Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

8, 2026. We ask at this time that you please silence your cell phones and pagers. And we're going to move into a prayer and also the pledge of allegiance. All righty. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Dear Lord, if you can bow your heads. Dear Lord, let us take a moment to seek wisdom, clarity, and fairness. As we begin this meeting today, may our decisions be thoughtful, our discussions respectful, and our actions guided by what is best for the city of Bay St. Louis and its residents. Amen. All righty. Thank you. All right. So, we're going to make a motion to approve the minutes for March the 11th, 2026. Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve. Um motion by Mr. Osborne. Uh all those in favor I approve. I second. Second. Um Thank you. All right. Um, so first on the docket is pronounce that for me. Jeremy Karen I'm sorry I don't have my bad. We have Wi-Fi in here. Karen. Yes, Karen.

Karen. No, the Wi-Fi is not working. So, I have to go plug into the E. Okay. For this one, guys, this is a uh per zoning ordinance or not zoning or city ordinance. If somebody gets denied for applicant for a tree removal, tree trimming, um the appeal process goes through planning and zoning. Y'all give a recommendation uh that's going to go before the city council. So, um Miss uh so will explain, but 115 Demolison Street back in January um early February looking for a tree tree permit to get have two trees removed. Uh there was a denial that was given. They filed an appeal and the appeal is now being heard. So currently as it stands, the two trees that they asked to get removed um was denied. So they're just going through the process and would like to appeal it to the Bay St. Louis City Council, but before they get to the Bay St. Louis City Council, they have the public hearing here.

Okay. Um what is your name? My name is Katie Hood. I'm the attorney for Mr. Kevin Kernian and Miss Lori Norman. Okay. One minute. Um, before Miss Hood uh speaks on this case, I will say this. If you plan on speaking at any time during this meeting, you need to sign the paper. If not, I will not be allowing anybody to speak. All right. Go ahead, Miss Hood.

Thank you, Mrs. Brown. My name is Katie Hood. For the record, I represent Mr. Kevin Kernian and Miss Lori Norman, who are the owners of 115 Deonten. Um, and as Mr. B just kind of touched. I want to give youall kind of a high level background um of what we're working with here. But basically, there are two I'm going to call them live oaks. They are basically dead, but they are technically live oaks on the property of 115 Deonten. And my clients, as Mr. Burke just mentioned, submitted an um a a tree permit for removing these two specific live oaks on their property. You will see in the somewhat voluminous submissions that are part of the record that there are um lots of lots of things that I'll kind of touch on, but some of the high level things that I just want you to be aware of. There's an arborist report um by a licensed arborist and horiculturist who has come out and inspected these two trees that are at issue. There is a supplemental arborist report as well just furthering some additional details after the denial of the of the permit. Um, but there's also some photographic evidence that you could look at right now and see just kind of the general nature um and status of of these live oak trees. And you can see just from the naked eye that they are in a a a very terrible state um with um with with some objective issues as far as arborists and horicultures would tell you, but really from a safety um a safety issue to the community to neighboring properties um for their property damage. it. But anyway, I just wanted to kind of give you a big picture of what the record includes. um as part of the background for what uh got us here today, there was um an appeal I mean I'm sorry a permit application that was submitted through the proper channels with the city and that um that appeal or I'm sorry that that request for the permit application was submitted

on January 28th and according to the the ordinances the the you know you have to have proper documents doumentation and all of these things. For all intents and purposes, our appeal or our our application for the permit removal, the tree removal was finalized and fully submitted on January 29th, 2026. So um on January 29th, 2026, our application was complete for our tree removal permit. According to um section 22- um -116, there is a um a a a requirement that reads that no building permit shall be issued until the tree site plan has been reviewed and approved in writing by the tree protection advisor and a permit as provided is issued or denied within seven working days of submitt. So within seven working days of January 29th, 2026 according to section 22-116, we should have received an answer one way or another on whether or not the permit would have been either approved or denied. Um if the applicant is not notified of approval or disapproval within seven working days, such plans shall be considered approved and such permits shall be considered issued by the tree protection adviser through the building official. The record will make it clear, and I highlighted it in my letter um to y'all earlier last week, that there was never an approval or disapproval within that 7-day time frame. We received no communication from um through a tree protection adviser, a building official, or or really anyone for that matter from the city until that 7-day time frame had lapsed. And it was not until February 10th, um which by the way, the seven-day working day time period lapsed on

February 9th. So on February 10th, my client actually proactively requested an update through the portal saying, "Hey, we haven't heard anything. What is the city's position on this?" And then ultimately the following day on February 11th, Mr. Drew Box posted a comment issuing a formal denial of the tree permit um application. And so here we are today. Um the the main appeal basis um for my clients is that failure to comply with the 7-day working um day deadline time frame that I just discussed. Um shall is very clear in section 22-116 that it is a mandatory if there is no denial or approval then it shall be deemed approved. Um, and so, you know, there's a there's a really strong argument that that the buck stops there as far as the analysis of whether or not there should be an ultimate approval of our permit application. But even going beyond that, there's a real issue um with with the manner in which the information was ultimately provided to my clients. And that is that again this chapter 22 and under the code of ordinances makes it clear that a tree protection advisor is who is to ultimately make this decision on whether or not there should be an appeal an um approval or denial of a tree permit application. And again there's that shall be language in section 2292b here that says that the tree protection advisor shall be an arborist or culticulturist. And there has been no evidence, there's been no information presented to me or my clients from the city that there was an arborist or a holder horiculturist that ultimately made the decision to deny the application on February 11th. It's it's my understanding that Mr. Drew Box is a planning and building inspector, but he is not an arborist or porticulturist. And if he is, there's just been no credentials that have been provided to support that position. Um, I I could go

