Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

I saw that one.

I don't know why we

are we were the ones who split this up. I think we did it with five, six years ago. That's why I was saying because it goes in between. Yes. See how many people?

Alrighty, we're about to go ahead and start. Good evening and welcome to the Bay St. Louis planning and zoning meeting of May 13, 2026. We ask that you please silence your cell phones and pagers at this time. Um also, so just like a f a friendly reminder, this is a public hearing for uh the applicants that have uh registered with the city. If you would like to speak in favor or against, this meeting is your opportunity to do so as council only holds a small public hearing. Um, so if you have not signed up to speak, please do so at this time. We have removed the uh well withdrawn the realm development company and then we will not have a meeting um in June in the month of June. Just a a friendly reminder. So our next meeting will be July the 15th at 5:30 p.m. All righty. So we're going to move into a prayer and then the pledge of allegiance and then we're going to hear these cases. Please bow your heads. Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us together today. We ask for wisdom, patience, and clarity as we discuss the matters before us. Help us to approach each decision with fairness, respect, and a genuine desire to serve our community well. Guide our conversations, keep us thoughtful in our words and actions, and help us work together for the good of all. In your name we pray. Amen. I pledge algiance 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. So, Mr. Burke is going to read out uh some of our cases for us, kind of give us a little bit of insight. Yeah. And just to follow up, no meetings in June, but it's because we didn't have any applications submitted in time. So if we don't have any for July, we'll let you know, but we just didn't have any for June. It's just not a break. So, um, we'll take it either way.

Um, first application, um, an application for variance to zoning ordinance submitted by James and Mary Olsen. The application is to requesting a 9 foot one inch variance resulting in a 10 foot uh 9 in step back to the rear yard to construct the dwelling. Um the current house that has that has been uh the current house there is has been approved to be demoed and a new house would be building matching the setbacks for the current dwelling. Uh the property is at 204 St. uh George Street. It's zoned R3 multif family. So um I don't know if anybody rode by this. I couldn't get a picture, but um essentially this is a Miss Olsson's here so she can explain it. This house was I feel like been piece mil together I think sometimes probably in the 80s um last renovation. um they're trying to do remodiles, but they've already went through historic preservation commission um to got to get the house removed. It's a historic district, but the caveat is no demo permits going to be issued until approved building plans are submitted. Um per zoning ordinance, if a house is we if you tear down a house, you can't just assume the setbacks are back are the same. So that's why they're here. they're asking before they start designing the house to make sure that they can build back on the footprint of it. So, um the only variance that they would be are requesting is in they won't be building 20 foot from the rear in the rear yard. It would be nine it'd be 10 foot 9 in in the rear yard being a 9.1 uh foot variance. Sideyards in the front yard, no variance would be required.

administration recommends to approve. Um reason system dwell the existing dwelling would be matching uh what's there right now. Um it is a only a 60 by 90 foot lot. So truth be told you probably couldn't construct a house even if it was vacant without some sort of variance. Um it the setbacks are in line with what is already there on St. George Street. So there's probably not a house on St. a street that doesn't have a rear or a front yard variance. Um, one minute, Mr. When I did not catch when did you say their last remodel was? No, I don't even No, it was just a long time ago.

No, like it it was this house is wasn't like a historic cottage that was put there years ago. Historic went there. It is truly like a peacemilled thing. Like they have six foot six foot legitimate ceilings in the house. Okay. Um, were you done chair? Yeah. Okay. Um, Mr. Cliff, do you want to come up right quick? Just uh talking to the podent um before we hear Miss uh Miss Olsson's case.

Cliff Railelet is the chairman of the historic preservation commission. We did approve the demolition of house, which is very unusual that we will approve a demolition of a house, but this house has no historic value whatsoever. and we almost always say we want you to build back on the existing footprint. So from that perspective, uh we're going to the city is going to end up with something that's much more appropriate for that area and uh the historic preservance, but we would support the historic preservation does support back on the existing foot. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

Alrighty. Miss Olsen, are you in the crowd? State your name and your address. I'm Mary Olson, 204 St. George in B St. Louis. All righty. Thank you. And um is there any little details that we may be missed or that you want to share with us? I did you did ask when the last renovation was and that was after. Okay. Thank you. Um I do have letters from six of my neighbors all supporting the varants. Okay. And that's basically it. No, Jeremy pretty much cover. Just make sure you submit. I don't have those letters, so just make sure we get them submitted to Okay.

Um, do you actually happen to have them on you? It's just like a brief template. Do you mind reading it just so we can I have And you don't have to like, you know, just tell us some of their name. Make a short one. Yeah. Yeah. Make it short. Their their name and address if you don't mind. Okay. My immediate neighbor to my right is um my wife Marilyn and I reside at 208 St. George Street adjacent to Jim and Mary Olsen. The lots on our side of St. George in the 200 block are very small and therefore require variances to accommodate building homes. We understand the necessity to build closer to the property line than allowed by the zoning ordinance. We wholeheartedly support their request for a guard variant and signed by Wayne Go.

Okay. Um and just few more of just their names just so we can have that on record, but you don't have to read like the whole letter. Tracy Gunderson, Don King. All righty. Thank you. You can have a seat. We do have a few people who are uh signed up and then I'll also open the floor to the commission as well. Okay. Thank you. Um, Miss Anita Warner.

Good evening, Miss Nita. How are you? I'm good. Nice to see you. And by the way, the city council denied those people cutting down the oak trees. Five to two. Thank you. So,

just happy about that, y'all. Um, the only thing I'd like to point out for the record, and I realize this is the same footprint, all of the town hall meetings that we had with our various council people, all the people said, "We don't want more density." And so, consequently, even though we're doing the same footprint, that makes it dense. And the other thing is safety. We have a 20 foot setback on rear yards because you don't want to be too close to your neighbor just in case something happens to your house and it catches fire. Those are two things I'd just like to point out. All right. Thank you, Miss Anita.

