Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

It's good to see you.

Good. How are you? Good evening and welcome to the Bay St. Louis planning and zoning meeting of October 15, 2025. We ask that you please silence all cell phones and electronics at this time. We're going to begin with prayer and the pledge of allegiance. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Father in heaven, we invite you to preside over this meeting. Give us unity of spirit even when our opinions differ. Help us to listen politely to other points of view and to remember that we are all a part of the same community. Direct our thoughts, words, decisions, and actions toward the right path in the best interest of our city. We ask this in your name. Amen.

I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one indivisible. Okay.

Any announcements. That's a good idea. Okay. All right. Our our first application tonight is uh Louisa application for variance to the zoning ordinance submitted by Juliet Louisa. The applicant is requesting a to reconfigure one existing parcel into two separate parcels of land. Both proposed parcels will not meet the required minimum lot area or lot width for the R2 two family zoning district. Parcel A needs a variance of 1,463 square feet, resulting in a total of 9,37 square feet to the lot area and a variance of 15 1/2 ft, resulting in a total of 59 1/2 ft to the minimum lot width. Parcel B needs a variance of 1,765 ft, resulting in a total of 8,735 ft to the lot area and a variance of 15 1/2 ft, resulting in a total of 59 1/2 ft to the total lot width. The property is located at 211 St. Francis Street, parcel 149E-29-395.000015 Second Ward, Bay St. Louis. The property zone R22 family District um I'm going to read the if this is one thing I just asked Miss Doer if she wants to do before since we have administrative letter which obviously not binding but you always want city council wanted to hear the opinion that's why they came about. Let me just give you some facts of so she has one parcel now. I just on the variance it seemed a little bit strange because they titled the next one. She owns one the parcel on the corner. Um the administration recommended the denial but it had more to do with there's no hardship with the application

which we look at it more of a just a black and white kind of one. But here's some facts about the application that um the new parcel so the two the one parcel being created into two is similar size and character to the neighborhood. Um in fact the parcel is directly across the street from this. This one's going to be 75 foot or 57.

Yeah, it's going to be 5 59t wide. The ones that are directly across the street from this is 45 foot wide. And a few years ago, I think three parcels down, we made some that were I think that came before this board that made it like 35 or 40 foot wide. So, it's not not indicative of this neighborhood. Like I know the zoning district says 75 square uh foot wide lots, but this neighborhood seems to have um much much um smaller lots in general. And then um but that's kind of just the bare facts of it. But if she wants to come up and explain

Yeah. what what's it for? But Right. And you can pronounce your last name. I'm sure that's

No, it's okay. It's Laa. the eye first. Yeah. So, um I've lived on this property for five almost six years now and it's beautiful. Love it here. Um but it's tiny to see. My little house is um a two like thousand square foot. Um and my family is about to grow and so we want to separate the lot and build a like three-bedroom, two bath family home um just to stay in the community because we really don't want to move out of it. So, that's really our intention with it. And like um Jeremy said is when I had the idea for it, it was really based on the neighborhood and and the houses and lots that I've had seen around me. So I figured it would be a possibility and that's what led me to bring it to the table for discussion. But that's my intention. I want to build a little bit larger home just so my family can fit in it and and then have my dad live in the little smaller house. Um, do you know if you'll be able to stay within there will be no variances for the city setbacks when you go to build the new house. You'll be able to stay within the front.

Yeah. And I've already spoken Yeah. I don't have any like official plans. I've spoken with multiple contractors and have two that I've been working with to make sure that why take all these step just to that that it'll fit what you're wanting can fit on the lots within the parameters of the ordinance. each set backs of the sides and the front and the back wall. And she knows that the protective live oaks on the on the lot are not going away no matter how many times she asks. Yeah. I even had all the like the contractors I spoke with, my number one priority was keeping the oak trees. Yeah. So, that's great. I do. And I see we we got a survey with all the drip lines on

and it's good because they're kind of off to the where you're going to subdivide. They're not to the middle. Kind of off to the side. Thank goodness they would be a part of the new lot without the house yet. Good. Um, any other comments or questions from the commissioners? Anyone in the audience that was signed up to speak for against the application? I don't think anybody was signed up. Uh, I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion we move it. Motion by Mr. Breland, second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I. Nay. I I

uh motion passes. Please be present in the next city council meeting. It'll be in this room Tuesday, October 21st at 5:30 p.m. Thank you. Okay, next. I didn't have them. We forgot to print them out. I might move it the minutes. Oh, yeah. Just do it to the end.

Okay, we'll do it at the end. That's okay. Sorry about that, guys. Uh, next application is null. Application for variance to the zoning ordinance submitted by Laura Null. The applicant wants to construct a pole barn. The applicant is requesting a variance of 114% resulting in an accessory structure that is 164% size of the primary dwelling. The property is located at 325 Daffodil Street, parcel 138A-46-218.001, 001 17 through 19 block 20 unit 3 shoreline estate subdivision the property zone R1 single family district.

Okay. So for um this one the recommendation was deny the variance morally mostly because there was no hardship present. Um, and if you own the primary dwelling, let's say it's 2,000 square foot and accessory dwelling can only be 50% of that. So, it would be a,000 um square foot. They're wanting to exceed that up, construct a pole barn because it's in a flood zone, so they couldn't have walls around it

anyway. Um, but so there's no hardship presence. Um they do own five 50 foot lots. So they do have 250 foot frontage on the road. So it's oversized lot and they did get a letter of support from I guess the most affected neighbor which would be the neighbor directly across the street from them. Um so it's just there's no hardship present. So and just so I think we've done in the past the request is for a variance of 114%. So it' be 164% of the square footage. If y'all choose, if that if y'all want to allow them to have more than 50%, you can make the motion to be less than the request, but you can't make it to be more or if what they requested is fine.

I'll read the letter from the neighbors. Our neighbors reference above who live at 325 Daffodil Street in Bay St. Mississippi have asked us to provide your office with a letter of support regarding their wishes to construct a shop on their property. We of course are happy to do so because they have been wonderful neighbors, always looking out for our property and keeping tabs on the other older gentleman who lives down the street. We couldn't ask for better neighbors. We have absolutely no objection to their building anything on their property and feel blessed that a young couple such as them wants to invest in and settle on our quiet street. We have enjoyed their company, kindness, and helpfulness since the day they moved in. Please consider granting them the right to build the structure they need to protect their equipment, which we see as an investment in this community. We very much like having such a young, ambitious couple as neighbors and don't want to see them denied the opportunity to achieve their dreams. Raymond and Marie Balman and they're at 322 Daffodil Street. Um is um Lauren here tonight to speak for I mean tell us more about the application.

Um we um we really going to build the full barn so we can store we have a boat and camper that there um they're really you know we don't like wild and other purposes of the barn we really wanted to be able to put a structure over you know our toys that we have yeah and normally I'd be wary of this but you can never enclose it because it is in a flood zone so there's No way to turn it into an accessory dwelling space. Yeah. And we don't plan on it. I mean, it'll It's just for both. Yeah. It's just for storage.