on and on. I think it's important to highlight that the arborist report in um all the documentation that we have provided has found that there was uh many many many reasons basically why these two trees um are not proper candidates for rehabilitation or maintenance to where they could be saved. Um these existing trees are um in in fair to poor condition and in fact one is actually been moved from fair to poor to poor. Um but they have diseased from wood decay fungi and um mitigation requirements here according to our professional arborist and horiculturist just would not would not number one would not apply but number two would not rehab these trees to a situation where you know they could remain um safely on the property. And one thing before I'll conclude is that there was a they call it a um a failure of a tree when a tree falls. And there was a failure of a large live oak tree back in early December. It was not technically on my client's property, but it was on the neighboring property and it fell over into my client's property and um they sustained property damage. It fell into one of their sheds. And the arborist and the horiculturist reviewed that tree because it was still laying down on the property. and the exact same findings, the issues that he found in the two trees that issue today were present in that tree that did fall. So, we're talking about, you know, a precedent almost that's been set for this type of fungi, this type of decay at this percentage of decay, 65% on one of these trees as this fungi that's just inundated. Um, and you had a tree fall, you know, causing damage. Thank god no one was hurt. But there's a there's a precedent that's been set that these two trees that are still standing and still present today could also suffer the same fate. Um so I'll leave it at that. That's kind of the high level stuff. If

you have any questions or want to get more granular, I'm happy to do that. But um with that I I conclude right now. Okay. Um so I did have some time to review this case personally. Um so I do want to correct a few things. So we did have a tree advisor. Um, the communication did come through the building department. Drew is a a staff member of the building department and did communicate um through with your client through the portal. That's right. But uh we did have John Adams with I think he is with Mohawk um trees and so he is a tree advisor. He does have credentials uh that you can look into. Okay.

Um from I'm sorry I I did not know that. I didn't I didn't um this is the first time hearing of his name, right? Um I'm aware I so I did wanted to just know about more correspondence. So he did get back um at a certain time frame with the city uh building department about this. So um we do have a tree specialist. I do understand that the um 7-day window wasn't followed, you know, right? So,

and that is pretty clear in the record, if I may, just that that the shall language seems like that's a black and white rule and there's a very clear line of demarcation on that seven-day window. But just so I have it right in my mind for future correspondents, John Adams with Mohawk Trees, hold on, Jeremy. Uh, John Adams with Mohawk Tree Services. Okay. And they're out of Pascan if you want to look that up. Just to be specific. No, no. I I totally take your word for it. I just want to understand his communication that was made just solely through or or directly to either Drew or maybe even um Yes. And those are the two people that I have on record that communicated with you.

That's correct. So John, your record does not indicate that John ever spoke with my clients. Okay. That's consistent with my record, too. And this is the first I'm hearing of his name. So I just wanted to make sure that I fully understood the extent of correspondence with John. Okay. Yeah. No worries. Okay. Um before I open the floor to administration, I'm going to open the floor to the commissioners. Sure. Is there anything that you would like to Did we miss the 7-day window and therefore this is cut and dry, right?

Well, I guess um obvious I was just looking at the record and the permits of when it was applied for. Looked like it was the 29th. I guess they got everything and seemingly they got corresponded with on the 10th. Yeah, the first response was on the 10th. A formal denial came on the 11th, but both of those days are outside of the seven days. Yeah. So, so then can we just move on?

Well, regardless, so currently the appeal would be currently the thing is it's an appeal. So, what would be is just the general appeal. So, somebody needs regardless of what it is is make the recommendation to uphold the findings of the tree approval or, you know, overturn the decision to not disallow cutting the tree and whatever else, you know, goes along with it. Well, again, yeah, all the all the information about the condition of the trees is interesting, but if we didn't follow the rule, then we really should just move forward.

Well, we'll take and see if there's any more comments from the rest of the commission. Mr. Clark, do you have anything? No, that's why I was just wondering I was wondering too if they had got I mean, it was like we they didn't follow the rules, so that's what I'm trying to figure out. Okay. All righty. Well, Miss Hood, I will make a motion um to uh allow the permit um and do the bill. So, Oh, okay. I'm so sorry. I got ahead of myself, Miss Anita. We Okay, that's fine. For the record, just in case y'all need it, the permit number is A-1377. Okay. And it is tied to project number 2026-90. into my my formal offer. Oh, that's great.

Yeah, we have it on here. Thank you. Thank you so much. All righty, Miss Anita. Hey,

Anita Warner on behalf of the Live Oak Registry. And I am opposed to granting this. And just because we missed the deadline hasn't that doesn't mitigate. It's still an appeal. And so you have to make a decision. First of all, Miss Hood just said these trees are dead. They are not dead. They have very healthy canopies. They have uh their expert, Mr. Gerity, quote, photographically examined these trees. He didn't come out and look at them. I have a problem with that. You can take pictures that show certain things and omit a lot of other things. Vanessa Benson, who is another arborist that they engaged, made an interesting comment. Trees can be managed but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees. We don't want to do that. These trees are and Miss Benson said she's put them between fair and good condition as opposed to diseased and dying. So, I think at this point y'all should just let the city council decide these trees are in good shape. And it seems to me based on what I'm looking through this voluminous record, these people just want to expand their house, so they want to cut down the trees. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, next on the list is Lori uh Norman. Hello and thank you. Um, just to clarify a couple of things. I think Miss Vanessa, that was a reference to another case where we were looking at where they had the MSU um I think Department of Forestry had wrote an article about that, but Miss Vanessa did not come Oh, I'm sorry. So, sorry, did not come to our house.