All righty. I'm going to open the floor to our commission to see if they had any comments. Miss Olsson, do you want to come up to the podium just in case? Was there anybody else in the office? No, it was just Miss Anita. Thank you. Oh, I don't have a question. Nothing. Okay. All right. So, we are going to move to a motion. Um, I make a motion that we accept the applicant. Motion by Mr. Breland, second by Miss uh Mr. um Romano. All those in favor? I I I I I. All right. Motion passes unanimous.

Thank you. All right. So, our next So, council has a meeting. It's going to be Tuesday, May 19th, uh, in this building at 5:30. Where would you like me to submit the letter? Uh, if you can give it to Caitlyn, she can handle it for us. Thank you. All righty. Uh, next will be Michael Fairley.

All right. Fairley. Application for special exception to the zoning ordinance submitted by Michael Fairley. applicant is requesting a special exception to be allowed an accessory dwelling on a lot under 15,000 ft. The subject property totals 9,580 square ft, which is 5,420 ft below the minimum lot requirement. The property is located at 142 Skyline. It's zoned R1 single family. So this one in the packet, I think it's important to see. So this property is in Shoreline Park on a canal. This house is um Mr. Fairley will be able to say, but it predates Katrina. It's one of the ones that are the base flood elevation requirement will require this the lowest horizontal beam being at 19T. This lowest horizontal beam is 12 feet above base flood elevation. It's a 12,200 square foot house. Now, um, Miss Freley is trying to add on to the house. Per FEMA rules, um, the addition of a house has to meet the base flood elevation, which would require it to be 7 ft higher, then the any addition would have to be meet the base flood elevation. So, um, if you have a house that, you know, is 12 feet and you got to go 19 ft, obviously there's no way constructionwise to make that work unless you go raise the house actually to 19 ft above se base elevation. Um, that being said, Mr. Fairley in the plans, he submitted constru complete construction documents to city to get approved. They were reviewing it and then they sent it in my office to say, Jeremy, it doesn't meet what to do. And I said, the best thing we could do is call that an accessory dwelling because he's adding about 500

square feet. It's going to be connected with the decks and stairs, but not by roof lines for the simple fact that I don't think constructionally it can as a construction project it could be done. Um, it's honestly this is one of the cases. It's kind of exception to the rule. Obviously, the lot is a double lot in Shoreline Park. Um, so it's under the 15,000 square feet just because basically of a lack of a better term, we have to call an accessory dwelling because, you know, we don't want, you know, Joe Blow down the street to say, "Hey, I'm just going to go build a deck and build another dwelling onto my property and say, "Hey, that's an addition." So just basically honestly for a lack of everything we're just calling this accessory dwelling but he's going to need permission to be able to do it. Um so that's why we're here.

And you said this uh structure was built before Katrina or after? No, it well it was built before Bay St. Louis but I feel I looked at the tax one. Was it 1991 or 19 was in the 70s or the 90s it was built? Yeah. Yeah, the house itself is 40. So it wouldn't had to be I mean when it was constructed that's what it could be constructed as. Oh now okay. Um all righty. Mr. Are you Mr. Barley? Uh if you want to come up to the podium for us please.

Speaking to this. Uh my name is Michael Farley. I live at 142 Skyline Drive in Bay St. And the reason for the upgrade is the additional square footage to support visits. I got 14 grandkids and I got five great and it's really hard to put them in a two-bedroom house. It really is. Now, my family has been at this location for 40 years. My parents live there. I live there. I have assumed the house, my wife and I. This is our homeless where we live. And uh you know, we we're requesting the main house is 1320 now. We added with their permission, we added on six. We took six feet and then added six foot on the back. And then it's going to have a a deck connected to that. And then the decks connect to the the house. So, it's all going to be connected. And then in your packet, you got letters signed by my neighbors that they're all supporting. Nobody was No, not that I know of against it. But I would appreciate if y'all would pass. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And just to note, like not that this is this is kind of uncommon for this neck of the woods, but generally speaking, whenever somebody wants to do addition to the house in the other parts below, typically speaking, they can put constructed matching the roof, constructing a hallway that's air conditioned. You know, that's going to be a steep stairwell if it's seven feet up on a stair. I mean, it's a hill. So, um, do you have those letters that he was mentioning? I did not see that in the not Okay, sorry. So, they are somewhat of a form letter. So, I will just go and read the letter and then give y'all all the addresses, please.

All right. Uh, single family non-typical improvement to 124 Skyline Drive. That's the title to human construction. This letter Oh, this letter is to present president. It is to acknowledge I fully am aware of the single family non-typical improvement that are in the beginning stages at 142 Skyline Drive. I've seen the plans and do not have any issues with the construction project as defined in the existing blueprints. If you have any questions related to this, please feel free to contact me at the number below. And that is from I think it's day but it's 955 deer drive which that is that's across the canal like on the back side the canal they had the same letter. So number two from um John Lombardo which is 947 deer Gregory Dell which is 90 9005 deer drive is it Grimon Dwayne

Grim

Grimon it is uh 912 Deer Drive then 120 Skyline drive. Troy um Loyance is your next door neighbor or is it two daughter? So that's 120 Skyline. Um 1041 Deer Drive. Jason James is 150 Skyline Drive. That's your adj complete adjacent neighbor. Okay. Um, Harold Weber, which is here, 1027 uh, Deer Drive. Lynn Rogers, 664 Riverview Drive, William Tupes, 104 Skyline Drive, and Keith Bounds, 860 Deer Drive. They're all form letters. So, but um I think all of them were within the 300 feet of the notice area.

