Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There we are. How are we doing?

Let me know if there's anything I can help with.

I can feel it. I feel like you're on Monroe.

What's your last name? Bill. He's out of town.

Okay, you're fine.

Okay, that means a lot.

I thought you'd let me in less.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, I must be out.

They're all gone.

I can run upstairs really quickly and make some more. But people can also find them right on their phone.

And there's a... Let's go ahead. No, I'm sure. Great thought. I need some sugar. Can I ask you? No.

They didn't put your iPad out.

Oh, you're right.

Don't need that many. I need to work my stuff out.

Mine works tonight. Oh, no. Did yours not work last night?

What happened?

It just wouldn't load.

It was okay.

I just... Well, let's see.

I'm going to grab you a plug-in.

Actually, I'm going to steal yours.

I don't know what this is. Oh, it was Mr. Ragsdale phoning in. Oh, shoot. So we can see it. You hear the car? There it is. There it is.

It's still in my pocket. The question is here. All right, man. You got a pen?

We can plug it in here if we need to.

Oh, great. Yeah, and that's spread out everywhere.

OK, there's your key. Can you pan? Yeah, here's a pan. Chairman, over there. Yeah, it's fine.

OK. Thank you. Thank you. I changed out first. Oh, OK. It's a wonder it wasn't the vote for me.

Good evening I'd like to welcome you to our September 2026 Cherokee County Planning Commission public hearing We all seem to be here in attendance. And so just a few things before we get started. I If you wish to speak in favor or opposition to us tonight, and you're not the owner or applicant, those who speak in opposition must file a campaign disclosure and file it. If you haven't, can you, Margaret, could you wave that to us? Do you have it?

MARGARET BURNS- I don't have a copy of the form. Kristen should have them in the back. CHRISTOPHER COLEMAN- OK.

So it'll be in the back. And if you would bring it forward, the campaign disclosure. The applicant and its supporters will have 10 minutes to speak, followed by the opposition, which will also have 10 minutes to speak. And so if you wish to speak, please try to not repeat what other people have said in front of you, because we are going to try to keep this to 10 minutes. We are starting late again. So we want to try to move this efficiently as possible. We want everything to be heard, of course. But we do want to try to keep our protocol of 10 minutes for the applicant and 10 minutes in opposition. So when you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record, and we'll go from there. And we can start with our first case.

Do you want to do the approval of minutes?

Oh, excuse me. Absolutely. We have the... I skipped this. I'm sorry about that. Let's look at the public hearing minutes of August 4, 2026. I think there's been a number of corrections provided to staff through email, and those have been accepted by staff. So is there any other additions that haven't been made to the staff?

You got the ones I sent you, right?

Yes, I believe so.

So we have them all. OK, thank you. So with that, I'll entertain a motion to accept the meeting minutes as amended.

I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes as amended.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Belote. Second. Second by Commissioner Dahls. Any discussion? All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Moving on to the work session minutes of August 17, 2026. I believe we are in the same situation. We had some minor edits that were submitted to staff, and those have been corrected for the record. Anybody else have anything that has not been submitted? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to accept those. Minutes as amended.

I'll make a motion to approve.

By Barnes. And second by Commissioner Belote. All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Abstain. Abstain. And that's Commissioner Van Zandt. Abstain. Okay, now I'll get back to where I was when I jumped the gun. We'll have our first case.

All right. A little closer. So the first case that we have on the agenda is Will Wynn for Ali Baha'i Energy. I'm sorry if I've messed that up pretty poorly. It's a rezoning case on Knoxbridge Highway for two, I'm sorry, it's a special use permit case on Knoxbridge Highway for 2.2 acres. It's in District 3. It's for a gas station with additional retail. And they had two concurrent variances requested. I do want to let you know that the applicant, between the work session and now, the applicant has requested to postpone the public hearing on this case to November. We found a significant conflict on their site plan that's a problem for two of the zoning conditions from that 2008 case. I can go into more detail if you'd like, but they would really like to postpone the public hearing altogether to be re-advertised. And depending on the scope of the changes to the site plan, we may need to notify everybody who received an invitation for the community input meeting as well, because that's a change to the site plan.

So we'll be re-advertising.

Yes.