Um just another thing too, we I love to garden. I We're from New Orleans. We There's We have several live oak properties that we've saved and salvage injected in the past. Um, if you've been on the property, you can see there's one that's very close to and leaning on a utility pole that's rotten. The other one, the larger one, is hanging over our house to the point where I don't like the grandkids and other family members coming over because it is a risk. We just had the one fail in December. There was one that failed a little earlier than that. Um, if it wasn't a safety issue, the trees would be there. And that's just what I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. Um,

Miss Hood, do you mind coming back up, please? What was your uh tree advisor's name? Mr. Gity. Okay. So, did he come to the home? He it's my understanding that he did not physically come to the home, but that the the photographic evidence and all of that that was submitted with the packets is is more than enough for him to make the assessment based on conversations with the homeowners and the photographic evidence. Okay. He also provided a supplemental report with additional photographs and detailed information as well. Okay. Um, when did your client start talking to him um about this issue? Just so we'll have a

I don't know. I have to ask them. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All righty. Um, I think that is it. Um, would anybody else from the commission like to say anything else on this case before we move to a motion?

All righty. I make a motion to approve the permit request. Um, just so make the record a little more clear is overturned the decision for the denial for the tree permit. um number 20 26- 90. Just make it that way. All right. And allow the two trees to be removed. Right. Gotcha. Motion to approve or that. So, Miss Brown made that motion. So, second. Does anybody second that one?

I will second the motion. Uh second, Mr. AG. All those in favor? I I I nay. All righty. Three to four. All right. So, this will go before Bay St. Louis City Council on Tuesday, May 5th at 5:30 for the final go in the recommendation of allowing to cut down the tree. All righty. Um, next would be MP Design Group, which this racetrack

if you so um so this is a major site plan review um MP design group is the consultant rep and the designer representing the client um on the northwest corner of on the northwest corner of I 10 large track of land um client has acquired the land and they would like to go and make a uh gas station but it's a racetrack one Those are community. So a larger footprint one. Um they've submitted they've submitted a lot of stuff but pretty much construction documents but constructed construction um it's allowed by allowed by right drainage checks out um fire protection. It'll be easily be um protected. The utilities are not Bay St. Louis utilities. It's Hancock County Water and Sewer. Yeah. So, and they're able to um to supply the thing. The one thing that is they're going to wait for and it's just um no construction permit will be issued. It has some uh it's having to just work its way through the core of engineer approval process for some wetlands. Um it's already in the works. It's just a probably what 9 month to 12 month process what it is with public hearings and stuff. But as per site plan, designwise, everything works for us. With that being said, even if it gets approved today, they still it still has just time to make it through the federal approvement process of the uh wetlands.

Okay. Sir, can you state your name for us? I'm Blake Novel here on behalf of MP Design Group. All righty. Um I have pretty much reviewed your case. Is there anything that you like we might need to know or that you want to share about this site plan review. I think the biggest thing is just the weapons. So it's probably a nine 12 month process at this point. Okay. And that has been started just kind of waiting on all the stuff to trickle down. All right. All right. Um does anybody from our commission have any comments that they may have? Question. So how much fill will you bring in for the site? How much do you have to build it up?

This site requires a lot of ble to meet the plug plan requirement. I think we're at nearly 100,000 cubic yards. Is that 8t 15t? Any idea what that is? And you know I think it's around 8 to 12 feet. Wow. Yeah, I think I feel like it's a 19 I or they have to be 19 ft above and I feel like where they're going to do it is closer to eight. So I mean it all varies but yeah it's probably about good all of 10 foot that the fifth floor is going to have to go up definitely get built up

but they haveund and something acres so I think they can figure it out I hope and so I seen something about a runoff uh where Is the water actually going back there? It'll travel underneath the interstate and close out. Okay, that's the lowest point on that whole corner of the property. And that detention pond is severely just not not a problem we normally run into civil design.

All right. Is there any other comments from um the commission? All righty. Um, I make a motion that we approve the site plan review. Second. Second, Mr. Osborne. All those in favor? I I I I 4 to 4. Thank you. Thank you.

And like same thing in case they have questions. Um, next t Tuesday, May 5th, 5:30 is for the final approval here. Thank you. What is it? Thank you. All right. Next, we have Miss um not miss but uh the applicant Robin on 312 Deontat Lausanne. Oh, because uh we had to move the meeting, he is not able to hear, so he has a representative. Okay. Um one minute. Can you briefly read out um about this case?

So Rob, an application for special exception variance to signing ordinance been by John Robin. The applicant is requesting a special exception allow an accessory dwelling on a lot under 15,000 square ft. The combined lots are 11,639 ft which mean a variance of 3,361 square feet from the required area. Um property is located 31 12 de Matlisten. It's owned R2 two family. Um this this application came back in before us in January I believe of this year. Um it's a house that it's a property that goes from the Mison Street to State Street. Um street gentleman bought it probably two years ago. Um house is already in the front. The back part is currently a garage storage area. He would he came back in January wanted to put uh living quarters in the garage part. Um it was denied by y'all, denied by city council. He reapplied. Um applicant will go say I think he said some of the feedback was to move the accessory dwelling to the away from the street to the front part. Um so he submitted sketches and say I'm going to reapply and ask again and just let you know that I'm going to be moving to the front. Um administration stance um we let this would stand alone but you know the it's let me go give you the exact reasons our recommendedation was denied. Um

it says that the application came before zoning and planning in January. Yeah. It says that a number of letters of supports were submitted to support this application to allow a special exception. The storage building is already constructed and it will be converted into a living quarters and accessory dwelling. The accessory dwelling would not meet the setback requirements. The combined parcels does not meet the 15,000 square ft minimum lot requirement. Adequate parking space exists to accommodate the proposed accessory dwelling.

