. Um, of that about 88% is considered R1. So about 1,900 acres of that is of vacant land is R1. 187 is R2 and then 72 is R3. So close to 90% of the buildable land, vacant land in the city is now potentially based of what we've been given on the setbacks and the total square footage is going to be 100% more dense than what we have currently have now. So that's where the major issue is. It's not so much I know if if you get reszoned or your setbacks and you're already existing, but we're more concerned too of what the growth and development is on vacant land. So that's a pivotal piece that that R1 that's 88% of the vacant land we have left is no longer going to have those setbacks of the 12,000 square feet 100 foot lot width 25 foot uh setbacks to

the front 20 on the back. That's no longer the case. So that's also my concern is that we have made it much easier to heavily develop and and have more density on that that uh acreage that we have left available. Well, we're we're again we're we're coding the adopted comprehensive plan. Uh if you want that shifted or if you want the place type to have a different character, it it would just

Okay. And and and this is my last I don't want to monopolize. We got a lot of people want to come speak in the council too. My last question. So throughout this process, just so I better understand. So you'll extrapolate all the information discussed tonight. Are you going to push out another rendition, another draft, or just help me illustrate once you take a look at those comments? I think you probably have a series of workshops, I would imagine. There's a lot needs to be discussed.

Uh no sir, we didn't scope a series of workshops. We scoped uh as the law calls for presenting a draft a comment draft to the planning commission which is where the code is right now for public comment and for planning commission review. Uh we'll get those comments and then um uh create a report address them in the final draft and then represent it for recommendation and adoption. Now if you want if we want to schedule more uh input sessions absolutely we can we can do that certainly up to the council on that.

I think that would be the pleasure council but from my understand so you would expect those comments do a final I do think we would probably have want to have another yeah another couple workshops and kind of see what those changes were and how we get a chance to digest that.

Yes. So, so Bob, outline the the path going forward here. So, we have this is our first draft from my understanding based on the contract. We have a second draft that will come before us. Then we'll have another public comment period and then there will be a final draft pushed out. Correct. So, so the way our scope reads is is that we will uh present a draft to the planning commission and for public comment, receive those public comments, adjust the code accordingly and then represent it to the planning commission for uh for consideration for action and certainly the planning commission can advise us to make other adjustments there. the ca the council can right up to the very end. My only point is this we sk that's a that is an ordinary scheduling of workflow for our code work. If we want to add in additional workshops uh by all means we can do that. Yes sir. but uh representing collecting the comments, making the adjustments to the code, presenting back to the planning commission for action, and then forwarding it to the council for final consideration.

The the reason I'm asking for the second draft because I think I think we're going to see that this first draft and the second draft are going to be very different u based on the comments that are coming in. So, I think it's going to be I think we're going to have to have a second public comment period before we have a final uh presented. Yes, sir. Completely up to council. If you want to if we want to adjust the scope that way, we certainly will do that. You anything? Yeah.

Well, kind of piggybacking off of some of the stuff uh Councilman uh Lewis had made it made along the way. Uh as far as outside of variances, this is something I I hosted a town hall last Friday and one of the biggest I guess one of the questions that came from that is outside of variances, what other factors uh were taken into account uh when reszoning? were average lot sizes, average uh frontage, any of that taken into account?

Uh yes, sir. Both of those things. Um and nothing's been reszoned, by the way. Uh the the uh code is to be reflective of the comprehensive plan. So, we start out with the the place type maps and then go from there. and then um adjust you know account for existing lot sizes is a lot of subdivided land in Bay St. Louis. So accounting for those plot frontages and those lot sizes and with respect to the uh the future development map that is in the comprehensive plan itself showing the various place types and their various locations. Okay. And also in the uh in the assessment that uh that you had showed us, they had a uh user survey and it it outlined that 20 users were identified between the council, planning commission and staff, but only 12 had responded. Do you know what 20 were asked to participate and which 12

participated? I can't The survey is anonymous. So I I don't we we always use anonymous surveys so I can't track that information down.

Okay. And then uh next I did have uh just kind of a a comment along the way looking at the uh during your presentation you had kind of some of the elements that when this was implemented we wanted to achieve taken from the comprehensive plan and you know looking at the comprehensive plan and then looking at the proposed uh zoning ordinance to code to that I do think achieving trying to achieve some of those elements. I saw the intentions and you trying it was trying to be done there, but I did think we were sacrificing uh and was a little too heavy on the density side. So, I don't I want to try to still achieve those goals that were identified in the comprehensive plan, but I don't want to sacrifice density in order to get to that point. Um, and I think that's been a common uh from all the comments I've received the phone calls, I think that's been a common theme u amongst the residents as well. So, I did want to point that out. And then also, I just wanted to touch on uh if you could I know you and I had a conversation previously regarding the need for a complete rewrite and uh kind of identifying the the what and why. Um, I know that came from the assessment. Can you touch on that a little bit as well?

Uh, yes sir. Um, the the city requested the rewrite and the rewrite came out of the the uh the need for that came out of the concepts that are presented in Bay St. Louis 2045. the the existing code will not achieve the kind of vision that is expressed in that co in that comprehensive plan. I can say that with a high degree of confidence. It's just not equipped to do it. For instance, when you look in the comprehensive plan, you will see a very well done redevelopment of one of your shopping center areas on the Highway 90 corridor. The current plan will not prod I mean the current code will not produce it. It can't produce it. Um right now that property is um uh the the value it is way more highly valuable redeveloped uh in in alignment with Bay St. Louis's vision than in its current condition. And then to repeat myself, the current code is not equipped to achieve one of the goals in the plan is to achieve a better a much better aesthetic uh presentation of the Highway 90 corridor. Uh the current code is not going to do it. Um it's going to you're going to keep get getting what you're getting in all likelihood. Uh so that that's how we get to the rewrite. That's just one example. There are other examples. Let's go to environmental preservation. Uh in the current code, the cluster provisions um are absent and you've got uh beautiful land that you know where it's

subdivided wall to wall would be environmentally um not good and would um produce sprawl, suburban sprawl. So the need for clustering, environmental provisions, open space preservation, all of that kind of component uh is in the code. And then that's just two examples of the regulatory content. The uh the other examples are the formatting and the organization. And you saw that in the assessment, you know, scattered uh if you're looking to operate under the code, it's hard to uh follow uh because of its scattered nature and so forth. Again, the current code serves a time and a place and a function. Uh but we are 2026 now and methods change and visions change and codes need to change as well. So, sorry for the belabored long answer, but I'm trying to just trying to make sure I'm conveying a sense of the need for rewrite. Hey Bob, just real quick question just to follow up on that. Um, is there a reason? So, they would on the comprehensive plan page 159, it's the zoning code alignment review. So, there's an estate lot zone and that seems like that would be actually the most consistent with R1 and preservation of some of the larger lots. Is there a reason that was omitted from the actual zoning ordinance? because that seems like especially in in Ward 4 that seems like it's a natural area. We have a number of those estate lots that actually were changed to a um Oldtown neighborhood low and medium. So, is there a reason that estate lots is we're not seeing that in the in the new ordinance?

Uh Mr. Lewis, I'll have to take a look at uh at that page 15. Yeah, page 159 and it states if yeah in the if that's the you know the comment re-evaluate the inclusion of an estate zone state lot or how we can implement that or I think this is inadequately addressed or phrase that we can go back and evaluate that and and see how that should play out.

Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Bob, this is Linda Davis. W five. Uh, W five and W six are

um the two WS that actually have waterfront lots, not beachfront, but actual canals and such. And we have submitted some comments from those that live on the water. Those have been sent to you. And I received another one just someone's watching the streaming right now and they're wanting to know more about the W1 and the W2 while the uses that some were removed and some that were added when it seems like everything was working as they were. Uh I'll have to go back and and evaluate exactly uh how we proposed that. But we did we did note I do know that we had a single use zone just for the yach club for example. Um and we that's not a best zoning practice to have a single use zone. So we collapse that into we have place types by the way. We have a riverfront and we have a beachfront or a bay front. Uh the two place types and so as my recollection of the code, they're coded essentially the same that there may be a minor variation there. Uh we did receive a comment. I noted that uh to make sure that the the gazeos and so forth are properly treated and not permitted between uh uh Beach Boulevard and But we lost you. Can you can you

Bob are Can you hear us? Yeah, we lost Canar. Yeah. You're cutting in and out on us. I'm here. Okay. I'm Same here. How about now? Yep. We can hear you now. Okay. Where did Where did I stop? Where did you stop? Uh stop hearing the at gazebo. Kaitlin, can we get him to call? Yeah, we need to check our lane since we don't need a presentation.