Yeah, everyone you called out right here. Um so far, does the commission have any comments before I uh open up for the speakers maybe in the audience? All right. Um at this time, we don't have anybody signed up to speak, but I do know there's a few people who might want to share anything. Would you like to come up? I signed up, but I may have signed up for the wrong applicant. No worries.

My name is Harold Weber. I live at 1027 Deer Drive, directly across the uh canal from Mr. Farley. Um Jeremy pretty much covered everything that I was going to get up here and say. Uh but but I'd like to add that I live directly across the canal from him. So I'm the one that's going to see his structure day in and day out and I don't have a problem with I think it's going to be a a good addition to the neighborhood and uh none of the neighbors seem to have a problem with that.

Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on behalf of that case? Anybody in the commission have any comments? All righty.

Yeah. Say not to say whatever else. So if this case ever comes up like this, this is how we're just going to have to handle it because I feel like this is a we don't have a letter of recommend for or against. Obviously there's no opposition from neighbors like at all. Um hardship honestly is it's cost prohibitive to for the knowing house house raised. It's going to be 175 $150 to $200,000 to raise the house for the construction. Um, so and it's the 7 foot construction constraint. I don't think there's probably a way to connect it, but I don't know of a way to connect it to make it just an additional to the house.

Yeah. All right. I say that we move to a motion. Motion to approve. Uh motion by Mr. Mr. Osborne, second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I I I I. Motion passes unanimously. All righty. Let's move on to the other one. All right. So, how do you pronounce that? Jeremy Nus. Nus. Nus.

Nus. Application for variance to zoning ordinance made by Pete Nus. The applicant is requesting variances to construct an accessory structure on the property. The variance is for three Oh, wait. Pause. Hold on. I'm so sorry. Um, council meeting May 19th at 5:30 in this building. Thank you. Okay. All right. I'm sorry, Jeremy.

All right. Application. in the variances for a three-foot uh rear yard variance resulting in a two-ft rear yard setback from the rear property line where five is required and a sideyard variance of 3 and 1/2 ft resulting in a 1T6 in sideyard to the required minimum uh sideyard at 128 Valentine. It's zoned R22 family,

I'm sorry, 218 Valentine. Um going to give Miss Miss Washington one. Um let's see. So on y'all's packet y'all have the plans. So um house was constructed re recently. Uh obvious for this if y'all went by I think they have pictures included. Structure was already started. Um the proposed structure is located um too close to the property line. construction work began without return without going without a building permit. Once they saw it said submit the building permit to realize it's too close that's why they're here. There's no hardship that I guess you always look for. So just looking at it tangibly like you know it's recommend denying because didn't see a hardship there but I know the question was asked many times from building to the point of like why is this being allowed? It was just no permit was um issued. It wasn't being allowed. So,

Alrighty, Mr. Nus, you want to come up? Do you want to tell us a little bit about what happened and what you were building and all that? Sure. My name is Pete Nus. We have the property at 218 Valentine. We built the house. We completed construction in January. Um we wanted to build I thought I had the variance before for the house. It was too close to the other side of the property. So that's why we end up having the garage on that side and we have pictures of it and I've talked to all my neighbors and they were consenting to it. So I thought, you know, to build a garage, an accessory garage. I didn't need to get a building permit for it since I got my COO before that in January. So and then when I started building, that's when we got stop work order. So Okay. I'm here.

Okay. So just so I can fill in a blank about this variance. So he said that he thought he had this variance. So Oh, I don't know if it was. I think P and I talked about it. So originally I might have been before you were on the board even when he was constructing the house. So what year was this? Just so probably what 2024 probably

2024 his he was going to construct his house closer to 220 Washington so he could have enough drainage and roof. And we approve we approved it. Well, when he was going to go lay it out, he's like, "You know what? I have a house that is whatever 40 45 foot wide or whatever else. Instead of making one side of my house five foot from the property line and then would have been 14 foot on the other side. Yeah. He just said, "You know what? I'm just going to not use my variance and build it 9 foot from one side and I don't know what it is."

Yeah. I have nine foot on one side the way I have the variance for and then it's 15 feet on this this side. Yeah. So there's no really I didn't use the variance. So Okay. So since he didn't construct his house like that, he ended up putting himself honestly to a fine because the the narrow driveway it only allows me for a car to fit in a garage. Okay. So like the variance wouldn't even apply there because it was a variance for the house that it was 5 foot. But just case in point, it was a house too close or a garage that would be

okay. And I've got all the drainage prepopulated already, graded out where it flows to front from the back front of the property. I got chain walls up. Spent like $30,000 on on that because my neighbors I didn't want water draining off the back of my property to the adjacent property. So you had all you had? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And so I had, you know, I talked to all my neighbors before we started building and they had no issues with it. So Okay. Well, uh, we do have a few people who are signed up to speak. We're gonna hear from them and then we'll call you back up and then maybe our commission might have some words to say. All righty. So, the first on the list is Miss Faren Washington.

Hello, Miss Baron. How are you? Farah Washington. I live I own the property next to Pete uh 220 Valentine Street. And I'm just here to say that I don't see where I'm going to have a problem. You have all this water draining high. It should know all that hard rain we had last week. I didn't have no water flooding on my back. Nothing. I mean, it was just normal rain, but it wasn't no runoff from his property. So, I don't have a problem with him putting up his whatever he's putting up on the All righty. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, we also have Miss Anita need a Warner for 1730. I'm going to say the same thing I said before. We have setbacks for a reason. And I think when you have a 1.5 sideyard set back, you're right on your neighbor's property line. Same thing with the back. There's a safety concern. What if something in that garage catches fire? Boomo next door catches fire. I think it's not a good idea. I understand he thought he could do whatever he thought he could do, but seems to me if you're building a house and you want to do a garage, you figure all that out from the get-go. And to come in now, I don't think it's safe. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Anita. All right. Well, those were the only two people that we had signed up. Is there any comments from our commission? All righty. Um, Mr. Nus, do you want to come back up?