Yeah. So even the um the garage that currently sits there, the house is probably I don't know from the 50s maybe, but it's probably we don't have to survey, but probably 8 foot from either the property line or from the road's edge. So though the buildings garage isn't going to change, it's still you know closer than we would allow a house or a you know even a shed to be built. All righty. Um ma'am, what is your name? Vicki. Okay. Miss Asava. Asaba. E S Okay. Do you mind if I just call you Vicki? That's perfect. Thank you. Um tell uh is there anything that you want to share that Mr. Burke did not um share with the commission?

Sure. Just a little history. So this was um an old family that people know in Bay St. Louis. It was a family home. They bought this property. They totally gutted it. Is this beautiful? So, what they did in the back to kind of appease some of the complaints that they were getting, they took the garage, the portion that's closest to the road, they're now using just as a garage. There's just a very small piece in the front that they plan on using just for one family pumps. It will not be short-term rental. They will not allow that. There was also a question that there was some gravel close to the road on the State Street side that people would use as parking. They've now gotten rid of the gravel. They brought they put in kind of a little flower bed and also some saw to kind of keep people from thinking that they could park there if family did come in. They also added more concrete to the back of State Street. Then they're calling it like an 8ft apron. So as far as parking, that's no longer an issue. Nobody's going to be able to park right there. It's not going to be short-term rental. It is also zoned R2. So it is multi-residential, but they're not using it for income generating residential just for the family members come for overflow. All righty. Um, there are a couple of letters that we received on this case and also we have a few people who want to speak. Um, I'm going to actually sit down and I'll call you back up.

There are um, eight letters that um, we I do have I did not make copies for y'all that approved the neighbors. Uh, one neighbor actually has two different particles. So, it would be nine parcels directly around him that also approved it. Well, do you want to go ahead and just read one of those letters because I know they kind of signed the same letters.

Okay, let's see. Um, neighbor consent and support for variance application. This one is signed by Mark Carter. It says, "Written consent and support for variance application, property address, 312 Democon Avenue, Bay, St. Louis. Dear members of the planning and zoning commission and our mayor and city council, we the undersign are the owners of real property located in proximity to the above reference property within the city of bay St. Louis and Cup County, Mississippi. We have been informed that the property owners owner named Don Robin have submitted an application to the city of Bay St. Louis requesting a variance from the application zoning applicable zoning ordinance requirements. specifically a variance concerning the allowable ground square footage of the proposed structure and a variance concerning required setback distances from the property. We hereby acknowledge that we have advised of the we have been advised of the nature and scope of the requested variances and have been afforded the opportunity to review the proposed plans and improvements of the due consideration. We state as follows. We have no objection to the granting of the requested variances and we affirmatively affirmatively if I can read that support the approval of the requested variances. We understand that the granting of a variance is within the discretion of the city of Bay St. Louis and that this written consent is intended to demonstrate neighborhood awareness and support. We further state that to the best of our knowledge, the proposed variances will not adversely affect our property rights, property values, access, granite, light, air, or the general character of the neighborhood.

Okay. Um, just so do we need to um know everyone who signed up for records uh for that general letter? About say if you go look in y'all's pack and I'll go read um I wrote them in the top right. So you have 3 310 de Mison which is uh the wells uh 319 State Street which was 317 Demat which was Mr. Carters. They're all the same letter. Three. Yeah.

14. Uh, de Mison. So that's number four. Number five. 313. De Mison Sanders I believe. 311 uh Demolison. So number six uh 315 Golder number. So number seven letter 34 State Street um Shyu. So yeah, eight letters of support and one of the documents is I try to mark up where the house is and then you know the ones who said okay.

All righty. Um let's see. Okay. Do um do we need John Robin's uh letter as well or is that good? I'm just asking just for the record. Do you want to if everybody has it? If you wanted Let's see. Mr. Robin. Yeah, everybody should have it. Yes. Explain exactly why. Yeah. He wanted to do it. Yeah. Um did you want to read it or did you want me to read it? I don't. It's up to you. you can read since it's for your

and just also you know he has also just recently purchased another piece of property not far from this one that he's also renovating it was a total gut as well so bringing a lot of good things to the community so I don't want people to think that he's in here trying to do something that you know right thank you so yeah dear members of the board thank you again for taking the time to review our request and for the feedback provided