We need to check our lane. One second, Bob. We're gonna see we're going to see if we can get you to call into the phone. That way, we can uh just have audio because I believe you're done pres with your presentation now. So, we can we can just turn audio on. Okay. Did I call you or you're going to call me? We'll get you to call into the team's meeting. I believe it has a number with it, right? Okay, let me see how to do that.

I call you We're calling you now. Yes, sir.

I'm call Hey. Hey Bob. I'mma call you. I'mma call you off of the uh conference phone. So, it went to voicemail.

Hi. You record your name and leave them for Okay, perfect. We got you. Okay, you were at Gazebo. I can't hear him. Let me You got to take You got to mute the uh I might be able to get it.

Yeah, we could probably just cut off of the screen. Yeah. I'm gonna hang up. Hang up. Okay,

I'm good. So, at gazebo, uh, we got a comment on lang the language was uh needed adjusting to make sure that we captured the no gazeos or the no structures between Beach Boulevard and the seaw wall. So, so um yeah, we'll go back and do that and make sure that is uh that's correct. And then the other waterfront components really the changes there weren't that many changes that I recall, but we'll go back and review it and see. Okay, I'll I'll send these actual comments to you to Mr. B.

Thank you so much. I believe what Miss Linda was referring to was all the riverfront.

You created a lot more riverfront districts abuing residential areas especially in ward six and five and I think that's a concern to people um because there was even zone for that. Some of them was just R1A and different areas. So that was one concern that was really there especially on the uh Coca Ranch property referring to that one and going down the 40 foot lots there is something we definitely don't want because as Mr. Louis stated earlier. I don't think nobody wants anything to be less dense than what we started with. More more dense, I'm sorry. So, we definitely did look at that throughout the whole city. Um, and I guess y'all do this for a living. We don't. There was no red line. It was a complete rewrite. We got that same time public got it. So, it's a lot to digest. There's a lot of I won't say errors, but there's a lot of things I think that isn't what the city's looking for in the opinion of the people of the council. So, I think it's definitely needs to be reworked. Um, my impression being here longer when we started the process was y'all was going to review what we had, make recommendations to change it. Instead, we just got a whole new ordinance and that wasn't what I had intended for to be honest as a council person that's been here for eight years. So, I just think we need to back up, look at it, and really look at it carefully because once we adopt it, if we miss something, all we're going to hear is, "Well, y'all passed it." We don't want to hear that in a year or two because there are so many things as you were stating C3. It needs to be cleaned up. But some of the things I'm reading

in C3 is going to make it so expensive to build which will raise taxes on the building which will raise rent on the building and we can't fill the vacant buildings we have on Highway 90 already at the low rate. So we can want to be Madison, but we're not and we can't get those rates here. So, I think there's a lot of things that really need to be looked at and um re-evaluated. I think need to take our time. And when you said changing the scope of work, is that changing the scope of financials or is that in what we already agreed to moving forward?

I'm here. You'll have to restate the question. I couldn't quite understand it all. Um, when we talked, you was earlier was talking about having more public comments, more public workshops, and you kept saying, um, just to make sure, can you hear? Uh, it's easier if you'll restate the question. Go ahead.

Can you hear me now? Yes, sir. Thank you. Um the question was talking was talking about additional work. We got we got some chatter uh in the room. It's already hard enough to hear as well if we can keep comments to

so the question was in the scope that we already add. So we scoped a a p a a draft uh to the planning commission and then public comment period and then creating a final draft uh for the planning commission. So the final draft would be a workshop with the planning commission and then uh and you know once the planning commission makes it recommendation it goes to council. Uh and certainly that could be a workshop as well, but that would that would that's what our scope states at this time. But Bob, we we have one more re. So that final that would go to the planning and zoning. We would if the council wants to make changes to that. We still have one more

revision to that final in our in our contract. Yes. But we may need more. Yeah. may not be enough.

Now, can we be more involved along the way to this point? I think moving forward. So, so I I don't want to get into really ne negotiating a scope change or a shift. Uh what I'd prefer to do there is I'd speak with the administration as to how best to proceed forward based on uh based on the public comments. And I I again with all respect I understand what you're asking me. I just I can't sit here and detail it all out when we're not even through the first public comment period and we hadn't produce the the next draft.

Okay.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Hey man, this is Councilman Smith. Councilman Lewis and Council Bradford have already articulated my concerns with the only thing that I think we need to touch on as far as I'm concerned. A very small thing is a lot of people have told me that the maps that have been given and delivered over are very difficult to read, especially with the gradient colors that you use.

Yes, we did get that comment. Yes, sir. And and if there's a way that we can give the public a more definitive line of where they are on the map, that would help tremendously. Yes, sir. So noted. Uh, we'll adjust the color palette to to be more clear and test it with you first so that make sure we get it right. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir.

Anyone else? Anything else? Before we before we get into the public comment file, I just want to I want to point out kind of touching on what Josh had mentioned as far as you know input from the council. I know it's the traditional way you have a a planning commission that has some input and has hearings regarding this. I think it's been it's pretty evident that we have a pretty hands-on council that wants to be involved and ultimately for the seven votes that that have to pass it. So, I really just want to reiterate if we can have, you know, we'll I'm okay with holding the workshops and having the hearings. I'd like for our planning commission to be involved with that, but I just want to point that out and stress that I know it's not the traditional way that it's it's proposed, but we do have a council that that's willing and wanting to be involved in the next get this right. But with that being said, uh I wanted to kind of point out a time frame. I know we have some some work to do on some of the maps to be presented, but we do have to eventually cut our first public comment period at all. We don't have to make that decision today obviously, but something for the council to start thinking about moving forward and get all the tools that that we review it. We do have to set a date. So maybe at our next meeting that we come forward.

All right.

Anyways, the next steps to this meeting and thank everyone for sticking with us and being here tonight. Glad y'all find it equally as important. So we're going to go ahead and start with uh we'll go into public comment. We do have five minute limit tonight. Uh so you kind of have a little bit more time than we usually give you, but we still have to be courteous of everyone else in the room. Uh if you we do have just want to point out we do have a a court reporter here to document your verbal comments as another method to get this submitted to Orion. Uh, so when you come forward, if you would like your comments to be sent into Orion, I'm going to ask you to state that as well as state and spell your name so that our court reporter can document that and get that sent over. And then believe we have email addresses on here because that is what we're going to need to uh to contact you. So with that with that being said, uh we'll go ahead and start with our first guest who signed up, Mr. Don,

is it technology? Wonderful. John Omen, 110 Deonten Avenue. Um, Mr. John, can you spell your name just for the reporter? I'm sorry about that. Well, I was going to say that I don't think my comments are really going to have anything to do. Okay. you don't

but um actually I wanted to uh thank the council generally and specifically about the efforts you all have made to become informed on this issue and to get the pulse of the community know you you Jordan Mr. Smith held the workshop last week. Uh, Miss Moan was there taking the pulse of the community as well. Mr. Lewis has had quite a few questions on the website and some of which he's addressed here this evening and I look forward to hearing uh more details on those. And because I haven't made anybody else, I'm just not aware of what you're doing. But I do know that you all are actively involved in it. I don't have any advice for you. Wish it did. You knew you couldn't uh please everybody when you registered to run for these offices. If you didn't know it, you know it now. Uh just one thing I want to relate to you. I thought, you know, my house I live right behind the Baytown in that property has been in my family for almost 50 years. So, I have an idea of how it's been even before I lived there. And I spend a lot of time on my front porch sitting there just being old. And the one thing I notice, there are no neighborhood kids. There's lots of children around, but they're visiting grandchildren or they're from the vacation rentals, that sort of thing. Now, that doesn't have anything specifically to do with a zoning

ordinance here or there or lot sizes or anything else, but neighborhoods do change over time. But mentioning the kids, we all like to hang on the phrase low density, but please in your decisions, keep in mind we have got to have young families moving in here. They have to have a place to go. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Okay, we're gonna move on to uh John Benton, Mr. John Benton. And if you would, just as a reminder as you're coming up, if you'd like this to be recorded, please spell your name for the report.