And then if y'all want to go and it's page 18 of your packet, they do have a very good site plan of what it was. This they have the street labeled, but what's not labeled in the back is a canal. Correct. Or no, it's No, it's the Oh, no. It's the back. It's just the back of the um I guess of that block. So, property. It's like half the Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. But if you go and look, they actually built did the sketch plaque to scale. Yes. And I plan to scale.

Yes. And where we have the full barn listed on the map. It's not like to the sides, but I mean we do have those part those two parcels on the very far left. I mean that's 100 square feet, you know, we have a I mean it's 10,000 we have a lot of move or you know and because it's an accessory structure it could go five feet and five feet from the front and the back. Um any questions or comments from the commissioners? Yes.

Seems that problem is not that your whole barn is too big. It's pretty modest in size, but that your house is too small. Yeah. And I think it's particularly in the neighborhood and where you're at, it's kind of absurd to expect you to add on to your house so you can have a whole barn. That's every Mississippian's got right. Yes, sir. And wish. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. And the lot's definitely definitely large enough to support an accessory structure on there. Um, anyone in the audience I would like to speak for or against? Um, I'll entertain a motion. There's no other questions.

I'll move it. Motion by Mr. Ag, second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I I I. Motion passes. Please be present at the next city council meeting Tuesday, October 21st, 5:30 p.m.

Thank you. Okay, next application is sales application for special exception to the zoning ordinance submitted by Ken and Sales. The applicant is requesting a special exception to construct a construct a boat facility on property zone C3 Highway commercial. The property is located on the 3,300 block of Longfellow Drive, parcel 138G-46-163.0000 00 park Gideon Toli claim 46-8-14. The property is zoned C3 Highway commercial.

All right. So this exact location what was it two months ago came before us. The person who thought that they were going to buy the property didn't own the property and the gentleman that applied for it actually owns the property and bought the property is very strange. So he was in the crowd whenever y'all approved the last application. The person who applied for it didn't know that he didn't even own the property. Talk don't know how that happened. Yeah. Could you come up to the microphone, please?

All right. So, but need to say this um the letter of re recommendation is the same as the one that we had whenever it was it was approved one time, but I'll just like say the administration it's a special exception and most of the time I feel like we say deny just because it's honestly a judgment call like special exceptions. It's not a variance. There's no hardship that could be present. Um in need, you don't really know. So that we recommend to deny deny, but if it does get approved, y'all would have to see it before probably see it again because it would be a major site plan review. Um, now and it's just so is he planning on doing the same thing or

basically that but it's not trans it's not trans per our zoning ordinance. It's not transferable. So if he would go get the variance, if he'd go get this and say, "Hey, I'm going to sell this project to John No down the street and there was no saying, "Hey, I'm acting as an agent and contingency on the sale." You can't just go get something approved for a property and then sell it to somebody else. Like it's kind of protected. It's basically the same thing. So you're in the audience when the other

Well, honestly, I purchased the property. I I called the owners. He's he's got a real estate company in Ldale. So I called Miss Bobinger. I called his his realtor lady and his niece was talking to the other guy. So when we come into town, I I seen the sign on the property and that's why I came here. Better be careful. It was kind of crazy. Yeah. I mean, I did I didn't know. I'd actually called in and I don't know if I talked to you before I even called and tried to buy the property. Yeah. And so he h he's lives in Oxford, but he has a house on off central off of Nassau Street or whatever else. So that's he just happened to be in town when they had the public hearing and that's why he ended up here.

Yeah. Okay. Can I ask what your name is? Mine Anthony Kennan. Okay. Yes, sir. That is so Yeah, it was kind of wild. I pulled up and took a picture of the sign and just came on over. Okay. Well, can you tell us I mean um I don't know who else who all was here and you know knew tell us a little bit more about the project. Did you did you get the pictures and bring them? We have some pictures in our packet of uh said secure indoor pretty much the same thing. Okay. And that just pretty much shows you where it's going to be laying on the property. His was going the opposite direction when I think when he came with his.

How many units is I mean honestly it depends on what we can get on there. I'm going to say it's probably 70 80 and probably which never had a a boat storage or any type of storage. So probably do I don't know if we'll do it in one section or do it in you know one deal or make it two. I know the ground's high enough. Yeah, this I think it's going to be close to 13 ft above sea level.

And it's like I said basically the exact same. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak for again? I'll entertain a motion if there's no other questions. Um motion to Motion to approve by Miss Brown. Is there a second? I support it. Second by Mr. AG. All those in favor? I I I. Motion passes. Please be present in the next city council meeting October 21st 5:30 p.m.

Yes. Okay. I'm going to be recusing myself um for the next application, Bonner. So, I'm going to turn it over um to Michaela.

All right. This application is for a special exception to the zoning ordinance submitted by Charles Boner Bonner. Sorry. I'm so sorry. The application The applicant is requesting a special exception to Stop, please. Um, the applicant is requesting a special exception to construct an accessory dwelling in the rear yard of part of a parcel over 15,000 square ft. The property is located at 703 Hancock Street, parcel 149 N 030 0 52 decimal 001, PT6 and PT8, Fourth Ward, Bay St. Louis. The property is zoned R1, single family zoning district. Um,

all right. So, um, he's in the crowd. This is another special exception. So, the lot's over 15,000 square feet. So, he doesn't need a variance to lot size. It's a special exception. Same comment as last time. Like, obviously, it's a just a judgment call. We recommend to deny, but obviously it's more of does it fit the neighborhood? They have some that have been here, some that do not. Um but he did give a set of construction documents like it's a full set that he supplied. So if it is granted it shows that he would not need any varian sideyard or rear yard setback. The site plan shows that they'd have adequate parking for two dwellings on or a dwelling and accessory dwelling and then on the site. And we did have one letter of support. Um, since then, I'll just go read it real quick. Spot from Anita Warner. Bonders have requested a variance for an accessory structure for their pool house. In designing their home, they look they took care of avoiding crowding and preserving the 75year-old oak on the right hand side of their property. The registry supports the request. Anita Warner, chairman, live oak registry. Is there anybody in the audience that is Well, did you want to come up and just kind of share?

Hi, thank you for your time. I'm Devon Bonner and Tom. And so, um, we recently purchased in 2017 and when we came to this community, just fell in love with it and decided this is where we wanted to. So, uh, we were fortunate enough to find a lot that fit, you know, kind of our idea home. And so, um, as my husband, he's very talented with creating this design of our home and, you know, building my frames, of course. And so, um, as we went through this in this design, we created, you know, an area for the garage, our home, and then the pool house. Um, because we want to be able to have family, friends at a bird to be able to enjoy this community with us because this is our forever. This is where we are going to retire. He's already retired and I'll be retiring in 27. And so again, it's just a cool house. It's going to have an outdoor kitchen. He loves to cook and grill. Um I like him to keep his mess contained. I think um it also has an area again, you know, some covered area to get in out of the heat if we're enjoying the pool and be able to relax. And then of course on those special fabulous L2 gang dates I can put him out there and he can get as loud as he wants and the ladies and I can be in the house and enjoy and whatever entertainment we want or we can join them outside. So again it's just a pool house uh just an area for us to be able to extend and enjoy um our property and then also in talking with Anita um you know the the tree where it is um we also did not want to build a twotory Um, we also felt, you know, we looked in the area, we saw what homes were around there, wanted to be consistent with how they looked and, you know, kind of consistent with the beautifification that they've done. And so, we knew that if we needed to build up on a second story, it might impede that tree or or not give it room to grow and develop. Um, and we didn't want to also, you know, damage. And then we were also mindful of the neighbors behind us. We knew we were going to be blocking

some of the view, but we still wanted to kind of, you know, give them a little bit of view. what they used to see. So I don't Was there anybody signed up in the audience to speak?