no worries Thank you again for taking the time to review our request and for the feedback provided during our previous meeting. We want to reiterate that our goal is to work in alignment with the city and find a solution that respects both the intent of the zoning regulations and the practical realities of this property. Since our last meeting, we have made several adjustments in direct response to the concerns raised. We removed the previous rock parking area and installed landscaping. And we also added an 8oot concrete apron for the roadway to improve access and organization. In addition, we have clearly established on-site parking that is fully off the street, ensuring there will be no congestion or overflow onto the road. We also want to clarify the layout and use of the existing structure. The portion of the building closest to the road, approximately the first 20 ft, will remain store only. Any residential use would begin roughly 28 ft from the roadway which helps further reduce any safety or proximity concerns tied to the setback. We understand and respect the purpose behind the setback and lot size requirements particularly as they relate to safety congestion and neighborhood consistency. At the same time, this structure is pre-existing and relocating it would be impractical and cost prohibitive while also introducing additional disruption to the property. Our intent is to responsibly utilize what is already there in a way that remains low impact and consistent with the surrounding area. To further address concerns around the density and use, this space is intended for family members and occasional guests only. It will not be used for short-term rentals or hightra purposes and will remain under single ownership as part of the primary resident. We are committed to keeping this a controlled low impact use that does not change the character of the neighborhood. We have also taken the step of speaking directly with our neighbors. Multiple surrounding property owners have reviewed our plans and signed in support which we believe reflects that this request is reasonable and not disruptive to the immediate community. Beyond this specific request,

we want to express our continued commitment to Bay St. Louis. This property has undergone a full renovation with proper permits and inspections contributing to the improvement of the neighborhood and surrounding property values. Additionally, our family is continuing to invest in the area, including the recent purchase of another property with plans for long-term residency and involvement in the community. We are not looking to work around the city standards, but rather to find a balanced solution that aligns with them while allowing reasonable use of this property. We are open to reasonable conditions if needed and are committed to ongoing compliance. We respectfully ask the board to consider granting a variance for the existing setback lot size limitations based on the unique conditions of this property, the steps we have taken to address concerns and our commitment to responsible youth moving forward. Thank you again for your time and consideration. We truly appreciate the opportunity to work together toward a solution. All righty. Thank you. Thank All righty. Before we move into um the residents who have signed up, I wanted to know if the commission had any questions so far.

All righty. I'm going to move into having Miss Kathleen Monty come up, please. Good evening. Kathleen Monty, 105 Sycamore Street. Um, this application for special exemption to allow an accessory dwelling at 312 Deontism must be denied outright by the planning and zoning commission and the city council because according to article 10002 6B accessory dwelling section of the current Bay St. Louis zoning ordinance and accessory dwelling is only allowed on lots of more than 15,000 square feet. This lot is only 11,639 square feet and does not meet this critical requirement. Lots under 15,000 square feet simply do not qualify under our zoning ordinance as further evidenced throughout the zoning document as shown on the chart of uses. And I included all of these that I'm getting ready to reference so it'll be easier to follow. But um as shown on the chart of uses section 623 and note two, accessory dwellings are not allowed by right even if a parcel of land is over 15,000 square ft. All applications for accessory dwellings on lots over 15,000 square ft are still required to apply for approval through the special exemption application process. Additionally, section 623.2 states that quote, "Special exceptions must meet the criteria defined in section 135.2 to be approved." End quote. This particular section states the one that I

just quoted, the 1305. This particular section states, quote, "The proposed use will be placed on a lot of sufficient size to satisfy the space requirement of said use." End quote. The 312 Demonten parcel does not satisfy this space requirement for an accessory dwelling. The applicant is not entitled to ask for a variance to reduce the square footage requirement of an accessory dwelling because it is prohibited by section 1305.3.H, which states, quote, "The variance is not a request to permit a use of land, building, or structure which is not permitted by right or by special exception in the district involved." End quote. Although several neighbors have signed letters of support for Mr. Robin, this effort does not add validity to his request for an accessory dwelling because it is still in direct violation of our lawful current zoning ordinance. In Mr. Robin's plan, his existing garage structure would be converted to a garage with a living area of approximately 356 square ft. On paper, there is no difference in the square footage of this structure and one could argue that there is no difference in density to his neighborhood if his request for an accessory dwelling is allowed. However, the meaning of density uh becomes radically different when the use of the structure changes from a garage to an accessory dwelling. Now the meaning of density changes from mere square footage to include the meaning in terms of additional people on the property, more cars parked at the parcel and additional traffic on State Street and Deonten.

And this is the type of density that the residents and property owners have been rallying against over the past several months at different ward town hall meetings held in Bay St. Lewis prohibiting accessory dwellings on lots under 15,000 square ft in size was intentionally restricted in our current zoning ordinance to avoid the increasing issues of density and overpopulation of our neighborhood. It needs to remain in our proposed zoning ordinance as well. Please vote to deny this application and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Miss Monty. Um, it is 105 Sycamore Street. Um, Miss Anita Warner, I can say ditto to everything that Miss Monty just said, but you already have a solution. This young lady just said that the family has purchased another piece of property that they're busy renovating. If they need more space for people, they can go to the other place. This property is too small to have an accessory dwelling. End of Thank you.

All righty. Thank you. What's your address, Miss Thank you. Um All righty. Miss Vicki, do you want to come back up? Did you have any comments or anything before I open the floor to the commission? Yes. So, this is already zoned R2 multi-resident, correct? Uh, yes.