Uh John Benton, J O H N B as in Bravo, E N T O N. I'm at uh 134 Carol Avenue in the bay here. Uh, also like to thank the council. Very impressed uh with what I saw tonight, your actual concern for the community. I'm new here. I've been here about five years. And uh overall, it's refreshing to see people that do care. Not only y'all, but people in my neighborhood. Uh Kyle, I think you answered my question on density. Did a good job there. Uh I live in an area that's already developed, so I guess you know, new development related density isn't on my radar. Um, you know, I'm old like who was the old guy up there? Well, like you. So, so my vision's kind of short. I'm looking around my neighborhood sitting on the porch and um I have a couple concerns and I guess some clarity also. I need some clarity. Um, and I'm looking at the colorcoded uh zone maps or the I guess the coding, you know, R1 versus um, you know, downtown core, so forth. Uh, what I can tell, I'm at 134 Carol and going from my house to the the beach, they have us down is um um six houses down towards the beach. I'm in the Oldtown medium. I don't quite understand that. And what I can tell is Can Bob, can you hear me? Anyway, um

I'm doing my best. Thank you. Thank you. I'll try to speak up. Um anyway, what I can tell that's like R1 all the way to R3. Is that correct, Bob? The Oldtown Medium OTM. And just we're going to send these okay to Bob as well that

so R3 would be you know multi-use families which I could not comprehend. It's already built out. Um so that's a concern I guess some some clarity there. I think we already talked about you know delay pausing this thing and studying a little bit closer. Other issue I have is the school is um coded as downtown core which would be the same as that's a school at second in Carol the abandoned school. Um that's that's colorcoded blue which is downtown core which is same as the bars downtown which I have a concern with that the coding there. We don't want a bar in the middle of a residential area. Um and then short-term rental might might piss some people off, but I got an issue next door you've heard me talk about. I'm just going to go ahead and I got two minutes here. Um,

this is the first I've heard.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Maybe I imagine my telling you this, but uh, so I got a place next door. It's uh, it's got nine bedrooms, which theoretically it can sleep 18 people. And next to that is another house with five bedrooms, which is um, permitted for 13 or 12 people, but they advertise 13. So, I have, you know, close to 30 people are over on a weekend in our neighborhood, which I don't particularly like. It's like a hotel next door. A lot of noise, a lot of uh activity going on. So, I'd like to have some, you know, some consideration. I don't know if that'd fall under this zoning um the 2045 plan, but uh maybe sometime a limits on a number of um short-term rentals, maybe a number of occupant per unit. Um yeah, that's my concern. There's three things, the school, short-term rental, and then uh my particular zoning in our neighborhood. I don't know if I'm color blind, if I'm reading all this right, but uh but looks like it's R3 in a lot of the areas even away from uh from Second Street heading west, which it should be to me R1 everything that's a residential part of town. That's it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to move on to the next person signed up is Donnie Hass door 310 North. Now y'all have to come talk. Mr. Joe Monty Good evening.

And uh Mr. Joe, just a reminder, if you spell your name for the reporter. Oh, I'll do that. And that way she can send it in.

I'm Joe Monty. M O N T I a parishioner of Our Lady of the Golf Catholic Church. Our pastor caller Michael O' Conor Apost N O R cannot be here tonight but has asked me to read and present a letter as his public comment for the official board official record of this meeting. The letter is dated March 2nd 2026 to the Bay St. Louis city council members mayor Mike Favre Jeremy Burke planning and zoning administrator Mr. Robert Barker Orion planning and zoning planning and design. It's regarding the public comment for the record concerning proposed total prohibition of residential dwelling in the civic institutional zone CI district and its specific effect on the proposed reszoning of parcel 149L-0-29-148.0000 to Civic Industrial institutional I'm sorry in the proposed BSL 2045 zoning map the new zoning district of civic in institutional CI is designated to provide for medical recreational educational civic religious assembly and other institutional uses parcels of land owned by our lady of the golf and the Catholic dasis where our schools parish buildings cemetery churches and offices are established are slated to be reszoned as civic institutional whereas they were previously zoned R3 high density multif family residential for the most part the allowed uses for CI as shown in the proposed zoning table 4-1 use matrix are consistent with allowed R3 uses under the current zoning chart

of uses. However, this new civic institutional district specifically prohibits any residential use within the proposed zone and that present an issue. Since 1847, the Catholic priest of Our Lady the G parish have maintained a residential dwelling for rectory on its church property. Under the proposed zoning ordinance, it does not appear that this parish would be able to rebuild a dwelling if this new CI zone in this CI zone if the current rectory get wiped out again by another hurricane or catastrophic event. This is not an issue that affects just our parish. It affects the pastor's rectory at St. Rose D Lima d Lima parishes on Nikakes Avenue and two other Catholic communities of religious brothers and priests whose parcels in Bay St. Louis are being zoned civic institutions. What changes can the city of and Orion recommend to it proposed zoning ordinance to guarantee by right that the Catholic Church can rebuild residential dwellings with it religious community on its parcel being reszoned civic institution. I respectfully ask you advise me and other Catholic religious leaders in Bay St. Louis of your recommended changes corrective issues prior to considering the final adoption of the proposed BSL 2045 zoning ordinances and map. Peace and blessings Reverend Michael Per Catholic Church.

Thank you very much. Do you have a a copy of the letter? You mind? Yeah, you can give the key. Thank you. Miss Kathleen Monty.

Good evening. Kathleen Monty, 105 Sycamore Street, K A T H L E N M O N TI. Um, in February, I've submitted eight pages of concerns regarding the proposed zoning ordinance and map through Jeremy Burke to be forwarded to you and to Orion Planning as my public comment tonight. I will not go over those concerns in detail, but I will list them briefly. Number one, no sand beach protection districts. Number two, increased density created by reduced lots and setbacks. Number three, increase in eligibility of accessory dwellings on undersized parcels under 15,000 square feet which will increase density and traffic. Number four, sexually oriented entertainment and sexually oriented retail allowed by right and/or by special exception and zoning districts surrounded by neighborhoods and schools. Number five, the depot district zoning change from neighborhood commercial to downtown core and its adverse impact on our neighborhoods. Number six, group home use proposed by right in multiple residential districts when it should logically be by special exception instead. That was what I had previously submitted. And if you have not seen that yet, I can get you copies. Uh tonight I am discussing article 10, the administrative processes and enforcement. This section covers building permits and application requirements, public hearings, zoning amendments, special exceptions, and variances. Every planning and zoning commission meeting ever held involves multiple applications with requests for variances and/or special exceptions to

the zoning ordinance. Occasionally there are amendment changes as well. As I compared the requirements and protocol of our current zoning ordinance to the proposed BSL 2045 zoning ordinance, two concerns stood out and the most important one concerns public notice. BSL 245 section 10.4.1 4.1 public hearing states, quote, "The hearing shall be advertised at least 15 days in advance of the meeting in a newspaper of local circulation on the subject property on the city's website as public notice." End quote. In our current zoning ordinance, owners of properties within 300 ft radius of the external boundaries of the subject property requesting a variance or special expect in exception were notified by mail not less than 15 days prior to the date of the PNZ hearing of a proposed property change. Now, this appears to be gone from the proposed zoning ordinance. If I'm mistaken, and it is in the ordinance somewhere, please tell me where to look. I realize that sending out multiple notices to property owners for every application being brought before PNZ does require more city manhour and expense. However, I feel it's essential to continue this notification to surrounding property owners if you truly want to give public notice to surrounding owners. Uh, as an example, on the first block of Sycamore Street where I live, there are 25 parcels of land. Of those, 10 are permanent residents. That's 40%. So that leaves 60% of the others live out of town, do not subscribe to the Sea Coast Echo, and will likely never routinely check the city's website for hearing notices, and it wouldn't surprise me if other streets have similar ratios.