Yeah. To her point, it's not it's backed up against my neighbor's garage, too. So, and they had a variance. They were supposed to be 8 foot off the property line. They were within four feet. So, it's all cons. It's all to the back left corner. So, it's not house to house where something would blow up and catch fire. It would be our two back garages. So they were within four feet of the property line of my neighbor and my neighbor to the left of me. So I mean all right to her point. Thank you. Um I think at this time we're going to move to a motion. Um anybody like to make a motion?

Motion to deny. All right. Motion to u deny by Mr. Osborne. Second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I I motion passes unanimously. So it this still goes before this is just I'd say just recommend it's a recommendation by it still goes before city council on the 19th. So, it's yeah, it's going to be May 19th and it's going to be in this um same room at 5:30 and they will have final say so as well, but you won't be able to really share that much information with them.

But all but all the stuff that you submitted like pictures and stuff, it goes in their packet too. So, there was 39. I mean, yeah, they y'all got the packets. I went and drove around a twob block radius and there's 39 properties in that area. I'll say one thing and I always do this every meeting. We're only recommended board and they go against us all the time. Chances are they will, but like I said, we just make a recommendation. We're trying to stick as close as we can rules and stuff, right? But they'll have the final say. Do I have anybody lobbying on my behalf or uh you all their you can contact the Yeah, you're always free to uh contact your council. Um seeing as you live on Valentine Street, his council person would be who? It'd be Miss Larry Smith and Ty Lewis.

Well, there you go. Yeah. So you can reach out to them via email or phone call. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Alrighty, Jeremy. Who do we have next? So, next one is uh fee and se fee vestment LLC. This Hold on.

So, we they we can I'll go see if they want to move it. It's not a public hearing. they still need stuff they have sometimes tabled like city council stuff in case they have more clarification questions if um but I'll send you all their contact information in case you want to go do it directly so application for sketch plat approval submitted by Investments LLC as for a proposed subdivision consisting of seven parcels ranging from size um 13,154 square ft to 37, 654 square ft. All the streets and infrastructures will be con will have to be constructed to meet uh Bay St. Louis city standards. The property is located on the 600 block of Main Street. The Z the

I mean I'm sorry. Yeah, 600 block of Third Street. The property is zoned R1 single family and R2 single family district. Um, this is one parcel that's over 5 acres. So on Third Street, they have a probably a few hundred feet that's R2, but most of it's R1. Um, the applicants designers are here. Um, let me go get my the right one up. Sorry. Question. Yeah, we've done this one a couple times, right?

No, no, no. So, this is not They've had confusion. So, this piece of property, um, it's right behind Ramanita Street. The SWK LLC property would be next door to these. So, you have Rammenita Street, these property owner, this property, and then the property next door to that is SWK property. So to my knowledge, there have never been anything like a building. The only thing that's ever been applied for that for our record was a land clearing permit sometime last year. Well, I'm talking about four year.

Yeah. Yeah. No, but no, nothing. There's no record of this. Um like they've never asked for anything. So essentially um sketch plat this is how we're doing it for the it's part of the subdivision regulations. It starts here. um property owners sign they come here and say this is what we're proposing for our div re division of property or for this one subdivision of property this is what's going to look like we're going to um for here you can see they're going to have seven seven lots that are going to have homesteads on them um they're also going to be a large park that does not indicate it's going to have a homestead it's going to be more just green area on here Um the road itself we require for this 50 foot rideaway um with a 20 foot wide road that's going through it. Um it's indicated on there per our zoning or per our subdivision regulations. You're we we have baseline um infrastructure that's going to be there. So like the sewer line is going to have to be and I don't know what that is because it's whatever but let's say it's has to be I don't know 8 in water line has to probably be minimum 2 in um gas line would have to be installed there because after all this subdivision is done the city of Bay St. Louis they would come back before final plaque sign off on the things and then city of Bay St. Louis would be overtaking all the road and the infrastructure on there. So we needed it will have to be constructed to our standards. Um, but the first step of this is basically say, hey, this is the shape of it. And then after this gets done, that's when honestly the probably most heavy lifting part of a subdivision gets done. And that's whenever their engineer of record starts

doing their drainage work, drainage calculations. Hey, this is our design plan. And then it comes to the city of Bay St. and we go and vet it to make sure that's how we want it constructed. And then once sewer line gets put in, gas lines gets put in, they're going to be responsible for getting that done and then submitting us all the reports that are needed, core samples or whatever else um that's going to be required that it's constructed correctly. Um but right now we're at the place that this is what's going to go there. Um is that so

but the applicant um the application the sketch plot is all the lots exceed the requirement for the zoning district and I'll just use R1 because that's the largest one but all of them exceed what is required square footage wise um minimum meets the width that they need to be the roadways going to in the rightway is going to be enough and they designed designed it. So, there's going to be three roads in there, three short roads in there. And it's going to be designed that the protected the protected trees that they submitted that are on there are going to be able to be, you know, they're not going to be in the way. Everything can be they're either out of the way completely or they're going to be able to get be able to get design so it can go around it.