Um, they're not asking for anything other than just to have space that's already existing for what is it a little over 300 square feet just as extra space for somebody to sleep if they need to or you know, I mean, he's got a garage. I mean, they didn't build the building there. It was there when they walked the family land. Um the street, so if you go to their property, the driveway goes through and through. So it's not like you're parking on the street. They have two massive gates that open and people pull into the yard. You very seldom will see, and we go there all the time. They're ball crawl fish. I mean, they're great people. Nobody's ever parking on the street. Um I have been down State Street and Mason and they are not the ones parking on the street. And I'm not trying to argue,

but I know they're not from here. They're from Perver County, but I'm telling you, they're they're the people you want to hear. I mean, they really are doing a good job with what they're what they're building and developing. All righty. Um, does anyone from the commission have any comments? All righty. Oh, all righty. So, I um um I make a motion to deny um the special exception request. Second. All the

motion. Motion by Mr. Osborne. All those in favor? You you made the motion. Yeah. Yeah. I say Yeah. Mo made the motion by Brown. Second by Osborne. All those in favor? I I nay about 3 to four. So, and so um we will have a council meeting next Tuesday, May 5th at 5:30. So, yeah. Um so, we're going to move on to

so next one is Johnson. Application for variance is zoning ordinance submitting by Mark and April Johnson. The applicants are requesting a variance of 18 ft to the required 20ft uh rear yard setback resulting in a twoft setback to the rear yard. Property is located at 601 uh Citizen Street which is the corner of Citizen in Old Spanish Trail. Uh property is zoned R1 single family. Uh let's see administration see internet. So, um this is a corner lot. Um the house faces the house faces citizen street. So that makes the backyard um that would make the backyard the part that they're trying to add on to. Um it's corner lot. They did have two letters of support by the actual ones that abut the property. Uh the construction documents are actually submitted. So that's how it came about. They submitted construction documents. The building department says you're going to need a variance. So they sent to me. Um but what they're doing is trying to go add on to the back part of their house. Um looks for extra bedroom or office or whatever else. If you go look it kind of there's a little hallway and then it makes bigger. There's a AC unit. That's just why it's designed like that. But um the recommendation of the administration is um is denial. I guess the house is probably less than 10 years old, I guess. Um, the lot was big enough. It was just kind of how it was positioned. Um, the Johnson's aren't the ones who built the house or the current one, but it was one that, you know, needed a larger house or something more room. Just kind of did. It's not necessarily a hardship.

All righty. Are are the applicants in the room, right? Can you come on up and state your name? Are you Mark Johnson? All righty. Let's take the one citation street. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Um, so do you mind telling the commission kind of what's your hardship for it? Because a variance is all about a hardship.

Yes, ma'am. Uh, I'm requesting the variance because I'm not adding any living space per se on the back of the house. It's going to be um a office, a home office because we work I work out of home out of my house. be a home office with a screened in back porch and an outdoor kitchen. I'm not adding any um living space or anything like that to the back of the house. It's just more I guess you say entertainment space for like a better term and and an office. All righty. I'm not I'm not adding any living space. All right.

Is there a shed being built, too, though? There will be a shed, a little 10 by 10 shed in the corner. Yes, sir. But it's not that wasn't part of that. The shed was not Yeah, the shed was not part of any or anything. The shed's 5 foot from the property line, so that could be built by I just want to make sure. Did anybody else from our commission have any questions? Okay. Um, Mr. John, did you have something? No, that's it. Thank you. I appreciate your time. Yeah. I'm gonna have you to sit down and then um they had some letters. Yes, that's what I was trying.

So, um it is I'm currently the owner next to three uh 601 citizen and have been informed by Mark W. Johnson that he plans to build an addition to the back of his house that'll be 600 square feet. I have no issues or concerns with these plans. I want to express uh my concern that plan to build a had express my support for the addition and that is at 45503 Old Spanish Trail which would um look for which is the one next that abuts him I guess towards in the back and then

we have the same letter um it's form letter but by Virginia Kramer which is 603 citizens which would be the other property that butts it. And then we have one letter of opposition by Chris Cheek. Chris and Patricia Cheek. Um I'm writing or I am writing to express my opposition to a to a request for a variance at 601 citizensry. As we recall, the lot in question was created by a recent subdivision of property in the north which divided into three lots in the house was subsequently built. The code clearly states that the rear yards 20 ft. For the city to reduce that to two feet is completely irresponsible. Several older homes behind our lot are not conforming with little no setback. At best, it's creating awkward situation when houses are occupying where there should be a setback, further crowding our property and neighborhood. Furthermore, we do not enjoy the same fire protection created by proper setbacks. If any house behind us catches fire, our house will certainly burn. Thanks for consider consideration of concerns for this very insincere Chris and Chisha Cheek. They did not write their address, but it seems like they were within the service uh or like the 300 ft.

All righty. Thank you. Um Miss Anita Warner, would you like to come up, please?

Same address. We have setbacks for a reason. And the fact that he wants to reduce the setback to two feet is not safe, particularly in terms of fire. Um, it's the same thing I say every time to y'all. If you want a bigger house, get a bigger lot or buy a bigger house. This house is not that old. And now he wants to add to it. And oh, it's not really it. Yes, it is. It's within two feet. That's too close. That's unsafe. Please deny.

All right. Thank you, Miss Anita. Um, Patricia Cheeks. My husband's the one that wrote email. Well, he signed your name, so you want me to go?

My address is 526 Citizen. Okay. So, we're on the opposite side of Old Spanish Trail, and we've lived there 11 years. Um that lot used to be one big lot. It's three acres. If we looked at the the middle house when there was only one house on the property, the um the property guy came in and subdivided them into these little patio homes. But now there's three homes on this three acres. His is one on the very end and I think it's maybe a three-year-old house four years because we've been there 11. Um and it was a patio house. It's a patio house when the builder came in and it's always going to be a patio house. I mean ran more stuff on it. It's well a mansion than a patio house. So the fire is a problem. I want to be a good neighbor. Um we the house and it's just it's just just too much just too proud. All righty. Thank you. 56. All righty. Are there any comments from our commissioners?