Please do not admit this important aspect from our new ordinance. The second concern regards new department and job title terminology which I found confusing in article 10 and it's like community development department, building department, building official, director of planning and I also found that the appeals process was a little confusing. So, I wondered if it might be helpful to insert a small organizational flowchart that might clarify things for each of the processes covered in section 10, like how to get a building the permit and how that would flow and applying for a variance or special exception, how would that flow, or the appeals process. Thank you for holding this workshop and public hearing tonight, and I look forward to seeing the second draft. Thank you. Look, 26 seconds to go. We have that John and Jane Gleon. Read that right. Y'all were just here. All right. Phil and Barb, is he right? wanted to deviate a little bit from my notes after hearing some of the comments. Uh uh this is all about giving input and and the really big input.

And Mr. Cight, before I start the time, I just want to if you want your comments recorded, if you could just spell your name for the recorder if you would like them.

Phil Crite. S E A W R I G H T. Okay. Um, let's see where there all about preservation. In in the in the original 2045 plan, uh, I use the word mandated. It it's actually mandated that uh, preservation and growth be balanced. And, you know, I haven't seen that from my personal experience. And I'm largely focused on the problems with short-term rentals. It's missing. So, in the uh in this draft with the changes to the zoning, I would like to see a change that is in favor of preserving the neighborhoods, not in favor of increasing the density to bring other things into our established neighborhoods. To give an example of that, I also live in the first block of Carol Avenue and uh it's uh I I' I've actually counted the houses in my all the work I've done on this and there there are 26 properties in the first block and all of them but two are are single family residents. Those two are the ones that John was referring to which are very high density short-term rentals. That's that's unacceptable. I can't imagine. It's like a commercial hotel operation. So, in the interest of uh making changes that actually h help the preservation of the neighborhood, I'd like to see our zoning changed to R1. I know there's no longer an R1, but whatever the equivalent is. And and right now, like like John pointed out, uh every every property in the first block is zoned uh Oldtown Low except for those six which are Oldtown medium. And uh that someone has done that to open

the door for people to move in and and develop things in certain ways. And and that's exactly what we don't want to see. If if that's what this plan's about, then uh we're going in the wrong direction. So, uh, in my, like I said, uh, I want to just say over and over again that I want to see preservation of the character of the neighborhood as every single decision made going forward. I want that to be upfront the most important thing that's coming from me. I hope I hope uh that goes somewhere. and input from the comprehensive plan established a very strong emphasis on preservation. Please ensure that the administrators are held accountable for this. Now, as an example, uh the city council approved this short-term rental ordinance. You know, it's uh and it's it's the most lame uh relaxed uh least strict short rental on the whole coast and it's not being enforced. I mean, it you you can create a perfect ordinance here in this new work and if it's not enforced, it's totally worthless, right? So, I wanted to and and of course, the short-term rentals are one of my big things. And I don't know if Bob's listening, but uh I'm sure he recognizes my name because I send in a lot of input on the short-term rentals. And some of you know I can talk about this for hours, but I won't. So, um, I send in a lot of input for new ideas about an ordinance, but the single most important thing is that it's in that it's enforced. And a big thing about it, this word density pops up all over the place. When when it comes to short-term rentals, that applies to how many short-term rentals can be in a

given area. As an example, some of the cities actually have a rule where they can only have one short-term rental per city block. I think that's very reasonable and it exists in some other towns but not here. So, and and then the other one is uh if it's a uh a single family residence, how can you have a short-term rentals that can sleep all this number of people and call that preservation of the of the neighborhood? That's ridiculous. It's it's like the exact opposite. And uh I think someone should be held accountable for that. and we are working in that direction. I got a little sidetracked. I got a couple seconds left, but I'll let that go. I think you got general idea. And I appreciate all of you. I've talked to uh to all all of you individually, and I appreciate your help and what you're doing. And so, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Rod Ward. Yeah, I don't I don't know if you're going to be able to answer this tonight. Spell your name, Mr. You know, it's kind of ironic. Did you want your comments recorded?

Rod Ward, 812 Calpe Boulevard. You know, it's ironic. In our 250th year of representative former government, this whole process took off without the citizens. We the people, we weren't part of the uh consulting process. it was identified by Mr. Lewis and I just I know that y'all didn't know. Uh but I think that's something that needs to be discussed, reviewed, and not just on this issue, but every issue. And that's all I got to say. Thank you very much, Mr. War. Moving on, we got Mr. Scott Gregory.

Uh my name is Scott Gregory. I'm with Lamar Advertising. Uh that address is 10571 Outdoor Way in Gulport. Um you mind spelling your name for

Oh yeah. Uh S O TT uh G R E G O R Y. Um and our real estate manager Dan Adams and uh and myself, we've sent some of this comment to Jeremy and uh Bob, but we just wanted to take every opportunity to be on the record and uh hopefully be a resource on the topic of the sign or sign ordinance aspect of this. Um you know, I've said in front of this body before, Lamar is not in favor of an overabundance of off- premise advertising. You know, that's our business. We operate 12 of the 16 structures that fall within Bay St. Louis uh just on Highway 90 and Highway 603. So, you know, we're actually in favor of the way the ordinance uh reads now and is in the master plan uh to cap that so that there aren't anymore. Like I said, we don't want an overabundance that affects our product negatively and a lot of the local Bay St. Louis advertisers, you know, utilize our product. But we do have um and have sent this uh a suggestion uh to improve some clarity on it and hopefully proactively head off a problem we've seen with an ordinance like this in other in other areas. Um one unintended consequence of having an ordinance that just caps it with no allowance for modernizing these structures. A lot of times what you'll find is the billboard operators like like us, we have no incentive to do anything to modernize the structures. Um, you know, it's hard to maintain them. You can't keep up with the times and really you're doing everything possible just to keep those given structures however they are in the air. Um so our suggestion that we hope the council will uh will consider and again we'd be happy to answer any questions be a resource through this process is a credit system where you know companies that have a structure like ourselves could have the opportunity to convert a

face to modernize it into a digital display. Um and there are some benefits with that. You know, one, it actually incentivizes companies like us to reduce the number of structures, which we know the goal is to cap it. In a lot of cases, have less. And so, if we have two structures close together, if the ability exists to convert one into a digital, a lot of times we can take that one closest to it, reduce lease expense, cut it down, and just have one because a digital display can serve eight local advertisers as opposed to just one phase serving one. So you can do more with less. One other uh benefit you know that we want the community to understand that you know we've got digitals throughout the coast and mo most other cities and there's a benefit obviously to the advertisers being able to you know utilize them more efficiently change copy. We also can offer the space for emergency messaging law enforcement. you know, we work with charitable organizations and even the city itself can utilize that space for, you know, events and public announcements, notices and those things that we offer free of charge. Um, so again, we uh we provided some sample language that would just mirror what MDOT allows and what we do in other communities that we just hope will be considered. I've got a letter summarizing that just so I can be brief today, that language and some of the benefits of digital. Then if it's okay, I'll just leave these packets uh to look at. And uh thank you again for your time.

Thank you. Thank you.