Did any of the commissioners have any comments? All right. Would we like to move to a motion? I'll move second. I I abstain. Well, Amy, instead of standing, your go would would go with the majority of the vote. So, okay. You just go mark it as she left the room. She didn't. Okay. This is my no longer here. left the room. Left the room, right? Uh I

I So the vote was four to zero. Motion to approve and then on the minutes say let's see what's next next Amy reers the room. Okay. Um I'm coming back. So city council meeting is Tuesday, October October the 21st at 5:30 in here.

Take it back over. Next application is Budan. Application for special exception to the zoning ordinance submitted by Robert uh J. Budan Jr. The applicant is requesting a special exception to construct a boat storage facility on property zone C3 Highway commercial. The property is located on the 9700 block of Highway 603 parcel 138G-46-161.0000. Legal description part to meme claim 30 and 34 North HW. to the property zone C3 highway commercial.

All right. So the boat storage that we approve actually a butts this land. So the letter of recommendation is the exact same recommended deny but it's a accessory. It's a special exception. So obviously it's still a judgment call. Um if it does get approved u Mr. boot. If the special exception gets approved, he would still have to go through major site plan review with all the drainage stuff. So, it will be seen or it would be seen again. It's not just going to be set of building plans show up there, but the um I did not include it, but it's

No, we don't have a drawing. Um, no, he doesn't have drawings, but the parcel is on the corner of old of 603 and old Nicholson Road. The the other parcel is on the corner of Yeah, essentially 603 Longfellow. Oh, we have the wrong parcel. No, no, no, no. So, he doesn't It was Gil Joey. It was Gil that Yeah, I don't have anything.

She has it. Well, it's

so this was the last storage Mr.

Just the drainage ditch separating my piece from the piece y'all approved tonight. The same piece y'all approved all 13. I think acrony

is it going to be it's I'm sorry I missed it. Did you say it was going to be covered as well? Yeah. Boat storage completely enclosed. I don't know if I'm going to do completely enclosed. I got to talk with Jill Fisher on the ventilation you got to do below the base flood elevation. Do you know? But it'll be screen open. Do you know how many units you'll be able to get in there? After the last guy gave you many as the building we got to have spacing so the folks can turn around and maneuver. got the idea off the sign but August 13th I seen the sign on my neighbor I read it and my name was inside who was going to buy it I can't feel that

he told me it was wind up with it I do know the new guy for the same thing um any comments or questions from the commissioners anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the application I Well, if you want to come up and just take your name just so we can just write. Can you come speak just for the minutes and so people at home can hear us too and state your name and address? Dwayne, I live on Old Nicholson Road. Okay.

I got a property right just right adjacent to it. I've also got commercial property on that line and haven't had to put that on. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Um, any other questions, comments? I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion we move it. Motion to approve by Mr. Breland. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Ag. All those in favor? I. No. I I I. Uh, motion passes. Please be present in the next city council meeting Tuesday, October 21st, 5:30 p.m. in this room. Thank our next application is Leocus.

He's not here. Amy, if you just want to go and read the top and say in everything in the minutes, that would be fine. Save you a lot of numbers and dashes. Wait, what you mean? Oh, yeah. Just the the first sentence. Yeah. application ciph um application for sketch plat and final plat approval submitted by Matt Ciphel and Louis Leokis for a proposed reconfiguration of five parcels into four parcels located along the 400 block of Labot Street, 400 block of Sycamore Street and 500 block of St. Francis Street. Okay.

The new reconfigureration of the parcel received a variance for the wider size in May 2025. So, um, administration was recommend to approve part of our subdivision regulations. Um, I guess May of this past year, he came and said, "Hey, I want to I have we have five lots. We want to reconfigure them into four, but um, we need variances to lot uh, width. I want to say for yeah, for lot with on St. practice, but um y'all already approved those variances. So, what is in front of y'all now is the sketch plat and the final practice. So, basically

what the variances were approved um in May. He came back, got the official survey, did everything he needed they needed to to get to the point where once y'all if y'all choose to and we recommend to approve it because they satisfied all the requirements set forth. It's just kind of more of an administrative thing that y'all approve the sketch and final plaque. City council can do it and then we have the mayor and uh I can sign off so that he can file this plat with chancery and the five lots become what's on here

and they're all single family home sites. Um, any comments or questions from the commission? There was no one in the audience signed up to speak for uh motion by Mr. Romano. Is there a second? I don't go ahead. I second. Second by Miss Brown. All those in favor? I I I

Motion passes. Please be present. Next city council meeting Tuesday October 21st 5. All right, I got to leave the room again. I'm sorry. Um, I know it's getting hard. Um, next application. L&H. Yeah.

Okay. All righty. application for a varance to the subdivision regulation submitted by LNH holdings LLC for a proposed replplot of one existing parcel into two separate parcels located at 717 North Second Street. Both proposed parcels will meet the min the minimum lot width and minimum lot square footage requirements of Bay St. Louis zoning ordinance. However, one of the newly created parcels will not have direct frontage on the on a dedicated public street and will instead be assessed via a record is easement providing sufficient ingress and egress. A variance in a is requested to subdivision regulation sections 314.4 which requires every lot to about a dedicated street for at least the minimum width of the lot at the building setback line. The easement will serve don't have that.

Uh the these will serve as the only access to the lot and it's parcel 149 C-20-74.00 zero part 174B 174 C 174D first war B St. Louis in its own multifamily um all right so this is a little unusual because I guess um so per our subdivision regulations which were adopted 2023 I believe 2024

um some of the so you have every single lot that gets subdivided, reconfigured, needs to up front a dedicated road or have well per section 3.14.4 of it. Um, the applicants, this lot comes off of North Second Street, goes back I don't how many feet does it go back for probably 400 feet and they're going they're trying they're wanting to take basic almost cut it in half. So, they'll have two lots, both wide enough and enough square footage, but the issue would be is the newly created lot in the back would have no road frontage. Um, they do have a dedicated they do have a dedicated easement that they provided on page n that they did provide. It's on page 59 of it um

to get back to the so they can utilities everybody can get back to it. The issue is is it's not a variance to the zoning ordinance because the lot is wide enough and enough square footage both of them. It's there's no road frontage. So, um that's the variance you're asking for. Okay. Do you want to tell us a little bit about it? Um yeah, sure. It's um the current lot you access from Second Street and we have the property that goes from Second Street all the way through to North Beach.