All righty. I make a motion to deny this variance request. Second. Second by Mr. Osborne. All those in favor? I I I I four to four. All right. And then this public hearing said the final May the 5th Tuesday. Yeah. Thank you. Now we have is it Fiola. All righty. And what's your name? My name is Adam Fiola. All right. All right. Let me give me one minute. We're gonna let Mr. B.

All right. Let's see if you'll uh feel applicate. Applicant application for variance of the zoning ordinance submitted by Adam Fiola. Applicant is requesting a variance of 168% to allow an accessory structure to be 218T of the size of the primary dwelling. Uh the property is located at 513 Main Street. The property is zoned C2 neighborhood commercial. Um so let's see put all the site in here. But um let's get some. So currently the rule is you're allowed to have an accessory dwell I'm sorry structury structure. So garage shed that is 50% of the floor plan of your house. Um, Adam's primary dwelling is from tax roll was 1,16 or 100 1,166 feet. So, he could have a shed garage that's a little under six by right that's a little under 600 square feet. Um, the parcel size that he has is a 17,000 square foot parcel size. Um so but I'll have to go look at the plans go but there's so the variance would be to allow just a larger one. Um administration's recommended to deny the variance but it's no hardship. Um we will go note that it does have a large pro uh property. The applicant is going to have this as an attached garage shed. Um so it wouldn't be part of the house. So that's why it's a necessary if it was attached to the house. Um it could potentially allow allow it by

right, but you know it'd be a large one. Um now 315 is located in a commercial zone. So if it was a commercial development rather than a single family dwelling, there wouldn't need a variance, but he it's a Mr. Adam lives in there. It's not a business. So, but ours was just recommended not how big Wait, how big was the one that you were? Was it 2500 square foot? 2400 square foot um accessory uh garage. That's what he was trying to build or was requested to build. All right. Mr. Fa, would you like to share anything else with the commissioners?

Um, absolutely. My name is Adam Fa. I reside at 513 Main Street. I'm hoping to leave here tonight with your support on this variance on garage size. Um the issue is not, as Jeremy explained, is not the size of the garage, but it relative to my house. I have an old Bay St. Louis house. They actually are smaller, but that's part of the hardship issue. Um my dad initially didn't want to share his information publicly, but he's a disabled vet and he's has some issues going downhill. in preparation for that. I know we're going to need a ramp and a dis and a van where it has room to get in. Um I've already spoke to Jeremy about the the covering going from the garage to the house. I don't need additional square footage in the house with issues. I do need that space for him. Um and I want to have that space. We load out of the rain and then have it going to the house. Um thankfully I had tremendous support from my neighbors. Um if you'd like I made copies of everyone that signed a support letter. um that not only neutral but are in support of this being in the neighborhood.

Do we have that letter? I didn't. No, you never gave it. Do you have other Okay, so this is she's passing out Bay St. Louis citizen support for planning and the application number. Um and I guess if y'all go look, he is 513. Yes. 506 Main Street, 505 Main Street, 501 Main Street, 510 Main Street, 512 Main Street, 514, 521, 508, and 522 State Street, which is the parcel directly behind. Yeah, the parcel directly behind him. So, you got everybody surrounding?

Yeah.

Yes. All the occupant houses. Yes. Okay. and and I don't want to so what he has that's here is 218 foot or 218% of the dwelling so the uh variance would beund uh 68%. If that number I'm not saying you have but if it can't be any larger than that but if the commission as a whole or it makes that say hey we not we do not find a 14 2400 foot one but we will allow you to make one that's a 50% variance that's going to be you know 1,200 square feet also or that you could make it smaller. Now, if it's just a no, it's just denying the whole thing. But you could go smaller if anybody sees fit,

but you'd have to go back through. No. So, since we advertised it as for 168% um one, you can all the public hearing if you're against that, you're if you're in favor of that, the thought is if it's smaller, then it would you couldn't make it larger, but you could make it smaller. Kind of like sometimes we've done the past that somebody asked for a, you know, a five foot sideyard set back and you're like, you know what, we're not going to give you all five feet, but you could have two foot. Same concept. Can I speak to that?

The reason for that request is I do want to have my stuff inside like everyone would in a normal garage. The the additional space is the the need for my father and have a ramp that goes up. Thank you. Um, have a seat for us, Mr. Fiola. Um, we have a couple people who need to speak. Um, was there anybody else that had any questions as of right now? No, I have questions. Okay. So, question Jeremy,

is the footprint of the building the enclosed structure itself? So, if there's a lean to on the side of the building, um, is that part of the square footage calculations? So, like, I have Yeah, like for this. Yeah. So, like a pole barn and stuff like I guess that would be common more common in your area because, you know, you can't have sides. We What's going to be under that roof is going to be part of the area. So, so if he has a say a 30 by 40 building

and then he decides to do a little lean to with the roof coming off the side of it is but it's there's but there's no walls. We would count we would he would he would have a slab there and everything else. Yeah, we'd count that as part of what if he didn't have a slab? What if he just had a roof as we'd still cut we would probably still count that as from listing on paper. We'd still count that as the percentage wise also. So a 40 by60 building is not small. Yes. It would seem that a 30 by 40 building you can get a lot in there. Is that is that an acceptable size for you or is there something magic about 40 by 60?