I got Miss Anita Warner. Anita Warner WNER 4173 Third Street and also as chair of the Live Oak Registry here in Hancock County. I wanted to say thank you again for having this totally agree with what Kyle has said because I live in his ward and we don't want to have more dense things there. We've been fighting several uh proposed dense um developments for the last uh I think eight years going back one. Today I'd like to talk about two things in particular. I have sent my comments into Orion so they're out there but I'd like to talk about just some things that we see every day. Environmental standards which are in 7.3C talk about fences 8 foot tall. Eight foot tall board fences are too big. You don't want a 8- foot tall concrete fence, board fence, even an iron fence. Build a sixoot fence. The people that come in that ask for variances are usually complaining that they don't want their neighbors looking into their backyard. There's a real simple solution. Plant a green fence. If anybody would like to see a green fence, come to my block of Third Street. I have an iliagnus fence down one side. My neighbor across the street has a bamboo fence. The other neighbor next to them has a legustrum fence. They're green and you don't see through them. So, I think an eight if we let people be 8 foot cedar fences, it's like you're living in a drug neighborhood. We don't want that here in the bay. Plant a green fence. And there are plenty of plants you can

do that with. Bamboo as I said, although you're gonna have to trim it, ilagnus, Laura pedalum, legustrum are just a few. The other thing I'd like to talk about, and it's what I always complain about when developers come in, clearcut everything, build a house, and leave. In this proposed code under design standard section 5.3D2, we are telling them they have to plant a tree. I strongly suggest that we tell them plant three trees. Put one between the sidewalk and the street, one in the Frenchard, front yard, and one in the backyard. This book, Mississippi Trees, is put out by the Mississippi Forestry Commission in conjunction with Mississippi State. It is all our native trees. this is what we should be planting and there's lots of them in here and they aren't all giant big trees. They're not all live oaks, but there are really good suggestions. So, I strongly recommend that we do that because when you clear cut, there's no trees. When you don't have trees, you don't have shade. You don't have storm water absorption. Trees act like sponges. Trees clear the air. They give wildlife habitat. we should be replacing what we are removing. And the other thing I would like to suggest is that you have a tree board. That's nowhere in this code. And why do we need a tree board? Because the only person who is enforcing our tree ordinance right now is our building inspector. And God bless Ricky. He does a great job, but he's not a tree person. You need to have And you've got plenty of people in this room. You've got master gardeners. You've got the garden club. You have arborists who could serve on a treeboard. And there are cities along the coast and across the Pearl

River who have tree boards. I want to suggest that too to suggest to help people when they want to do landscaping work with you to make it a better place. Thanks for your help. Thank you very much. I do believe talked about establishing that when we adopted the new tree ordinance, right? What about council me about possibly doing a board? Yeah. Mr. Steven Barney.

Uh Steven SN Barney B A R N Y. Uh 420 Webster Street, 101 Central. Uh good evening, Mayor. uh council members and uh consultant Bob, uh thank you very much for for having this workshop. Um I've got some general comments to make uh about process and also talk a little bit about my specific property. Uh for the past 10 years, I've operated a working pottery studio and a regional arts facility here in Bay St. Louis. It's not a hobby business. It's a production studio. It's an educational facility. It's a regional cultural asset serving participants across the region. Uh I'm here tonight in firm opposition to this whole zoning ordinance. Um first of all the process this ordinance has evolved without any clear version control without any transparent change logs without any clear explanation of who's making decisions what authority revisions seem to be being made continuously when property owners request corrections they're rooted to Orion Jeremy where's Jeremy tonight I I don't know how he could not This is not how you build public trust. As Councilman Lewis stated, the statement of work with Orion planning and development list stakeholders including real estate professionals, developers, and contractors. This raises a serious question. Who is this ordinance designed to serve? Because what I see is a document that appears calibrated around development interests, not existing property owners, not small operators, and not the longstanding working businesses that have helped shape the city. Now, specifically regarding my property, the corner of Washington and Central, I'm

currently zoned C2 Commercial. The proposed future designation places my property into a neighborhood center framework. My operation is not neighborhood retail. Washington Central is not a pedestrian cafe style commerce area. I operate a fabrication and production environment of kils, materials handling equipment, programming across the region, workshops, institutional partnerships. It's not a pedestrianfriendly corridor. My operation depends on vehicle access, parking, and functional industrial flexibility. Reclassifying my property in a neighborhood retail model ri misrepresents what exists and risks rendering productive taxpaying regionally impactful arts facility either non-conforming or constrained in its ability to grow. This ordinance imposes design, landscaping and use assumptions that make sense for speculative mixeduse development but not for working creative industrial operations. Planning should reflect reality. It should pres It should protect existing productive uses. It should not destabilize them. When you combine a process lacking trans transparency and documented version control, advisory influence weighted towards development interests and a zoning framework that misclassifies existing operations. The conclusion is unavoidable. This ordinance as written does not simply need minor revision. needs to be withdrawn and fundamentally reworked with full transparency, clear governance and decision authority and balanced stakeholder representation and explicit protections for existing commercial and creative industrial uses. Throwing this out is not a radical idea as responsible governance the foundation's flawed. I urge you not to move forward with adoption in its

current form. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Tad Black.

Thank you, council. Mayor, um, you've heard me say this before, Mr. Black. Mr. Black, just so for the record, if you'd like it recorded, Dad Black, 217 Street, T- A B A C. That's a hard name,

isn't it? Uh, yes. I want this recorded. You know, a comprehensive plan really, we should have never had the third. You build on your other, you know, it's a five-year review. You build on it. You see if your city's heading the way that you thought it would, and if it didn't, you revise it every five years. And we've had three comprehensive plans. And yes, I've been on every one of them. once as a councilman. Second one was the '09 appointed by the council and the mayor. And this last one, which I can honestly say, is Bob still listening? We didn't have too much to say with any of this. I'll be honest with you. It was about five or six Zoom meetings and that was it. So, the advisory board had nothing to do with what y'all have in your hand right now. Anyway, you know, I've heard I've heard comments uh from our city attorney. I've heard comments from council people that our zoning is outdated. Well, guess what? I'm fixing to read off some cities that are compatible to Bay St. Louis. Wavelin, Pass, Christian, Long Beach, Diville, Ocean Springs, Gohea, Moss Point, and I threw Harrison County in there. And I don't know why that we keep saying this is outdated because get that these cities, those seven cities have updated their zoning ordinance within the last five years. They still have R1, R2, and R3. I don't know why we're getting this. It's outdated. You know, you worried about so many variances. Don't give them. After Katrina, after Katrina, you know, there was a 30-foot variance for front yard, a 25 for the back, and 10 on each side. Well, after Katrina, the advisory board for the second comprehensive plan, which I was on, uh,

they did some changes, right? Instead of having the 30 foot front, you got a 25 foot front. Instead of having 10 foot on each side, you got 8 foot on each side. Instead of having 25 in the back, you have 20 to make it easier for people to build back. Right? What's happening is we have out oftowners coming buying small lots and they're giving varants. You want to build a big house, buy a big lot.

Right. Okay. Now, what my what my neighborhood what my neighborhood is is zoned R1. 1967. It was called the Bay St. Louis land improvement company was annexation and no we did not get paved streets to the 80s. We didn't get sewer to 84. Okay. So, but anyway those lots most of them are 100 by 144. You got key lots because of streets. Like my grandma's lot was 80 86 feet across from me and the other lot behind it was 106 feet because the way the roads go at a diagle, right? Dedicated roads. But our forefathers when when when zoning was adopted in 1964, they had the thought that we don't want to keep building like downtown where you got houses right next to each other, right? They said, "Let's make big lots." And you know, those big lots are selling for 4550,000. Now, when I bought my two lots cost me six each in 1980. So, but you've got Wavelin, Peskian, Long Beach, Diabil, Ocean Springs, Gocha, and Moss Point all are still using R1 and R2 for residential. And they just updated their and Bob was part of this. Bob was part of Bay St. Louis, Diamond Head, Pas Christian, and Waver. And I know a friend on the Alman at I play golf with him in P Christian. He said, "Tad, we didn't change that. We stated our R1, R2, and R3." He said, "Matter of fact, Parrison County still keeps it big county." So, I don't know where we get off on that. Our zoning laws are outdated because they are not. They're outdated because certain people want to build a lot of density on vacant property. That would make the zoning codes outdated. You tired of giving variances? Quit giving them. You build a

house, you stay 8 foot from the property lines on the side, 20 from the back and 25 from the front. You're good to go. You ain't got to talk to nobody. Get you build a permanent bill. But that's the problem we're seeing or and special exemptions should be taken out of the zoning code. Period. That means I can come in here and ask for anything I want. Now, some people have brought up about some gentleman's clubs that can be in mixeduse property. Oh, L or you can only do it. Well, there's a state law that covers that. 1,200 feet from churches, public property. So, our downtown area wouldn't be wouldn't allow a gentleman's club, but the highway would. So, I don't know why you're putting gentleman's clubs in mixed use because that would be like taking the one-stop grocery store by my house on Turner and in Old Spanish Trail and instead of being a little grocery store, we make it a strip club

because that's that's deemed mixed use. But unfortunately, your five minutes is up. I do thanks, man. Come on. I do thank you for your comments,

Bob Johnson. Mr. Bradford. Yes. Uh with all due respect to Mr. Black, the information he provided is inaccurate. Uh we did not know he said we were involved in several of those cities with regard to zoning. Uh which is factually untrue and I want that in the record. Thank you, Mr. Unfortunately, Mr. Black,

if I give you, Mr. Black, if I give you more time, I have to give other people more time. So, it's not that I don't want to hear from you. It's that I have to treat everyone the same. I will.