Um and we have an easement to access an existing lot off North Beach that would also that cause you um access to the new lot that we want to create. Um, and by doing this, our goal is to kind of create a barrier so that with that easement, you can't have through traffic from Second Street to North Beach. Because right now, if any anything were to happen on that lot, you could the large lot off Second Street, you could drive all the way through using the easement to get to North Beach, which we do not want that to become a thorough affair.

So, if we parcel this this off, which is a fairly generous lot. It's like I think it's 12,000 square feet. um that would create a barrier so that you don't have through traffic. All right. And I I provided like a a flat and stuff so you can kind of see where the property goes. The um the lot off Second Street's like 1.7 acres. So partially off that top piece, they're still both large pieces of property, but we just don't want the free traffic. Okay.

And then the And I'll just go to say in our letter administrative letter and this is I think I wrote this sometime last week from that time we had no objections from any neighbors. So we just said approved but I guess um I think they have some people signed up to speak up against but um I guess it being a four 400 square a 400 foot lot from road to the back of the property cutting it kind of in half. um seem like a reasonable request. So I'm I'm confused. What's the red line?

So they did not get a survey. So if you go look at North look at the packet for North Second Street. If you go look at North Second Street and you see the line, uh, North Second Street. Am I looking at the right? That's what That's where we would divide the property. So, this is the whole property right here. Correct.

Yeah. This is the back lot off of that's Oh, that's North Beach. Yeah, that's North Beach. So, that's where we would divide the lot.

So, this is where the thing this is second street right here and it continues here. Okay. The lot is actually here to here and here. like the lot currently sits all this property. They want to put a line right here and make parcel one and then parcel two which is that would be one parcel and then this would be the other parcel and I can check I have the right the ement comes I have the ement right here if y'all want to look at it. Yeah, we have that.

Yeah, the easement comes off the beach. So, so right here. So, what is this right here? That's They have houses on here. So, so we have a flag. Yes. I'm just trying to That's North Beach. Yes. So, there's an existing house here. Um, no, I believe this is the one being built and then there's Yeah, this is the one. No, this is North Beach up here.

We do not own. Yeah, that's we do not own. So when you went by there, there's a lot. There's a house right here. There's this house back here. This front lot's still vacant. So um it would be that's what they would create new here. It's this lot here. So they they already have two lots. They want they want three lots. Yeah. Well, now they were like this right here doesn't have any frontage. Yeah, that was a pre-existing lot.

No, they would still this way. So, they're going to give themselves an easement. They already we already have the easement. That's our concern is that we already have the easement. So we're trying to create a barit. Are you all getting people? Well, if you own the property then not right now. Okay. I was but we just like we kind of didn't notice it right away, you know, that that was accessible. So we're just kind of trying to prevent it.

But if they already own the property here, why can't they change that if that's on because there's an existing house there that uses the easement? We we don't this house this house already is there and that's his weminate the house that the eastment leads to we do not own we can't deny this to people right no I okay I I understand that but I don't understand how making this its own lot helps these people from having people go through It doesn't make any sense.

Oh, I can show you. So, they would go off the second street here. But if they don't if they only have a lot here, that means that you can only get this parcel that newly created from here. If it as it stands now, if that got sold, they would have access from here and from the beach. Unless when it's sold, the deed is restricted and not use an ement going that way or something.

Yeah, I I I guess to me the whole not going through is just strange. I don't understand it. What I do understand is that they'd like to have another lot and it's a flag pole lot. But the only advantage they have is there's already another flag, right? Yeah. But but but but a lot that you need to access through an ement is a flag pole. Yeah. And so normally flag pole lots aren't very good, but I think they got a good argument that there's already a flag here. They just want to be a flag there. Can I take a look?

I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack. So what is your purpose? We don't We don't have any plans for this. We've had this property for years and very slow to make any decision with it. Um, but we we didn't know right away probably that you could drive from Second Street to North Beach. I don't think anybody there really wants that. So, we're just trying to prevent that. It gives you lot.

I can show you where they Well, y'all said you have the ement. I can show you where it is compared to like the houses that are built on the property already. I I just don't understand why making that a lot. Well, and I don't know if you can see like um the houses that are currently built on the property. There's one where they that the easement uses and then we just build a house in front of that um that would need that easement as well.

So, we can't deny access to the easement to the people in the front. So we we preferred that you had access from North Beach to certain properties and access from Second Street to prop without going all the Okay. Well, I don't understand what that's got to do with doing a lot. I I just I don't understand that it's not that bright. Um let us hear from some of the people who signed up in the audience and then there's extra comments. We bring you back up. Okay.

All right. Um, so we have a few people signed up. One is Casey High Totower. Can you come to the front, please? Good evening. Thank you. I'm Casey High Totower. I represent Dr. and Mr. Gro Crowder.

Uh, we oppose uh both uh and I think that the the notice is is correct. It says replat and uh we oppose the Uh, and I know there are situations where, uh, property can be replatted, uh, if there's nobody that's adversely affected or whatever. But, uh, obviously we received the notice and it identifies that we're within 300 ft and we are adversely affected. Uh, and we have actually been here before. Uh, this they've tried this uh, they've got about six lots there and they they want half of them about I think three years ago. Well, it's but uh it was about three and u it was denied. U one of the things uh that Dr. M. Crowder, this is their home place. This is they put a lot of time, money, and effort. U they enjoy uh that uh where they live and of course that's the way it was. That's the way it's been and that's what they expected it to be without changing. Uh

and so uh in this particular case uh to the extent that they want to replplat uh the existing uh divisions of property, they're supposed to get not only to give notice identifying their application notice to adversely affected parties, but then they're required to shall obtain their written agreement to the city. Well, we got a notice from the city. Um, but we haven't been approached about permission, much less giving it.

And so we we object um to the splitting of the two. I got to be honest, I sat there and just listened to that exchange and I don't hear well, but I hear well enough. And uh I'm still not clear what what they're asking other than to split it into two. U and and uh and it doesn't sound like there's a a current plan to do anything with that. Um it just sounds like they want a half the lot. And of course, we object to that. And I think that I think that it should be denied. And of course when it when it's denied or if it's denied uh that renders the question on the additional uh on the variance related to the access moot because it's the only reason that's come up is uh because of what would happen the second

and so u we strenuously object to any repling uh of what's already been subdivided at least once. uh and uh and and would observe that in cases where u in cases recent cases in Mississippi where uh a person requesting a subdivision uh re repl or re alteration or vacation of an existing prior subdividing uh did not obtain permission and of course people objected that it got turned around and and we certainly don't want to go through that. Uh I think the law coupled with the lack of clarity related to what the purpose of the division is in the first place. I didn't really follow um the uh the easement discussion between Second Street North Beach. Uh I know that my clients don't want a necessary through traffic in that area or an increased traffic burden in that area. Uh and I certainly don't think that they want a parcel of land that could have something on it that doesn't have adequate street access in the something to happen. So, unless you have any questions, I'll take my seat and let somebody else speak. Uh, that's our that's our position.