So, um tell me this. Um, when we're voting, are we also we're voting for the sketch plot as a whole or are we voting for the sketch plot plus this private? So, and I I guess there was confusion per per or subdivision regulations. You can approve a sketch plaque. You could deny a sketch plaque for

um if basically if it doesn't meet it needs variances or whatever it needs. But there's also a caveat that you could approve a sketch plaque with conditions and this just came from these are designers but they were part of the beating. The applicants um also talked about they're willing to they don't want any they did not want any variances. They didn't want any special exceptions. They wanted to build it by the book. The one thing that they requested and I just was going to go throw it out there. They were willing to go and build everything to base St. Louis city standards, but keep it as a private drive. So when everything gets signed off on and those lots are able to be get tax parcel numbers and everything else, they whoever the corporation, whoever keeps it private. So essentially, Bay St. Louis would have whatever easements they need with it, but if a water line, sewer line breaks there, the road needs to be repaved in 30 years, city of Bay St. Louis wouldn't be doing that. that would be, you know, private. It was just condition as if it's a public road or a private road. B St. Louis ordinance says have a private road. It was just something that thrown out there. You know, as a neighbor, I think they had some had mixed feelings about it of saying,

well, we'll we'll get into that. Um, but that's something for this commission to think about as we hear the case, if we would want to put conditions or not on them. So, something to think about as we move forward. Uh, Who's representing this case? State your name, please. Sure. My name is Sean Burks with JV Burks Associates. Okay. We're representing the petitioner at the Investments. U if I can just do a little kind of brief overview.

Um this piece of property is 5.75 acres. It's owned by FE and SE Investments, but the it sounds like a development company, but it's not. It's actually been familyowned for 70 years. That's just the name it's been put into.

Um, basically we're asking for seven lots, but one of the lots, the intent for this development, the reason why they're interested in private is this is really more or less a family compound. what they're trying to do. And then assuming or if we can satisfy you and get this approved, uh the intent would be to build a gathering house would be the first location. So that would basically just be for the family to kind of get together and and meet. So the even the lots are intended for the family members to build houses. They could all go over to the gap house. So that's kind of like the overall we u the intent was to as Jeremy said to meet all the requirements and meet all the current standard as variances. The uh we did in preparation for this plan, we did hire an arborist that went out and uh also survey located the trees and actually look quality of the trees and and as a result of the suggestions from the arborist, we did leave a rather large green up in the front where a lot of the nice

nice trees that need to be protected. Um do you have just some of the other comments that the aubberist might have said? Was there so there was no magnolia, no oaks or anything like that? Oh, yes. There's oaks out there. We've located them. Okay. But they're protected. Yes. But there was no magnolia, right? I don't think there was. Yeah. So, there was one magnolia, but that protected. Oh, gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Okay. But it will be protected. Yes. All righty. And then the the intent of course is to bring in the sewer and water and and and uh be able to have each one of the lots come on here. But if I'm here if anybody has any questions.

All righty. Thank you so much. And what was your name one more time? My name is Sean Burks. Sean Burks. All right. Thank you ma'am. Thank you. Alrighty. I am about to open the floor to some of the people who signed up. All right. I got Harold Weber. Oh, okay. Thank you.

All right, Melanie Trick Tri. All righty. Come right up, please. My name is Melanie Triick. I live at 211 Ramenita. So, my home actually backs up to the FNC investment property. Um, I don't have a complaint at all as far as the de actual development of it. Quite frankly, if this is the way low density type developments we had in Bay St. Louis coming up, I'd be excited about it. The only concern that I have is the way the road goes. It goes, it starts from Third Street and goes behind the Romanita homes all the way to my house. And at my house, the road in my after my property line, the road turns and then it goes back to where the SWK I think property is and turns back. Um, I just don't understand why the road isn't going continually across the other end since the property that backs up to that area isn't even developed anyway. So my property I'd be having, you know, of course it's private, but still in all I'd have the road right behind me in my backyard and I So I just don't understand why they did that and then turn it and then make it go back to undeveloped property. I think the whole road should run past the undeveloped side of that um property.

Okay. All righty. Thank you. All right. So, next we have Mr. Craig Dietrich. Did you want to say something? Okay. Uh, there is a large oak tree, not a protected oak tree, like a water oak or something that will have to be cut down the road. The way it's going to change size and the way it goes, all cars coming out with the headlights be focused towards the back of the house right there turn. It does create something,

right? Okay. Thank you all for bringing that to our attention. One minute. All right. Um, Mr. Cliff Railelet.

Good evening. Ra. I live at 7023rd Street, basically Catacorn and across the street from this. I was hoping to meet Mr. Evan Smith here tonight. I've talked to him on the phone quite a few times who is one of the people developing this. Uh J. Okay. Uh I'm not sure. I want I understood that their desire was to keep this road private. Is that still the desire? So that that that has met with uh at least some favorable comments from a couple of people I've talked to.

Um particularly in the fact that, you know, it's it's going to be kept private. There has been some concern about these becoming potentially uh short-term rental. Uh and I just heard that the gathering house would be the first uh first thing built, which I can understand that. I don't know that if this is a private road how you would work a PRVO since then somebody have to be there to open a gate for them. But regardless if they do it, the seven lots that we're seeing, it appears that lot number I guess the gathering house is one of those seven.

Yeah. I I I know I'm not supposed to turn around, but if y'all would answer when I I would appreciate that. I like I say, I expected Mr. Evans to be here. Uh the I did talk with Jimmy Ladner about a private road. The private road will not be a separate tax parcel. It will be non- tax just like now the part that the the gathering house will have a separate tax ID. The green space depending on how they do it may or may not be considered part of that road as far as a non-ax parcel. If it's a green space and it's a road and it's a non-taxed parcel, meaning it's a public parcel, the developer may want to reconsider that and make it a separate tax parcel so he can keep it private. And that's why I was hoping Mr. Schmidt would be here, who is an attorney. uh the topo map. Are you gentlemen uh aware of the comments that I've made and talk to Mr. Schmidt about about the topo map?