And we'll have a work session, I guess, in October prior to it? Yes. Okay. OK. Any questions of Ms. Stallings? OK. So the applicant has requested a postponement to November 3, 2026. There will be re-advertising. There will be a community involvement information exchange meeting. We'll have another work session on this case, looking at potentially a new site plan and so forth. It represents the conditions, potentially, of the 2008. I guess that could end up in other variance requests.

Well, it could either wind up with some variances or we may have to tack on some modification to zoning conditions. OK.

So is there a motion to accept the postponement?

I'll make a motion to accept the postponement. All right.

I'll second it.

OK. Commissioner Gill, motion made by Commissioner Belote, seconded by Commissioner Gill. All those in favor of that motion, Please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right. Let's go to our second case, then.

We will give them a minute to clear. OK. Yep, it's all the letters.

See you in November.

Holy cow. Oh, darn it. I got a mistake on it, I thought.

I think there was an attempt to notify these folks ahead of time. There was, there was. And it's unfortunate they waited till almost eight o'clock, but I think just for everyone's information, there was an attempt to notify the public.

Yes. And unfortunately, I left on the mistake on this slide. The next case is John Lloyd for LDS Farms, a ball ground highway property that we've seen many times. They are requesting to rezone 40 acres for a light industrial. They are going from R80 to LI within the city limits of ball ground. They specifically said the use is going to be a flex warehouse. So ignore the details of the request. I failed to get that updated from the work session slides. This is the general vicinity of that property. The parcels in question are highlighted in a light blue color. This property is located between the Sage Hill development and the Marble Tree residential subdivision off of Ball Ground Highway. To the north and west is also the 575 right away. This is what the property looks like today. There are two kind of wooded stream corridors. We'll see that on the site plan in a little bit more detail. There's also, you can kind of see a pond in the middle. But there's property that's been used for pasture as well. Here's what the zoning looks like in this area. There would remain some R80 pieces in the county here, as well as you'll see the LI on the other side of Bahlgren Highway. The two city properties on either end, as well as the city, has annexed the 575 right away. This is what the future development map looks like. Remember, we have kind of a shared map with the city, a ball ground. So they have this area categorized as neighborhood living. And here's the site plan that the applicant provided with their application. You can see more detail of those stream corridors that I was talking about. Over time, those have been a really difficult thing to work around when they've had residential applications for this property. The building is kind of in two pieces, and then there's some loading docks in this corner, some storage on the north end. The items that the staff identified in our staff report, the city is working with Georgia Power to annex. Let me go back to the map. There's a piece up here directly north of this site that would become an island if it's not annexed into the city. But the city is already working with Georgia Power to resolve that issue. And we also noted that the property is going to be served by city water and sewer. In support of this application, this is on a busy area. You have 575 on the north side as well as Ball Ground Highway to the south. That definitely is a high traffic area that might support that light industrial. There's an existing light industrial within the county across Ball Ground Highway. And then the streams are really providing a significant amount of buffering, far exceeding kind of that required 50-foot buffer between LI and our residential zoning district. in opposition or things that don't support this proposal is that the light industrial use and zoning is not really consistent with that character area from the future development map. And then as well, there's going to be adjacent residential development to this property. Those are existing neighborhoods. So that might be a source of conflict. So those are kind of the highlights of this case. I think that's kind of the end of my presentation. I think we're ready for the public hearing.

Any questions from Ms. Stallings at this time? Thank you. The applicant will come forward please.

Good evening. For the record, my name is Parks Huff with Sam's Larkin and Huff, and I'm going to make a short presentation and then reserve some additional time to respond to any comments or concerns from the community. Wanted to go through some of the elements that your staff did a good job of going through. The first is just recognition of this property being between Ball Ground Highway and 575. There's a mixture of different uses in this corridor area where you have some industrial, light industrial, general commercial type uses. And then you have some residential uses. The county's land use plan has actually gone back and forth. At one time, this was workplace center. And then there was some concerns about some areas that maybe should be residential rather than workplace center. So then the county actually amended their plan, pulled out a workplace center, which would have been conducive with light industrial, put in neighborhood living, which is density of update units breaker. So my client has had this property for many years and proposed many different versions of developing the property, one of which is density consistent with residential density consistent with that neighborhood living in the county. And then there were concerns about too many houses and the traffic that residential produces. And so there was the general consensus that light industrial creates an opportunity for jobs on this site. And then, quite frankly, the layout with the way we're able to do the layout with the stream buffers. We can have a natural barrier between us and the adjacent residential properties. And that's the reason why this proposal is before you today. It's a light industrial use, as you can see as you enter off of Ball Ground Highway. You have your parking for customers and employees. And then that would be your front of house, if you will, your office area. And then behind that is your more flex space for industrial uses. As you probably know, you actually have some higher tech industrial uses that are coming in this area. Proximity to the airport, proximity to good power source, proximity to access to all the infrastructure that you need for quality higher tech industrial is in this area and attracting good businesses. And that's what this proposal would do, is be a great location to attract good businesses that can take advantage of the access to the interstates, access to foreground highway. And that's the site plan we've got before you today. So I'm going to now reserve whatever time I have left. And if there's community concerns, I will address those too. Thank you.