All righty. Well, thank you. Um, the next person is Laura. I do not want to say your name wrong. What's the last name? Laura Kamisky Broers. Okay. Um, I do have a written objection in addition to a few remarks I'd like to make. I can pass them out now or I can pass them out at the end. Okay. What is your address now? 636. My address? Yeah. 636 North Beach Boulevard. We share

um Well, we share the my northern boundary is a portion of their southern boundary. Um I can show you on the the plat you have in front of you if you need to see that, but basically two doors away to the south. Could you come up here one second point? Yeah. Could you point to it? We have Yeah, sure.

Okay. I am a little confused with what just transpired because I really based on what I was given thought that they wanted a landlocked lot approved that was coming from North Second Street, but they wanted to use the North Beach utility easement to access it. So, I I'm going to proceed because I do still have those concerns. I never thought somebody would be driving across and through it. And my simple solution to that is to plant trees. In fact, I even brought photos from July of 2005 before the hurricane to show you the tree canopy in that area. Nobody could have driven hardly anywhere because it was much more rural um and and suburban than urban. I feel like here we go again. We were here three years ago with L&H proposing two different times a subdivision plat that was vehemently objected by the neighbors because yes, two dense overbuilding. It was with withdrawn each time rather than having it denied because then you'd have to wait a delay to submit another one. Then Councilman Seal very graciously offered to host a mediation conference with the parties to see what would work and it was scheduled and then L&H withdrew and said they weren't coming to the meeting so we didn't hold it. But I I appreciate um Councilman Seal offering that. Can we see those pictures too while you're talking?

Sorry to say they actually may make me cry, but um interestingly Okay. Okay. Find the bridge. That is of course the old bridge. Then you go north from there to see the area we're talking about.

Right. I want to say that um this is a beautiful large swath of property composed of several parcels fronting North Beach and North Second Street. The applicant purchased the properties at an advantageous price which reflected the limited uses and now wants to eliminate those limited uses by seeking variances to maximize its use while still getting the benefit of the purchase price. Remember, variances are disfavored. They are exceptions to use. They grant an exception to land use which favors one property owner over the others, his or her neighbors, and ultimately the community. This puts me and others in an awkward position of really objecting to a neighbor's application to use his land advantageously and disadvantaging the neighbors. the very subdivision regulation 314.4 that the applicant uses to support his position for a variance is the very regulation that prevents the granting of the variance. Because while the regul the subdivision regulations recognize that ideally you want the the minimum width of a lot to be to be at the dedicated street to front the dedicated street. However, if you can't in the case of as I note culdeacs and curves in the streets then permission can be granted to reduce it. However, last sentence, every lot must

abut a dedicated street for the distance of at least 35 ft. The subdivision ordinance put into effect in 2023 does not want landlocked lots. Period. It's the whole point of a subdivision regulation is we want a better plan here than we've had in the past with older lots. This What I'm trying to say is that the the hard the the hardship that the applicant seems to be claiming is self-created. They're creating this landlock lot. You don't get to get a variance for a hardship that you create yourself. And when it comes down to the requirements, sorry, I'm going to go back to third 320.7 establishes the six criteria this commission must find to exist in order to grant a variance. We could go through all six of them. The point is the second one B if I have that correct is that you cannot create the problem that you're now trying to solve. If this lot is not separated like they want to separate it. There is no landlock lot. That's not it's not a problem. The the threat of access from North Beach to Second Beach in the middle of this area. There's nothing there to indicate anybody is invited onto that private property. And certainly between landscaping, including trees, or throw in a pool if you want, you're going to prevent people from driving from one end to the other. And I think it's curious that you would ask for a North Second

Street lot to now have a North Beach access. And I don't know what it does if you would ever build there. They say they're not. I understand that. They say they're not, but I don't think it should be approved because it also reres havoc with the 911 district trying to find the house in the middle of the plat up there. Um, and I'm not I haven't seen anything in the application package about the utilities to whom the easements run in favor of approving the use of that easement for other purposes. For that reason, I believe that the this commission should certainly deny the applicant's request for this variance.

Okay. Thank you. Did you have some? I would eventually like my pictures back. I don't need I don't need them right now. They're right here. No worries. We were going to give them back to you. July of 05. Okay. Um, Chamberlain 648 North Beach. Can you state your name? My name is Men Chamberlain.

I live at 648 North Beach. My property is right at the corner of Rogue Brower's property. We back up into each other and that property that would be developed. I'm not opposed to the existing land that's already been approved. It's a nice piece of property. I don't see any reason to cut it into cookie cutters and then put it's not on the street. What would its address be? So, I'm just saying leave it like it is. It's a beautiful piece of property

and um I'm just asking you to not approve this. Okay. Thank you, Miss Chamberlain. All right. Um, the last one is James 747 North Second Street.

Good. Follow. Um, it's James what? James Buer. Yeah. Okay. No, just so we have for our record. James Buer. What's your address? Uh, so I own 747 North Second Street. So my northern or my southern property line runs um obviously to their uh northern property line. So the two uh the re-plot that we're we're discussing actually will will affect my property more than Well, I'll share I'll share the burden with with Dr. One minute. Do you also own this 655? Yes, my family owns it. Okay. My father and I. Okay.

So, um I guess I'll start with let's let's not try to disguise this. They they came three years ago and wanted 13 lots. It was denied. I think by allowing them to go from six to seven, we're setting a precedence that they can eventually get up to 13.

And we had very we had a lot of concerns about uh population density. Um as it is, one of the properties they sold um is purchased by a a national uh Airbnb firm. It's a large home. every given weekend we have 15 to 20 people staying at that house and we hear it all night. These two properties potentially could do the same, right? And eventually that's going to be my next door neighbors. Um so with that I uh aggressively deny or or discourage you guys reply. I have no problem with the easement. If they want to take the property and make an easement I agree with all their concerns, but this is not about an easement. This is about building another law.

Any questions for me? Not at this time. Thanks. Thank you. Uh you can go ahead. Just so for the record, uh address is 646 North Beach. All righty. Thank you. In case if you have anything to submit.

Um so did the commission have any questions? Again, I'll always make the statement that you can ask. We're only a recommended board. So, whatever we recommend, yay or nay, it'll be up to the city council to approve. So, that's why we always state that when you get situations like this. So, um please don't get feelings hurt doesn't go your way. But like I said, we're just a recommending board and the decision will be made next. And with that being said, this is the public hearing. So, obviously, and it's for all the said before city councils want to make the decision but this is a public hearing so want to be speak now or forever hold your people

that's right no that includes the applicants too like so yeah you can go up to the podium that that's what I was trying to say if there's anything else to be added please just um yeah just a couple things um first they talked about property being too dense worried density, which was a concern three years ago. In that time, we've built three houses. The um parcel that we'd like to create is 12 close to 12,000 square feet, which that's a really big lot.

Um our end goal, the two front lots on North Beach will be our homes. We're going to live there. We don't want it super dense either. Um, you know, this is going to be my neighborhood with everybody else's neighborhood one day. It is R3 property. Like the potential for density with R3 is tremendous. That's not our goal here at all.