What is it? The topographical map that was submitted that shows the land elevation at 23 something foot and that road that's 16 foot. There is no way right there. So I I've already told Mr. Schmidt I think he's got an error because you can stand on Third Street and it's level. It's not a 7 foot rise over 50 foot. Do you have those comments with you? Yes, I do. Can I see them?

It's email pulled up. I'm not good at this. Find See how to get to this email. Close it. There it is. Okay. Okay. Mr. Mr. Schmidt sent me the topo map, which I was very appreciative of. Uh, and I had talked to him. I says his comment to me. Sorry for that. I have some trouble getting the toppo, but I attach it here in survey survey. Our survey certainly does deviate from your city map, but ours is done by what many consider to be the best surveyor in the area. I can tell you the survey was done by Mr. Duke Levy. I have no idea what the city data is from. It is probably generalized data from FEMA. Happy to get a phone call and I had asked him to phone call. His timing and my timing didn't match. So, we never did get a conference call with some of the neighbors. Uh, if you think it would be worthwhile at this point, I think I have provided all the information I can. Highly technical information is not yet at hand, though we are committed to complying with city ordinance. And this is from Mr. Evan Schmidt. Uh, let me see if I can find my next email or the one I sent him rather. I apologize. I'm not better prepared for that.

No worries. If anything, uh, you can always come back up. We can hear. Okay. Another person and you can always ba basically I can tell you what I said. said I said there's a problem with the topo map because I looked at the FEMA maps. You go on FEMA, look at the FEMA maps and you go on the city of Bay St. Louis or their their flood maps

and the the city not I'm sorry third street elevation on his topo map matches the FEMA map and the city map the flood map at 16 foot. The topo map shows his shows elevation of third street at 16 foot. His topo map shows ground elevation at 23 feet. I have a strong issue in there that now I'm at 23 ft. I can come in and fill up to 23 ft because that's what my original topo map said. And the people on Ramenita Street going to get seven feet of fill behind their houses. No, that too map needs to be corrected,

right? Uh, as far as drainage, I've done enough drainage. I live there. I go out there after the storm. I walk around. Uh, the 50-foot right away on the road actually will allow for a good drainage ditch. Part of it drains towards Third Street. A lot of it drains back towards Mr. Dave Gordon's place down on the beach. Dave is is very much aware of this and in our conversations with him, I can't speak for him, but he did not indicate a big problem. He actually was very pleased that it was going to be a private road.

Our big concern would be this gathering house as to you know what what is that going to be? But if it's a residential style house and it's a family gathering house, good lord knows we have neighbors on Ramanita Street that show up on the weekend and

uh you know they have a lot of family. So that's not unusual and overall very much supportive of this particularly since it is a private particular if it's kept a private road uh and we just would request that you know before final approvals are given as far as the plat the layout that's fine before final you know the drainage the all the other high dollar stuff Jeremy that that you talk about has to be submitted and and and reviewed right

but I am in favor of subdividing. Oh, and the last one was a comment that no, you know, they're they're now going to have been subdivided. They're not supposed to be subdivided again in the future. Right. So, we would like to make sure that that is upheld. Thank you, ma'am. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Cliff.

All righty. Next, we have Miss Anita Warner. Warner 417 Third Street. I'm going to say ditto ow to most of what Cliff said. Drainage is definitely a concern on Third Street. And I of course am very concerned about protecting the trees during construction. However, if there is a water oak, my advice is for you to take the thing out now because they rot from the inside out and come down very easily in storm. Thank you.

All righty. Thank you, Miss Anita. All right. Next, we have Mr. Tad Black 217 Street B St. Louis. My basic concern is is drainage overall. And I'll give you all a short story. I took office in 93 and one of the biggest problems we had was drainage flooded in Bay St. Louis. And the reason why is because we allowed subdivisions to build without providing drainage. We spent over $12 million in the mid 90s to solve problems from subdivision creation. And that's why that I mean it sounds great everything but we we need to start think because we there's a big ditch that runs through there through old alan and all that and they spent $4 million in ward 4 to get everything draining. So and we're adding more Romanita has more houses on it than it ever had you know ever. I think pretty much all the lots are pretty much filled and so and and and so is Bay Oaks. It's got probably more houses on it than it did before Katrina. And so these things really need to be taken in in consideration about I'm sure in the site plan review there's something about drainage or it should be. So we need to take that look at that very seriously on not just this one but all the others to come because if we don't we'll be spending not just 12 million but a lot more and don't even know if we can do it. So, I mean, it's flat here and then there's water here.

So, anyway, that's that that's my concern. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. We got one more. Julius, I cannot pronounce that name. Eggoff. Say it again. Ju Jules Eggoff. Okay. All righty. Joel. Jules, you got to go to the podium. You have to come. Yeah. I generally approve and I like the way y'all are doing. All right. Glad to have you here, sir. All right. Thank you. I know.

Okay. All right. Um, do you mind coming up, Mr. Um, was it Butler? Berts. Berts. My bad. Sorry. BS. I I tried my best to write down a lot of questions. Yeah, sure. I might miss some of them. If you can start with Miss Melany's question. Sure. So, the the first thing is we did do several layouts on this piece of property. We actually did one where we did one road going straight the whole way. We did one on the south side going the whole way. Um the the the issue we had is whenever we put the road up on the north side, we hit a lot of tree. Hold on. Sorry. Hey, thank you.

That's all right. Um, so we hit a lot of trees and then whenever we moved the gathering house to the southside, that's when we hit live oak and then so at that point we said let's move it up. So we chose this layout on the roadway just because of uh the trees is how we chose it. Uh what I can see on let's see that's the main reason Mr. and Mrs. Tietrich. Yes.