Um there well I have a camper in addition to that. So I want to make sure that everything's enclosed. Um and I want to make sure that the van everything fits going in. I don't you know obviously you need space. I don't know how to deal with that issue, but you need space to make sure there's room to go around and we're not allowed like we tried to work through all the solutions of having an awning or having a covering. And you know, I played the word game like he did with Jeremy as well and he said no matter how you cut this pie, you might as well enclose it and have the slab because it's the same thing either way. It it seems to me that if you're in an R1 district, then there's a pretty good argument for this rule. But my god, you're in a commercial district. So

help help me maybe this my fellow commissioners. I mean, if if he had uh a power washing business and wanted to put his power washer in there, wouldn't that be a commercial use? And then wouldn't he be okay?

Well, then it would be like a commercial. It's not like a home office, but let's say tomorrow he decides that he is a contractor. He's not necessarily live in the house and that's going to be his contractor's office. So he goes and builds, he has his contractor license there. He does everything there. And he go and he just has a little apartment per se, but he says, "I need to go have a 2400 foot shed to put my back goes in there, my lumber." Yeah. Like that would be allowed. I feel like we had this discussion before whenever somebody else on the 500 block remember like you had to go meet the residential setbacks but the thought was like well if it's commercial business there they'd be allowed to be five foot from the property line but since it was a house you have to be eight like it was just I know we've had this discussion for the 500 block of Main Street before.

Okay. But we we we've decided Yeah. as a city that the 500 block is going to be commercial. Oh yeah. Well, so so why are we splitting here for this poor guy who because he putting his camper there instead of his power washer? Okay, I understand what you're saying. You see what I'm saying is I mean it we probably would be happier having a residence there than a commercial operation. So, why don't we make it easy for them?

Or rather than saying, you know, if you want to do this, maybe you should expand your house and we're going to put a stupid addition on your house just so you can have the building that you want. I I mean, we're we're really in a No. No.

So, what does the city So, if someone Okay. Hypothetically, if he has a pressure wash business and he comes in and he says that I want to do X, Y, and Z, I want to have more storage to have all my equipment. How do y'all determine that? Like, do they have to present their business license or what is how that process go? So if it's like a home if it's a he uses that as but like if it's not a homebased business of you know selling real estate you or selling insurance just from your office but like you have your business there kind of like they have a title company there they have a machine shop there. Um no they have their business license there. So

so he would have to pres go into the department and present his business license and everything and then that would be okay. Yeah. Well, yeah, but he would have to make it as a business because like whenever you have some businesses that occasionally that they have a business downstairs, the apartment's upstairs, it's a business, but you know, they have some He couldn't just possibly just use it as his house, you know. Okay. Like you have safety procedures in there. Okay. All righty. Is there any other comments? Is it going to be nice looking? I mean, it's gonna be nice. He's gonna be It won't be metal. It's gonna have to have the correct facade and everything on it. Well, that's what I'm asking. Yeah. Yeah.

I was just asking was it gonna be nice looking industrial and uh No, I want built nice because if you're married to my wife, it's got a house built. You won't hear from it every time you try to All right, Mr. Fiola. Uh let us entertain uh some comments and then we will pick back up with you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Miss Anita Warner, we have issues here. I can't even figure out what he's trying to do after looking at the how it's all going to be configured. The house is tiny that's there now. Sort of a gold looking house.

Yeah. Very, very small. And so this pole barn is going to be in front of it or to the right of it. No, it's going to be in the back. The back. the back. Okay. All right. No, it's a it's a closed in. Yeah, it's whatever this building is going to be. An accessory structure. Accessory structure. That's too big, but would be okay if it were commercial. Let the city council decide. Yeah. All righty. Thank you, Miss Anita. Um, next is Jack Summer. Wait, hold on. Excuse me, sir. Say your name again. Jack what? Ser, do you mind coming to the podium podium for us?

I want just to say I'm going to go ahead and withdraw. I have been observing this. I just moved uh to Bay St. Louis four months ago. So, uh I'm kind of old to get giddy, but my wife and I just love this community. We love uh the way it's going. We love the way it's been built. You make ordinances for reasons and for good reason. You have a beautiful community. In other words, you as a council have done a great job and I want to say thanks. Welcome. Thanks for your So, you're taking your name off the list. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

All righty. All right. Um, is anybody else uh from the commission would like to make any comments? All right, Mr. Fiola, would you like to come back? Uh,

one more comment I like to make always and Jeremy knows always say that we're just a recommending board. If we deny it or pass it, it's still got it's got it's got to go through the city council. So, what we say here, I don't I don't know how much they take, but we're just a recommending board. And then just for clarification, it's not necessarily I guess it's my hallway, but the question was of like what style it is. It's going to have to meet the building code. So it's not going to be taller than the house per our um zoning ordinance. And then building wise, it's going to have to make facade's going to have to match the neighbor the surrounding area, which is not metal facade. you know, party stuckco vinyl signing, whatever, brick.

But it's not, they want it's not gonna be a metal. No, it's just not going to be metal. If it's metal, it's going to have to be skinned with something, right? Um, is our commission open to keeping the proposed variance how it is or maybe shrinking it or is that not something. I think we're totally flawed because we're trying to enforce R1 code in commercial district. So, I think he wants 40 by 60 and we can do it in a commercial. Why not?

That's what I it's commercial. Thank we recommend it be approved and I second. All right. Um motion by Mr. AG, second by Mr. Breand. All those in favor? I nay. I may. Two to two. So So it's it's going to go it's going to go be recommended to city council as a denial, but as a two to two vote, right? All right. All righty.

All right. So we need to close out this meeting. So, I make a a motion to close out this meeting today, um, April the 28th, 2026. Second. All those in favor? Uh, second by Mr. Breand. All those in favor? I I I. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.