I mean, we they're beautiful, gorgeous homes with tons of yard space. Um so we can move on from that one. Um the concern about the trees, this actually would save some trees from the second street because to access the back of that property from Second Street, you would have to have some sort of road or something if you want to get to the back of that property. which would lead you to take treats out. That would actually save some trees. It would leave more of a barrier of trees that you don't have. Um, as far as us creating our own problem, trying to solve it with a landlock lot. The lot directly beside it is a landlock lot that was already there. That is why we had to do the easement in the first place. And we're not asking for the easement. It's already in existence. So, there is access to that property already. And there's a the argument that it's a landlocked lot and you can't have that. The lot right beside it is that way if it weren't for the easement. So, I don't see how one's okay and one's not. And I think that's And again, we're just trying to keep it less traffic. It's a huge lot. I mean, it's not we're

not trying to put 80,000 homes property. I think we've already proven that over the years. The houses on the property are beautiful. They're absolutely gorgeous. They're family houses. That's all I have to say. Ready? Thank you. All righty. Um, is there any other comments, concerns? Um, my only comment would be that if you do ever, you know, if there's anything that you want to bring towards the board, I would recommend just running it by your neighbors because it seems like they were kind of shocked. And a lot of people do usually reach out to their neighbors and say like, "Hey, I'm planning on doing this or whatnot." Um, I just think it would be neighborly to do compared to them hearing about it just through the city. That's it. So, all righty. So, uh let's make our Is it a motion?

I move we deny it. Okay.

Deny. All right. Uh nay as well. No, you have maybe left the room. You had to vote in the Are you voting to deny it or voting to deny it? Yes. All right. And motion to deny. Okay. So, the council meeting is Tuesday, October the 21st at 5:30 in this room.

All right. So the next one I did not upload the plans because I feel like it's sometimes proprietary because it's con complete construction plans. So I have them here but allow right I mean okay well let me go I'm entering back into the room. Let me go ahead and and just read the uh application. Corona application for minor site plan review for the construction of an office and multif family dwelling submitted by Pablo Perona. The property in question is located at 9045 McLaren Street and identified on the HG County land rolls as parcel number 138J-134-006.0.

Do I have to read it all? No. Why didn't you tell me this like five years ago? Yeah, because you told us because they told us when we started that we had to read the whole thing. All right. I didn't upload these because construction plans. It's a motion. He's making a basically a forplex. Um enough parking. See if you can get a front

is the forplex above the office. Here's the Yeah. So what? So our zoning is not exactly identified, but he's making a forplex which it's going to have the suppression system and everything else. Currently, one of the units since this is highway commercial property is going to be construction um corporate headquarters and then the other three are going to be rental units whenever he retires and his office will just become a rental. So, does he have handicap access to that?

Yeah, he has an elevator and There's a road street. So Highway 90, right? It's right past the old movie theater on the left hand side. No, no, no, no. I know exactly where it's at, but the Melvin subdivision was a stepchild of the city and there was a road behind all those houses that it looked like maybe had gotten upgraded. How does this relate? Because that's all the Melbourne subdivision.

Is he just on McLaren and just happen to be in the Melbourne subdivision? Yeah, I guess that would be the way it is. Hey, Mr. Corona, please stand up. Corona. Uh, my address is 908 Spanish tribe. A friend of mine owns all that land that goes all the way to the back low. Frank S. Uh we we all know Frank. Yeah, he owns he owns everything. So I'm the only lot among all his land. I was trying to say it to him. He didn't want it. So he going to have me there for a long time. Yeah.

So the So I guess the if there's a road from Do you have a road behind you that's unopened? There's no road. It's all wooden area all the way to load. Okay. So, the part of the Melbourne hot subdivision that fronts Longfellow, those houses along there that Frank owns a few of them. Yeah. There's a little road behind it. There's a little road behind it that the city would not do anything with because it didn't meet city standards. That is correct. But you have nothing to do with any of that. You are just happening to be on McLaren. happens to sit within the subdivision that

right it's correct. Okay. Okay. Well, thank God it was the the Melbouraut subdivision. Yeah, it's been a So, and then it's been abandoned. Um are the recommendations to approve piece and these plans are actually ready for permitting. The only thing left is here. They have been expected by the building official, built the code, everything, ADA accessibility, everything that they need.

So, you're going to have tenants moving above your office. I'll entertain a motion. I'll move it. Motion to approve by Mr. Ay, second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I I I. Motion passes. The president city council meeting Tuesday, October 21st at 5:30 p.m. No. Oh, she he doesn't. He's good. He can start. It's a minor site plan review. He can start building tomorrow. Tonight?

Yeah. Well, congratulations. Come start pouring tonight. Yeah. Do you need these? Yes. Start taking footing. You want other stat?

Okay. Next application is um we're got we got two concerning the same project. So um first agenda item 507 on Main LLC application for variance of zoning ordinance submitted by Andrew Carwell on behalf of 507 on Main LLC. The applicant is proposing the development of a condominium project on the property. The applicant is requesting a variance to section 802.3 to allow a total number of 22 parking spaces instead of the required 23 parking spaces for the 10 total dwelling units that will be on that parcel. The applicant is requesting to be allowed 9 ft by 18t parking spaces. The required parking space size 10t x 20t for the project. The applicant is also requesting a variance to section 8002.3 to allow a landscape perimeter of 5 foot landscape with an opaque fence as opposed to the required 10-ft landscape buffer. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a condominium dwelling unit at a size of 648 ft, which is below the minimum required 750 foot dwelling requirement. The property is located at 507 Main Street, parcel for Ward, part uh 568 B St. Louis zone C2 neighborhood commercial district.

All right. So, and as Miss Doer said, number 10 goes with number 11. So, if you go um they're going to need the variances to get the major to get the site plan approved for majority of it. So, the number 10 application there is four variances that are requested, three of them that are needed. So, I'll just start with number one. You want to go one of them would be the required parking spots. The main building. So, this is 507. It's a house currently in the front. They're going to rem demo the house and that's where this project's getting built. Um, but there's also a back apartment in the back which is don't know where it came from. the main building. Like seriously, we don't have any permits or whatever else. Like, it's just kind of an extra building there. So, that's a duplex. There's two units in the very back of the property that's not going to be demoed.

They're going to have this new building is going to be eight units plus the two that are in the extra building. So, with that being said, variance one, if you have 10 units, you're going to you need two units per dwelling plus three. No, one one parking spot for every eight spots. So, that would mean 23 spots. Okay. They're requesting a variance to allow 22 spots, but if they have 22 spots, they will be 20 by 10 spots. So, you know, the sides that we require. Um the second variance would be they can get you 23 spots except the ver the parking spots would need to be 18 by 9 ft.

Yeah. Um so they could suffice the number of parking spots. are just going to be smaller, which is what the building code calls for, but not our zoning code. Of those two variances, if y'all choose to if you choose to pass one of them, the one where they have a one parking spot variance reduction, meaning 22 parking spots instead of 23, but they're 20 by 10, would be the one that the administration would prefer having, you know, for your Suburbans and your F250s and everything else.