The one question they have is where the road comes down. Uh they said they were afraid of some some lights that might be hitting their house or the back of their house and it looks like that road does line up near the back corner of their property. Um what we just discussed with Mr. Donnelly who works with the contractor who's going to be building the site and they had already spoken with the owner about the potential of going ahead and put a fence where there's no fence uh back over there if there is a fence to be able to block the light. Um the let's see uh what about the water oak tree?

Yeah, the water oak. Um I guess you know whether we take a water oak down or not. I mean typically I know the arborist was like yeah get rid of the water oaks but if there's a particular thing with the petri or somebody wants a oak kept if it doesn't interfere with drainage I don't think I don't believe we would have a problem with keeping that. I mean, but that's that's a detail we can work on, you know, as we go through the process. Okay.

What I can say in general, since this is kind of a sketch plat and it's just this part, this is a longer term project. We're going to have a lot of details we're going to work out and uh if I can get phone numbers or work through Jeremy, I'd be happy to continue to work with the property owners as we go through the process. Um, I think Mr. Rabble was I think he said about the too map.

Yes, the topo map. Let's see. I got that right here. What I could tell you is from looking at the topo map, of course, we did not do this, but there does appear to be a 16.5 and a 16.3. And it shows center line. I I don't that doesn't seem to match up with the other elevations up over here. So something there's some boo boo probably on there I would imagine. So what what we can do is go back to Mr. Levy. We can also spot check. There's publicly available LAR that we can use to spot check to see if something wrong. Obviously when we design it, we're going to have to have good information to be able.

So we can definitely we can follow up on that and and check and see because that's going to be important. We did contact uh Mr. Levy to go ahead. What we don't have is the locations of the sewer and the water. And they were supposed to go out there later on this week. Uh I don't know, Thursday or Friday. What I'll plan on doing whenever I get out of this meeting is contacting them to go ahead and spot check those elevations. And uh from what I'm seeing, there's two that are 23.8 and 23.6 in the property. Everything else is around 21. I'll get them to check that as well as whatever they had elevation third street too and just make sure we're all correct.

All righty.

Um let's see. Good drainage ditch in the 50oot road, private road. He seem to be happy the tax parcel. Um that that is going to be important. The intent is to never build on the green space lot and it's because of the oak trees. They there's some very large oak trees. That's the reason why we wanted to keep it that they wanted that to be the focal point is the road where you come in and they wanted to protect it. So whatever the best way is to protect it from a tax standpoint and also from a preservation standpoint. The intent is not to make it a public park. The intent is to have just a protected area. U so however that turns out to be that that's what the intent is and that's what we plan on doing. Um I think Mr. Anita Warner, she was she had made a comment about getting rid of the water oak and then also the drainage was a big issue. Uh and we can take a look that's going to be part of our process is doing a drainage study on the whole pro the project. Uh Mr. black uh he mentioned drainage overall and once again that's going to be on our next stage and uh if anybody knows of any detailed flooding in the area we'd be happy to hear whatever you have to say you know so uh I'll be happy to reach out to whomever because that's something we need to address as we go through the process and then Mr. Elo I guess he said he generally approved but um if y'all have any questions I'll be happy to

answer as we go through. Thank you Mr. BS. Well, thank you. Um, did anybody in our uh from our commission have any comments? Great. Um, what does everybody think about the private drive?

Yes. So, we have As far as that, everything else, the city is going to be the one, like Tad said, the city's going to be doing the plumbing, the engineers, and all we're doing is the sketch plat. The only thing I'd make a recommendation is the fence along that one side for the houses. Yeah. And then Miss Brown, if it's keeping the road private, just a if y'all want to do it, hey, it's a public road as of now and doing the public standard with approving the sketch plat with the condition that a six foot a six-foot privacy fence is perpetually is maintained between properties on Rammenita in this subdivision.

I mean, I think that would be a fair condition for everybody. If if I could ask one thing, you know, sometimes there's existing fences on some of those lots. So, I don't think we would want to put two fences back to back. No. But if there is an existing fence and there's a gap, you know, I think to block out the the light or some kind of screening probably, even if it's trees or bushes. Sure. Alrighty. Well, thank you so much. Thank you. We are going to move to a motion. Do we have a motion from anybody in our commission? I'll make a motion to approve it. And like what conditions

with the conditions of uh the tea tree um side um putting a fence up. Okay. So with the private road. Yes. Which one? Okay. So, so I can have it clear for the how we're doing it. Motion to approve the sketch plat presenting um allowing requiring them to construct infrastructure to city standard but allowing it to be a private road once accepted and what condition

and the um and proper screening between them and the ramenita subdivision. um constructed. All righty. And so I have a motion from Mr. Cranky um second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor I I I motion passes. All righty. Um so we do so we do have a council meeting next Tuesday, May 19th at 5:30 in the same uh room. All righty.

All right. Um, we're getting close, guys. Uh, Greystone Development, uh, application for sketch plaque for approval for a proposed subdivision submitted by Greystone Development. The application is requesting the approval of creating four single family residential parcels and three condominium parcels within a special use district. Uh property is located at 1837 Blue Meadow Road containing three different tax parcels. The property lies within the special use district. So uh let's see what's it March yeah March of this year this property came before us. It was in the waterfront one or two property. They asked for special use. They're going to go wave some of their rights, but the only two you uses that they wanted were single family dwellings and condominiums which were allowed by right. Um and then also they wanted to make they wanted to make some of the lots smaller. You're required to have a threeacre lot parcel there. Well, I think the all three lots are five acres combined. So, y'all recommended to deny city council overturned it and allowed the special use district. So, all we have right now is they're wanting to now start making the subdivision and reconfiguring in the three lots into seven lots using the um using the special use district um that were they were granted by the Bay St. Louis City Council. Um applicant or applicant or Terry Moran, which is the engineer of record for this project, is here. there's any questions, but essentially they're going to be moving the lots to what it is there. There's not going to be putting a road in there. They already have water and infrastructure that goes in right in front of all the parcels. And it's not even Bay St. Louis. It's King County

water and sewer that has the water and the sewer lines out there. So, all righty. Um, so who's the representative? Terry.