We have Mr. Bob Johnson. There's their FRA Eldridge. I'm FA Eridge. F R A N Y A E T H R I D G E 122 Melody Lane. And I really like to thank the council for all your comments. It thrills me to hear you say these the things that you said and I agree with almost everything everybody else has said. My comments are kind of limited. I think that well planned growth is essential to the city of Bay St. Louis as we move forward. The city has adopted a comprehensive plan and we should follow the framework that was agreed upon. That having been said, I would like to express my strong opposition to the following. Object to the reduction in front footage of suburban neighborhood low, which used to be R1 lot width as it is counter the comprehensive plan which does not recommend reducing lot widths and creating greater density. you're reducing the R1 to from 100 foot to 90 ft. There's no reason for that. In my neighborhood in Cedar Point, we all have big lots. There's it's there's no justification for it. There's no rationale. I also object to the expansion of the resort destination district into the current R1 designated areas. This is Casino Magic or Collwood Casino. The change doesn't comply with the comprehensive plan which recommends leaving new natural buffers between the

R1 and resort destination district areas. It changes the zoning behind the properties on Felicity Street, the end of Commer Boulevard, the end of O Lane, the back of the lots on Jackson Boulevard and Pine Drive, a swath of land front runninging on the west side of Dumbar Avenue between the Oaks and Thomas Street, the back of the lots along Thomas Street west of Dumbar, along the south side of the second box of Julia to Angman and along Angman to just past Harrison Court. The resort destination district will now also abut the school property and the sports complex with no buffer. I mean, you know what's allowed in a resort destination? You have bars, lounges, almost anything. Um, the uses allowed in this district do not belong directly adjacent to residences and schools. When the original casino district was established, its scope was limited to reduce the impact on the surrounding residential districts. The expansion of the resort district at the resort destination district removes that protection and could possibly leave the door open for an additional casino along Dumbar Avenue. That land goes from Dumbar all the way back to England. I also object to the addition of a riverfront district along the far end of North Beach Boulevard. That's a new new thing. It's not indicated in the comprehensive plan and it changes the zoning along parts of Angman, Blakemore, the back of the lots on the west side of Cedar Ridge and the back of the lots along northeast west of Cedar Ridge. According to Hancock County Geoportal, the land is currently listed as being owned by Gulfport LLC, which on the Mississippi Secretary of State's website, uh, its officer member is listed as VICI Properties One LLC. It appears to be linked to the Grand Casino, Beluxy, Horseshoe Tuna, and the new Tuna Roadhouse. There's no justification for this change in the zoning, and it's

basically a black a backdoor expansion of the resort destination district into Cedar Point. I'd ask that this be included in the minutes, and I hope you guys consider this. Absolutely. Thank you very much for your comments.

Thank you. See? house. House. I think she

house paper. Brian Milner. Brian Milner, B R I A M I L N E R. I reside at 733 Dunar Avenue. Um, like everybody else, thank you very much for holding this. Um, this is the only the second time I've been in this chamber. The first was Friday, so this is all kind of new to me, so I'm going to read all my comments. Um, there are many items that that I would like to discuss concerning the proposed ordinance, but with the time constraints tonight, I'll be addressing the requirements of a variance being considered in the proposed ordinance. My other comments will come in writing, and it is my understanding that they will be forwarded in their entirety to the consultant for review, response, and action. Under the current ordinance, there are 11 conditions, all of which must be met before hardship variance is approved by the PNZ and set to the city council for approval. The proposed ordinance has consolidated these current 11 conditions into eight conditions, but has removed the necessity of all the conditions to be met. In fact, the proposed ordinance says that the PNZ shall consider the following review criteria and list their eight conditions. Considering the conditions and requiring all the conditions to be me met are not the same thing. By doing this, I believe we are opening the door to becoming a present- day Potter bill. Um, Mr. Lewis and and Miss Monty have have already brought this up, but I've been told by a few people that the proposed ordinance has incorporated all the repetitive variances that have been granted over the last few years. So instead of being a hardship variance, they have they will have a permitted by

right status. As one of the comments made online earlier, uh I think Mr. Alet um this is like raising the speed limit to match the driver's speed instead of enforcing the current speed limit. Look, I've I've been blessed to work on the uh Mississippi Gulf Coast as a financial advisor for the last 25 years. I've dealt with my clients 401ks and IAS, and these are retirement plans that are set up by the fed federal government to allow its citizens to save for their retirement. They have strict rules for these plans, including conditions that must be met before someone could take money out prematurely. Those are called hardship distributions, just like our variances are called hardships. I've been asked in the past to process a hardship withdrawal to pay for taxes that were unexpected. And I have explained to them that this is not a hardship condition defined by the federal government. In fact, they call it poor planning. I call using repetitive variances to shape our ordinance poor planning. Instead of relaxing the rule for variance to the point of ridiculousness, we need to enforce the current rules. We need to review the variances that have been approved lately and remind the real estate agents, designers, architects, contractors that these are hardship variances and not a blanket approval process. Apparently, when the current ordinance was passed, we had a city government more concerned with protecting its citizens. Another issue with the proposed ordinance is the public hearing requirements for hardship variances and special exemption. While it keeps the timeline and most of the notices of hear of the hearings the same as Mrs. Monty pointed out, it removes the requirement for a notice to be mailed to the owners of all properties within a radius of 300 ft of the boundaries of the property in question. These are the most important people to be notified. Um, as I mentioned, I was blessed to have been able to work with all my clients along the Gulf Coast. And whenever I mentioned I was from Bay St.

Louis, the response was always positive. I love that town. We we love going there. It's so quaint and friendly. However, over the last four or five years, the responses have changed. They now they are now along the lines of we don't go there anymore. It's too crowded. Oh, you mean bar St. Louis or even Oh, yeah. Bay St. Louis, a place falling apart. And more recently, quaint it ain't. Look, there there there are a lot of problems with the proposed ordinance, and I find it difficult to believe that this was presented to the public in its current state. I believe we have spent over $200,000 for the BSL 2045 plan and are now spending more than $100,000 to rewrite the ordinance. It seems to me that much more input is needed to even come close to having this become a reality. Um, and I do support uh you know the the idea of having another workshop after the the revisions have been made into the uh into this proposed ordinance.

Thank you again. Thank you. Katie A.

Hi, my name is Katie Aim. I uh reside at 448 man Avenue. I also own property at 451 man Avenue. Mat, I know it sounds silly. Could you spell your name for the K A T Y A I M E? Thank you.