Yeah, I agree. So variance three of this would be per our or section 802.3 you need it's written that you have to have 10 foot of landscaping around parking lots not just the front all all common lot lines. So, not just the front, but they're asking for reduction to allow five foot landscape buffer, and they're going to put the OPEC fence um for it. Um, and I put some notes there. The 315 Main Street, that would be also the same requirement, but I think y'all reduced it to allow a one foot landscape buffer around the um around the uh parking. But the they are going to have 5 foot plus an OPEC fence. Um so you can't see through the headlight. And then variance four. And this is one that if you read it by the rules, it's what it means. The city council amended several years ago that a dwelling has to be 750 square feet. But that's what they said in it. That it has to be a dwelling. Well, a dwelling is a single family house. A dwelling is a duplex. A dwelling is a condo. Like a dwelling is somewhere you can live. In the ver in the when they amended the ordinance, they didn't make it say that a single family house has to be 750 feet. They just said dwellings on use as a broad term. Well, that fits in condos. So per if you go look at the plans, they have some these condos that are the smallest one they have is 648 square feet. It's a one-bedroom condo. So they would need a variance of

[Music] 2 foot to allow them to have a 648 square foot condo. Um though everything is under roof. to put into uh perspective 124 condo 124 court street condo complex and this was before my time so I don't think it went before variance it's just how I interpreted it 124 the one 24 court street development has a 547 square foot units and the Farragut lofts have a 563 square foot unit they're going for 648 square feet and larger. Um, so there's the four variances. Number one and number two were kind of want dealing with parking. Number three is dealing with the landscape buffer and number four is deal with the size of the condo units. So would we make a motion for all one at a time or

you can make a mo what I would say is make a motion for make a motion however say motion to approve this one this one this one and deny that one or approve all of them deny I would and then individual okay so no that that's pro that's probably going to be the cleanest way I would prefer the chair would give us the opportunity to vote on each one individually as a motion that okay that would probably be back the letter okay and then the administration letter it's the same thing we decide there's no hardship present

so the recommend would be the recommendations deny everything because there's no hardship present um they did have

um I did we did know that of the two parking variants the one of the number of parking spots would be preferred if you had one, we haven't heard any letters of we haven't heard any opposition against this project and this type of project since it's a C3 neighborhood commercial. This is actually one of the objectives of the Bay St. Louis 2024 comprehensive plan of you know if you have a commercial property that allows more dense use to use it like you don't want condos you don't want single family houses and like highway commercial property though it's allowed by right you want have you know more dense use and so guys y'all could tell about y'all's project

my name is Andrew Harwell I'm Tai Densford and we're here for 507 Main I have just a question. I can see how having a requirement for fewer parking spots allows you to not have to shrink them 9 ft. But how does not allowing as many spots gain you an extra two feet? You see what I'm saying?

So So the one that the one that's in your packet is the one that has the nine by 11 the 9 by11 parking spots. N by Yeah.

I mean 9 by 18 parking spots like the front page of this one. So, if you would go and take um if you go take the right side of it, and I don't know this, I think this was the design. If you take the right side where there's 13 parking spots in a row, if you go make it those parking spots instead of nine by 18 as on here, if you just go and say, "Hey, we're going to make them 10 ft wide, you gain you lose one parking spot on the right hand side, but you can gain the correct number." The other render,

how do you get the extra I understand the width. How do you get two feet in back? by making them fewer. So, um I don't the fire truck that's a fire safety issue and the fire truck would had enough room to fight a fire. Okay. Well, here here's the here's the issue. Half the truck half the vehicles out there tonight were pickup trucks. Yeah. An F-150 is 19 to 20 feet in length. Yeah. So, an 18 foot spot makes no sense in my mind given what people in Bay St. Louis drive. So, How does having fewer parking spots make them so longer?

It's correct me if I say this wrong. As this is drawn on their plot plan, then there are 9 by 18. They meet the requirement. But if we can squeeze it, obviously we're losing one spot. It looks probably like on this right or left side here. if we make them that extra foot wider. So that's probably the discrepancy in where you get that one less space. To be honest, I understand how you can get more into narrower, but how does having more or less change your ability to put your F-150 at?

Um, reducing the length is only 20 by 10 is a standard size and a 9 by 18 is a standard size. We could have a 9 by 20 foot if that's what you're suggesting. I think I'd prefer the 10 by 20. That's the question. All I'm asking is it was only selected as a standard size parking space. If half the vehicles on a typical night in this parking lot won't fit in your parking spaces because they're too long. Well, we like the 20 by 10 and uh I think the way the ordinance whether it's a onebedroom or threebedroom, they just need the two spaces,

right? And since these are 10 onebedrooms, it seems that we're on the higher end. My personal preference would be for the 10 by 20 space. Well, you know, I'd rather sacrifice that one space, get variance for that and have the the larger size parking spaces just because I know you're saying everybody bigger vehicles and the the likelihood of one person being one bedroom, you know, you're not going to have three people in there. Yeah. Yeah. Like Yeah. Yeah. Because there's not there's no units with multiple bedroom. I mean, there's some bunk. If you're sleeping in a bunk, it's probably not, you know, four adults driving.

Maybe it is. I don't know. I don't judge. But it's probably a family coming in one car. What is the parking like now here? Right now, it's just a house. So, do y'all Okay. There's just a house there right now. What about this? So, this apartment, nobody's occupying it. No, they bought I don't Yeah, this house went for sale. I'm sick. Can you give us like like backstory on it? There's a house that's um not in awful shape, but it's got some weak subport. It probably had two or three illegal additions where got a conventional foundation. Then you walk in was probably a storage room. It just wasn't uh it didn't seem to be south. So that's the main house.

That's the main house, right? So the plan was to demolish that, but keep there's two onebedroom, an up down duplex in the rear. it kind of made sense to keep fit our project and we just remodeled that up to the same standard and that would be the additional your intention is to have condos individual that's correct that's right

yes And really that rendering back and these are one bedroom. So and I don't know if they and this was I don't know if they put in the letter of discussion. So what what the conversation was was and it had to do with our comprehensive plan before because I guess when they were in the planning of buying it or whatever else it was basically what Bay St. needs and they have the missing middle part of you know I work at let's just say Stennis Space Center I'm a working for Space Relativity

you know my wife and I need to move place to town but you know three you know a three-bedroom two bath house in Shieldsboro seems like a is $375,000 if we could find somewhere to have home ownership for condo ownership and still suffice our need. Frankly, you know, these aren't these aren't 315 m. These aren't barricad laws. These aren't u court street condos, per se. They're closer to what Dumbar Dumbar, those condos that are in Dumbar by McDonald Park, closer building.