Terry. I'm Terry Terry Moran 1806 23rd Avenue in Gport and I'm the engineer of record and uh I' I've heard a couple of comments about drainage. We don't have any drainage. We've got four canals that come up into the prop. So drainage is no problem. trees. There's three trees out there that are most everything's popcorn trees which are invasive species. Uh but there's two small live oaks and one water oak. Uh all the utilities are available. The houses that he plans on building are going to be over a million dollars deep. So it it's going to be a real upgraded community. Let's see what else. Like I say, we won't build any new streets because the all of the parcels above Blue Meta. So, it's a very simple subdivision design, but I think it will be an enhancement to the community and the developer is uh we've seen some of his other developments and he got any questions I can answer that anybody in our commission have any questions for Mr. Terry so far? Okay. Well, we do have someone signed up to speak, so I'm gonna hear them out and then we'll call you back up if we have any other questions.

All right. Thanks. Thank you so much. Um, Mr. Tad Black. She's back. Couple questions and it was on the the height of it. How how tall y'all will have to build up, right? Right. And how tall will your condos be up?

About how tall would that be? Above the flood elevation. All right. So, that is the only person we have signed up to speak. And is there any comments? All righty. Let's move to a motion then. I'll make a motion to approve. All right. Um motion by Mr. Cranky. Uh all those second. Second by uh Mr. Breand. All those in favor? I I I I motion passes.

Thank you, Mr. Terry. All right, last one. Application uh Lee. Application for special exception to the zoning ordinance by Joel Lee. The is requesting a special exception allow boat storage and warehouse storage on property located in C3 Highway commercial district. Uh property is 3220 Longfellow Drive and it's zone C3 Highway commercial. I thought you did this one already. No. So, um Mr. Rudan was here. So, this property came back came before us I feel like last year because they wanted to have an RV park, right?

And we denied them. Right. Now, as for Longfellow, this property is on the corner of Longfellow and Train. We approved pro on the corner of Longfellow in Highway 603. Y'all approved a boat storage there and then that applicant found out that he didn't get even have the property. So, then somebody else approved it like and then y'all approved that one and then Mr. Boudan has property next to it on Old Nicholson Road and whatever else. Y'all approve that one. So, we've never This one came before for an RV park that was denied, right? Um, so is he even in the audience this week or

I don't see I don't see him, but I'll go give y'all

he will go. I mean, and it's the same. I feel like the administrative letter, myself, Mayor Mike Far get together. We generally speaking, you know, talk about it. Recommendations tonight for special exception. Um, we changed the zoning to make this from allowed by right special exception like we did city of Bay of St. Louis in 20ou 2023. The proposed boat storage may not be compatible with the surrounding properties in existing development patterns in the area. That's one of the reasons uh the city has received letters in opposition from neighboring properties regarding the proposed use. Uh if the special exceptions approved then still has to go before site plan. Um although the property is zoned C3 highway commercial, many of the properties it the surrounding area is residential homes. Um then I also want to note that the parcels flood elevation is going to make it difficult for it to be actually developed in anything commercial that's you know you think of typically of you know retail restaurants. Um but recommendation is to deny. Do y'all have I think their form Caitlyn, did you upload the

Yeah. letters? Yeah, they're all in here. Opposition. Yeah.

Yeah. Um two I'll just read one and then we go talk to whoever I'm concerned. I'm writing to express concern about the continued development of additional storage facilities along Longfellow in Bay St. Louis. There's already a notable concentration of storage buildings in the area and it seems that the current supply adequately serves this community's need. Further development of similar facilities risk creating an oversaturation that limits the potential for more balance and beneficial growth. Longfellow Drive is visible in developing corridor with opportunities to support a broader mixed uh businesses. one that it brings constant traffic, supports local entrepreneurs, and contributes to the overall character and appeal of the area. Although storage units do not offer the same level of economic activity or community engage community engagement as other types of developments could, I respectfully encourage the city to consider uh the existing number of storage units when reviewing the proposed future proposals and priority prioritize developments that enhance the local economy and better serve residents and visitors alike. Thank you for your consideration. So, it's one that don't say deny, but they have reserved. But that's Elizabeth Jones. There's some names I cannot read because they didn't type. Kimberly Bonner. So, number two, uh, Susan Blue. Number three, letter, same form, letter, Bob Williams, Ryan MS MCA, Mscaloscope. Um, Liz Walker, and a name I cannot read that has a signature on it. two names I cannot read that have signatures on it. So, eight letters of opposition, but um the person who dropped them off says it's within this

whatever the uh 30 300 foot uh service area for where those cards were sent. All righty. Thank you, Mr. B. Um so, who's representing this case? See, the applicant does not seem to be here. All righty. Well, we do not have anybody signed up. Um I don't think our commission has any comments, do they? So, we're going to just go ahead and move to a motion. Motion to den. I have a motion to deny by Mr. Osborne. Second it. I have a second by Mr. Cranky. All um all those in favor? I I I

All right. Motion passes four to one. All right. So, now we got to approve our minutes. Hold on, guys. All right. So, I want to make a motion to approve last month's minutes. I'll second it. I have a sec. Um, a second. Well, motion by Miss Brown, second by Mr. Breland. All those in favor? I I I I All right. Motion passes. Thank y'all. Motion to adjurnn. Yes. Meeting adjourned. Wait, wait. Let's see. Motion by me. Motion by reeling to adjourn. Second by second. Yeah. All those in favor? And we're closing. Bye.