Wow. So, um 448 Alman Avenue, 451 Alman Avenue, um 1170 Highway 90, and 50 uh 502 Carol Avenue. So, that's four different zones that my properties are being affected in. One of the things that I've been proudest, just so y'all know, is to be able to clean up a piece of Highway 90. So, I'm 1170 Highway 90, the old golf cart place. So, please take note of that. But um I just wanted to to talk with you guys while while this is all in play. This chart of uses limits a lot of the properties. So that's one of the things that a lot of people haven't talked about. They talk a lot about lot lines and things like that. For me, it's the chart of uses. I specifically chose the properties that I chose to bought because they were an X flood zone and because of the charter uses on the properties. So um I really hope that y'all take a very close look at that. I mean something as simple as I just talked with the mayor marine sales storage right there. So y'all have breaths and they do marine sales but they don't do marine storage. So those are some really loaded we went from 12 pages I think it was to six pages like basically half to describe all the uses of all these properties. Okay. Um one of the things as a real estate professional we've been kind of brought up here a little bit tonight. We're not we're not in it to to limit all the properties and make a lot of money, but um real estate professionals versus home occupation. Currently, I'm zoned C2 in my residence. I chose to not work out of my home. I chose to purchase a building on Highway 90 and improve that property. If y'all change my zoning from C2 down to R1, you're cutting out many, many, many uses that I believe before me that wasn't in the planning that happened. It wasn't in the planning that happened before because there's sidewalks. There's lights. You got more

pickle ball courts coming. We actually have um on that street in the proposed new zoning, eight different types of zoning and point8 less than a mile stretch. But we are going to be downplayed in our usage of our property as it sits right now. So the historic school is for sale. It's going to be something. The end of Alman Avenue is for sale. It's going to be something on Webster Street. Currently, you have um 20 condos, many of y'all are familiar with this, that are probably possibly going to be coming by, right, minus the natural drainage ditch or the trees holding up that development. When that happens, that ditch drains to my property that we're going to take from C2 and make it R1. Like, there's no fairness in this for me. Then we're going to go that drain actually comes from the pickle ball courts down. So it's going to hit the other property that I have at 451 man. That's going to stay under the same zoning, but my personal home is not going to stand that same zoning. So but I still can get why can't I be G Coast Homes or some of these other businesses and things that are on the street that are happening. Um I agree with Kyle about the complete autonomy from a planning and zoning person. That's an amazing point. Very good. And I think that that's a complaint that we've heard a lot in the community. I hadn't heard that before, but I'd like to delve a little bit more um into that. But I think that man used to be commercial. It was chiropractors, a dog place, a tea room, a florist, a doctor, a snowball stand, gas stations. It's been all that in the years that I didn't live here. So now we're going to take that street that we've developed, that we've put sidewalks, that we've put lights and everything into. And I'm blessed to have amazing neighbors, some of who are here tonight, some aren't, but we're going to take the duplexes and make them single family homes, but we have eight more

condos that are already approved to come in the the school district. McFale is going to put in eight more condos. So, there's all this development that's happening and our use is getting lessened. So, I really hope that y'all keep that zoned to C2. Um there's others that I could go on. Oh, um accessory dwelling units, taking away the R2. We have a lot of aging population that is moving here and moving in with their families and stuff as well. They they're being priced out of their homes in other areas. So, they can't afford the rents and things that happen. That's where some of that art keeping things as uh duplexes and stuff like that. That's really going to make a big difference for a lot of people who move here as well. That's about all I have to say in the short amount of time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Angela. Okay. Is that the same thing for you, Mr.

Ben? My name is uh Ben Benoodi Ben Uti 11:114 Dumbar. just like to thank the board uh for the the chance to to meet and uh say I'm impressed with uh the board members and a lot of the uh all the commenters today. Um I was jotting down just to I know it's getting late. just want to say uh I'm opposed to the ordinance which allows a higher density. Um it seems to lessen the rigor of the variance process and um really doesn't address the uh short-term uh rental. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you very much,

Mr. Cliff Ravise. Good evening. Cliff Rabble. CL I FF. Last name R A B A as in Bravo Alpha. R A B A L A I S. I'm at 702 Third Street. Thank you, gentlemen. It's not the first time I talked to you guys, is it? Okay. The whole reason, and most of this you guys probably heard before, some of you all heard from me this afternoon, reasoning for getting a new ordinance is to end up at something better than we currently have. This draft has moved us in the opposite direction. Meeting back in January, I stated public input had not been taken. Here we are in March and the bulk of the cover comments shown on the website. Larry, I hope you pass there are 51 or 51 comments posted on the website. Over 30 of them are mine. Seven of them are tiles. Six of them are Phil Sor. These public comments are not being put out where people can see them. And just like some of the comments I heard this evening, what other people say triggers me to go and look. So, let's please get that fixed. I don't think it's you guys, but I know there are some people who have gotten up here and spoke. Three of them in particular that I talked to that have sent in comments via email. Their comments are not being made available to the general public. I didn't know about this estate lots thing uh until I talked to somebody today. But in the comprehensive plan where it's discussed that the area that we where I live they have an area called estate lots. The reality is where I live near Romanita street breed and pace and bay oaks those streets are the subdivisions. Most of us own between one

and 20 acres. That's the size of the lots out there. And this whole thing Mr. Bob said I talked about the character of the area. Well, I got the small lot. I only got two acres. Not going to reiterate a whole lot of the specifics. This draft ordinance, as we've said before, and it becomes very obvious. We were at the 60 yard line. We want to get to the 90 yard line. We're back at the 30 yard line now. We went backwards. I've said it before and it's always easier for a contractor to demo what's there and start fresh because then he's in control. I would ask specifically who within the city administration and if there's anybody willing to stand up and say, "Yeah, I did it. Gave this Orion input to Orion because I haven't heard anybody's name yet. I've heard the reasoning for the smaller lots and reduced setbacks were because such things were being asked as a variance as they were always been. As I told you on Friday night, the standard is not how many variances we give. It's the standard and we vary from the standard. As someone else, Mr. Miller just said, you don't change the speed limit because everybody's feeding. The fact that we have a requirement that you have to meet to get a variance is good. You got reasons to have variance. We were cut up. Hancock County and Bay St. Louis is cut up in little bitty pieces. You can't have a fixed stand. We're not a clean slate starting fresh. You're going to have variances. You got to have a reason to approve it. You prove it if it's supposed to be. You deny it if you're not. Like your grandson comes and ask a piece of candy. If you give him a piece of candy, next time he sees you, ask for a piece of

candy. You give them a piece of candy. Every time you approve it, you reinforce that. Just ask for it. They'll give it to you. We need to stick to the art. In Mr. Barker's presentation he said they took community input from the city administration who names existing code was reviewed who it was presented to the planning commission and council you guys know darn well in January I irritated all of you because y'all got to see it the same time as the public got to see it and I don't think planning zone had seen it yet so I don't know who who they who in planning and zoning commission reviewed it that gave input because I don't think they did. Somebody's feeding me a line of bull. Current code is scattered. That's what was Mr. Bob said. Yeah, the current code is scattered. This one isn't any better. I had a gentleman that lives across the street from me say this code is a developer's dream. And I had someone talk to me tonight saying they're trying to sell their house and they can't sell it because the lot is too small. People come here because they don't want to be in Ker and Mey with small lots on top of each other. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you. Now, I do have some stuff I'd like to give to whoever I need to give it to some specific things to If you have enough copies for everyone, we'll all take one. But if you only got one, you guys have seen it or you should have. I don't know. This is the first time I've seen you. Yeah, we got it documented.

We have Thank you. Josh McGee.

Joshua McGee. M A G E. I fail to see how this meets comprehensive plan. You know, I first read this about a month ago. I've contacted many of y'all several times and I have yet to get responded back and I don't know how it meets the comprehensive plan. Heard again and again it meets it, but when I read the comprehensive plan, it doesn't meet it. How does this all fit together? How does it fit together with our existing ordinances? We have tons of different ordinances. This overlaps many of them. I hear claims that this has a better environment, less density and so forth, but when I actually look through, it's not the case. I mean, we had a chapter 42. We have a whole new sign thing that's definitely been reproduced. So, what happened to chapter 22 environmental article one, storm water prevention, management, tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, flood damage and prevention, many of these things. When I first read this a month ago, after I contacted many of y'all up here, which I have yet to receive any feedback, any discussion on is on another note. After reading the newly proposed zoning in, it appears that it really guts the environmental section and guts out our storm water management, erosion, sediment control, and flood damage plan. The tree pre preservation and sideorns were however strengthened. Large lot sizes and setbacks were reduced to minimize variance were addressed while crop drivers such as the environment were completely not only ignored but highly diverged from the objective. The new proposal seems to very geared towards every identified community stakeholder to set the citizens interest. Now I can go back to a conversation that Bob had today and he said there was two main goals, two main goals to move undeveloped land and to

reduce variance. That were the two main goals. That's what he said just today. Now I can go over the purpose and intent of this new ordinance. There's a through m 13 different things and I can go step in step as I evaluate it. out of those 13 things, three of them they accomplish and that's one and that they're meeting the comprehensive objective plan. I don't know, but since no one's talked to me about it, I'm going to give that as a part. Now, five of them I think they fail. You know, reduces avail the vulnerability development to residents from storm and flooding and other natural hazards. No, absolutely not. Fully guts the current zoning. ensures adequate open spaces between air and fire safety. No, it reduces again and we can step down these. So again, out of the 13, three plus, five negative and three questionable. Now I'm going to we've been here a long night and I welcome any of y'all to come talk to me and we can walk down, but this is a lot longer than a five minute section and you know how much time are we supposed to devolve? going through this and pulling over all these thoughts and doubts when it was touch radically changed. This needs to be thrown out, not amended upon and really really taken a second look.