Yeah. closer to that of you have a person that the intent is to have a person that lives there 365 days a year but needs a place to stay. But the quality will still be

yeah problems go away instead of building eight units in that building then your parking problem will go away your square foot unit problem. It it could, but um the thing that seemed to make sense to us that whether they were 10 three bedrooms or 10 one bedrooms, we'd have 10 bedrooms or 33 bedrooms. And with 33 bedrooms, you would still only you would still need 23 spaces. And we have a third of what you know, it could be likely there. It seems like a seems like a reasonable unit. We're not here to solve all your problems.

Oh, no. Like the parking the park the parking variance part was there. Now the the sizes of the condo just you know it is what it is. the 750 foot dwelling. That's one of the other issues that were here. Well, that's what I'm saying is that if you had one less unit, you could make all your units slightly bigger and then you would have Well, we're trying to keep it as affordable as we can. That's what I'm thinking. I just, you know, because we've seen a lot of projects like this making the number, you know, work for larger units building because we're talking not having to pay, you know, get the prices affordable because I think one of the things that

turnover that I talked to I think there there about whenever we had this thing of the 300 350 foot units was well if we go and make where the balconies are a wall and do it. you know, we could essentially add an extra 100 foot, but like at the end of the day, like all you're doing is you're making giving somebody a bigger living room, but also give them a, you know, 45, you know, 40 $50,000 addition in the cost. Just because this is going to have to be this building sprinkled in everything else like

I was gonna ask you are you going to have covenants for rental or short-term rental? Yes, sir. And I think uh do the covenants have to come before the city to get approval? No, it doesn't. Whenever that will probably come up at council what they ask are they are they going to be able to buy them and just rent them out? That's right. had a conversation yesterday. Uh, so we told her that we'd give her a kind of a rough draft. But would they be able to do that? Just purchase a condo and air out. There's there would be nothing in that to stop them.

I don't think that we are here to dictate what somebody wants to do with. So that being said, I would let it because everything around everything down there, but they'd have to go through the same process. every time to get permit. Oh, for shortterm rental. Yeah. Which is not a big

brand. I think there's brand new right across the street. But again, there was a guy there walk young like Andrew lives. You know what I mean? need for that. Althia, it's $250,000. I understand what you're saying, but one bedroom. I just know what's going to come before you at council. That's going to be one of the main questions, right? Is is it really supporting like long-term rentals for like people at Stennis or is it the turnover rate?

That might be the only complaint in terms of landscape. for that five foot variance on that does not bother me. Some parking lot only have any. Yeah, I'm not I'm not and then you got three other condos and pet have smaller smaller living space. So, do we have to we're not making a like for the parking like we're we're we'd be making the motion based on how the variance was written. So, they already put in for the 10 by 20. Yeah. Yeah. So, if you even though it's drawn like as if they could all fit.

So, if you say we'll give you a parking lot, it's understood that is a 10 by 20 spot. Okay. That's just wanted to clarify that. If we go um probably need to go item by item. Allow every vehicle to be able to No. Be one short of the be the 22. Yeah. Yeah. So, right now you have if they have 10 units on the property, you need two parking spots per unit and then 10 parking spots per unit and then they need three guest spots per our zoning ordinance. Okay. What are the square footages in the back?

Are they less than 548? I think they're Oh, yeah. 550, I think. Yeah, there today. So, if we approve one, which is the 22 spots, those are 10 by 20 spots. Yes. So, we could probably do a motion of approve one and deny two. Yes. And seems that's maybe where consensus is. Yeah. If you approve if you approve one and two, they can have 22 spots that are 18 by nine, which I don't think that's what the seem like.

Yeah, look, I'm going to go item by item and I think what we could do is is maybe make the first motion for the landscape buffer. Trying to see where it's like bullet pointed out, but um the first motion I'll entertain will be concerning the landscape buffer in the park. I'll make a motion to move what they have on the landscape. So, it would be a motion to approve the five foot the a variance of five feet to the landscape buffer and um a variance of one parking space to allow for the 10 foot by 20 foot parking spaces. Okay. You got that? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, do you have

I'm just going to because no one seemed to that's my motion. Amy, just so we're not going through four different Oh, no. Just to make it cleaner, let's just do one by one. So, motion to motion. We'll entertain a motion concerning the five foot uh variance to the landscape. I made that motion. Motion by Mr. Brilland, second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I I um motion passes. Okay. Second motion will be to uh the variance uh of one parking space to allow for the 10 foot by 20 foot parking spaces for all for all of them.

Yeah. So it would be a motion to approve uh a reduction of one parking space and every single space will be 10 foot by 20 foot. Yes. I'll second. Motion by Mr. Romano, second by Mr. Breland. All those in favor? Yeah. Yeah, that's it. So be up. Yes. With delirium now. I I I Okay, that passes unanimously. Okay. There be a motion to deny the 18 by9 parking spot request size. So, we got to make a motion to deny that. Yeah. All right. I'll make a motion. See, I didn't understand that.

I'll make a motion. We deny the 18 by the 9 by 18 parking spots for all of the units. Um, all those in favor I I I Okay. Okay. And then we'll do the uh square footage square footage um a motion to the variance to allow the condo dwelling unit size of 648 square feet um from the required 750T dwelling requirement. I make a motion to deny. A motion to deny. Is there a second?

If there's no call for a second for lack of dies for lack of support and we have to make a new motion. Yeah. So on note that said there was a motion made by Brown but died for lack lack of a second on the minutes. All right. So we still need a motion. I'll move that we motion to approve. Is there a second? A second. Second by Mr. Breland. All those in favor? I. No. I reluctantly. Yes. All right. Okay. Motion passes. All right. And then

Why do I feel like I'm missing something? Okay. So, we're We have to do the minutes. No. Now you have to do the major site plan review. We got to do the major site plan review. Okay. So, let me read that application. Uh 507 on Main LLC. Application for major site plan review for a condo submitted by Andrew Harwell on behalf of 507 on Main LLC. The property question located at 507 Main Street. Um I mean I think we Yeah,

I mean my opinion is we digested it. We have one less than the required number of parking spaces. The parking spaces will be 10 by 20. The dumpster looks in conformance. Um I like that it's in the back of the property and not the front personally. So yeah, our recommendation if you approve the variance would approve the site plan. They haven't submitted construction documents. So it's still they'll have to like follow up with a a drain a formal drainage plan. Yes. And uh there's there's one tree on two trees on there, but you already have the drip lines on that.

Um I didn't I mean, anybody else have any I'll entertain a motion to approve the cycling. Make a motion. Motion by Mr. Brilland, second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor? I I Okay. plan approved. Um then city council meeting October 21st 5:30 p.m. Thank you. Okay. Um we'll make a motion uh to approve the minutes from the last meeting that was September 10th, 2025.

I make a motion support. Motion by Brilland, second by Mr. Ag. All those in favor? Hi. I wasn't here. He wasn't here either. Wasn't here. Who was here? I know they left me now. You can still approve them. It's just you don't You don't have any knowledge. You watched it on Facebook. Someone was on the phone. You watched it on Facebook, didn't you? Saw the whole meeting. Who was on the phone? Well, anyway, pass. know you standing. Last agenda item is a motion to adjourn the meeting by October 15, 2025. Move it. Second. Uh motion by Mr. second by Mr.