Thank you.

That is everybody who signed up. I want to Yeah. Go on. We got room for Keith Freland B R E L A N D 1126 Canan lane 216 carry court. Yeah. Um, about the new zoning, does it have anything to do with elevation on the river on the mouth of the river?

Uh, no elevation changes. It's all going to stay the same. I believe that has to do with

FEMA. I mean, yeah, because what I was getting at, you know, when you have at the Katrina, the group from Florida, they actually came in and did it on, you know, the I ended up in Velocity and my brother behind me end up in R1. So, I drove over to the Mississippi Coast Coliseum say, "Hey, I What's the difference between Velocity and R1?" He said, "Oh, oh, you're going to have seven foot high water. going to have three foot waves on top of that and blah blah blah. I said, "Really?" He said, "Yeah." I said, "Well, I can take one step back and forth." He looked at what was the group out of Florida. You know, I'm like, it kind of, you know, I know it's the wrong thing, you know, to the zoning. But um I guess what I'm trying to say that should try to find people locally or from the coach or something to make different zones because I just got back from the bar Florida for three days and they building their houses right on the concrete slab right on the canals. I'm like well that's the people that told us we had to be 24 feet in the air

but all them are building on on the slabs. So that's about the only comment I have.

Thank you very much Mr. President. Mark Ben Fatty. B- N F A TI, 128 Washington Street. I know it says construction, so don't don't get upset. Don't get upset. I know what y'all think. I turned my back on y'all and just like that. So really thank everybody. I mean it's two hours and I'm sure we missed a couple of episodes or something, but this is, you know, a good bunch of people here and everybody is worried about Bane Luke. I'm sorry. I got to talk to them.

This is this more fun. But anyway,

I've been here 20s something years. I'm from Tampa, Paris. I love it here. It's my home. I just built on Washington Street. Uh we do build homes on these lot. Um some of them are too small and we try to make it work. Uh we are now one of the few guys in town that are building fortified homes which is a a higher level of standard building practices and the customers are getting 55% off their homeowners insurance if they fortify their home. And we build all fortified homes. So you know we all got the same agenda, right? I got to survive. You guys got to survive. Uh we don't want to be like you see in national politics. It's either one way or the other. You know, somewhere we we got to make it work to where we could build some nice houses but not disrupt our neighborhood. Um I had a restaurant in Mandeville years ago before I moved over here. And uh it had a corner bar and uh there was a guy, young kid, 30 something years old and he had his wife or girlfriend with him and she was really cute, right? So the older fella on the corner, somebody like Mr. Cliff or something, you know, he's flirting with the girl. If if you don't if you don't want somebody to look at your beautiful wife, get you another wife. But the reason y'all here is cuz Bay St. Louis is awesome and everybody wants to come and it's a problem y'all got to deal with. But I don't want to argue with Mr. Brian, but people are calling me all the time. They want to come here. I ain't heard

Mr. Betty, we get you this.

Yeah. I ain't heard no I'm not saying no negatives, but I'm telling you, my business is good. People love it. Y'all have developed a community that people want to be a part of. How y'all control it, I'm not smart enough to figure that out. I'm just building houses. But y'all have something special here and how y'all work it out. I, you know, this is the first time I came to the one for 2045. But, you know, we got to figure it out because we all live here. But this is a great place to be and that's why y'all got the problems y'all got. Everybody wants to come. So, you know, I don't have a lot of wisdom uh on how to fix all these little things that these poor people got to are task task with, but it's somewhere special and we got to keep it special and that's I think that's what all everybody really wants to to do. So, good luck to you guys. Y'all got your hands full.

Thank you, Mr. M. Yes, sir. Okay. I just want to take this time thank everyone for being here. Uh and and hopefully we get this ship going in the right direction. uh any everyone who got up here. I know it takes a lot to come to the podium and say what you got to say. Um so I appreciate that. And with that being said, if the council doesn't have any other remarks to make

Yeah. Absolutely. So So that's what earlier in the meeting kind of referenced. We can't make we can't have any action. We can't set any dates at this workshop. So at our next meeting, you know, I challenge the council to come and and bring some dates after the next after the draft. Absolutely. Yes. Yeah. Abs. Absolutely. Yeah. We have to have that more so I think as a council we need to identify when do we want to cut off uh public comment. Well, let's see when that draft comes out and then we I mean is there still going to be comments needed for the draft? No, I meant before the second draft. I don't. So, right now we're in the first. Yeah. Right.

But we'll never be able to get the draft. We'll ne we'll never be able to get a second draft unless we close off comments. But to to miss for the fir Yeah. close off comments for the first draft. I'm sorry about that. And also, I heard uh Mr. Cliff made a good point and I noticed this at our town hall and even here tonight when we're all in the same room and we're talking about this, we're all picking up from something else. So, I'm going to see if we can get a partially compiled list of all the public comments to date and see if we can get that put out there. That way, we can read what some of our neighbors are are saying about this. So, is I don't know if Bob's still on. Do we have an ETA of when we'll get that when when all of its comments will be processed and we'll get that back.

So, so I don't know if he's Bobb's still on. I know he's been waiting on us to give him a date to close it off and compile it, but he can get us a partial. I'm here. You can you get us a partial of the public comments we've received so far. Okay, perfect. Not just the online ones. All not. So, so right now the only ones visible to other residents are on the Dropbox. So, yeah. Jeremy Jeremy will have a record of all the Yeah. So, so that's what if we can Yeah. So, we'll get with you, Jeremy, and we'll get a list compiled to release. And where to?

So, on our city website, if you go to uh the city website on the top, there's a banner, and just click on that, we'll we'll post all our updates on there. And there, while everyone's in this room, we have something new as a council. We have a new link, constant communication, constant contact. So, urge everyone to sign up for that. It releases all our med uh all our meeting dates and agendas prior to the meeting. So, thank you Caitlyn for There's a link and you just put in your email address and it will email you every month. Can we add a link to the council page? Is it on the council page where they can sign up for that on the city website?

Can we add it there? That way they we can reference them to sign up. Oh, yeah. I remember you told me that. Perfect. All right. Yes. So good. I'll point out so right now the ways for public comment you can comment on the Dropbox. Whenever we first released it, they ran into some issues with uh having to have an account. You'd have to sign up using your email. So the second way you could email your comments directly to Jeremy Burke and he would have them forwarded to Orion. And with that being said, we implemented a third way to comment and that is directly on the website that I mentioned, the web page that I mentioned on the city website. You can fill that out and submit your comments on there. So, we have three ways and then the ultimate goal of tonight was to have a verbal way for people to comment as well.

So, we need to get to respond to say that they received them. Yeah. Did it go through? Yeah, we need to get I'll get with Jeremy to respond to all the ones that he's respond to, let you know that they've been confirmed. And see that it's been there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Gets everyone thinking about it. I All right. With that being said, any other council business any or any other council discussion? I'll well I'll call for a motion to adjourn the workshop of March 4th, 2026. Motion motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Davis second. Any discussion? The motion.

I I I