Before you step aside, any questions? One question I had, any specific use at this point in time?

No, it is. I've learned different businesses have different kind of how things work. Light industrial spaces are almost all speculative when they're built. And then you have right now there's light industrial uses that are wanting 100,000 square feet that's available right now. This is not available right now, but that's how that business works. So it's not as much. When they want it, they want it right then. So it'll be built and then be filled.

So the ventral builder or user will respect these buffers? Correct. OK, so he's going to basically sandwich himself in between the two streams. Yeah, OK. All right, thank you. All right, anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Please step forward. All right. Seeing none, is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? All right, seeing none, I guess we'll close.

I can respond.

You can respond.

And quite frankly, as a lawyer, of course I can respond. And my response is that sometimes the lack of people saying something speaks more than saying something. And the fact that you don't have, and you know you've done several cases up and down the section of Ball Ground Highway. And usually people are concerned when things don't seem to fit. And the fact that you don't have people here opposed lets you know that there's been some dialogue. I know Mr. Barnes went to a community input meeting that we had. And we've talked to all the neighbors. And so I hope that their not being here is an indication to you, as it is to me, that this makes sense, it fits in the area, and is a good use. And we ask that you recommend approval of this to City of Ball Ground as light and duster as we propose it.

thank you yes that will close the public comment and open it up for discussion questions I'll start discussion on this since it's my area up there but I do want to hear feedback from the rest of Planning Commission members if needed this has been an area as he said it's had different Zoning that's been recommended for from heavy industrial to high density housing So to work down to where we are now on light industrial city ball grounds trying to get a little bit more space and not lose that Opportunity to have light industrial on our area. So this is a good fit on that On that highway there and as you can see there's some industrial we got magby lumber That expanded and came into the city a while back. So they're right across the street and and some other light industrial. And how this worked out even, I think, better for the city and the area also is that the stream buffers, keeping those intact and not crossing over into each other. If it had been homes, that would not have occurred. There would be a lot more homes pushing up on the north end and the south end. With that, I think right now, this is a better fit for what's been recommended over the times that have been in there. Again, I'd like to, before a motion comes up, see if there's any other comments or feedback.

I second everything you just said, for the record. If we zone it like industrial, I like to know that we keep the buildings between those stream buffers so there's no chance that something gets changed and all of a sudden that whole parcel gets built to the very edges. I want to protect the boundaries that they're trying to offer us now. I want to have that written into, knowing that will be sustained to whatever happens in the future. Knowing that speculative build, I want to have control over that.

No, understood. And if anything changed on that anyhow, it would have to come back through the process again for whatever's on there. But that's what we've got now is what we feel is a good commitment to it. And neighbors spoke to some of the surrounding neighbors, and that was a better fit for them as well that they enjoyed.

I think it should be noted, if you had a, looking at this entire site and its entirety, the 40 plus acres. If you had a residential development, even of moderate density, most likely you're having roads crossing from one side to the other to fully access the site. Now those roads would be exempt from buffer requirements, but they would still, depending on how you built the roads, that require Corps of Indian Air permits, federal permits. So with this approach, you're going to forego that problem. So I would agree with the comments made to this point.

It's a difficult piece of property. I mean, that's been the problem in the past, as I understand it. You have two streams. There's expense. There's permitting time frames that are involved in developing this. So the county has a vision for some industrial along this corridor. Here we have an opportunity. The city is essentially sharing that vision, and we have a proposal that It seems to fit the site and respects the fact that we've got two streams crossing it. It seems like it's a good fit to me.

Well, I'll move forward and I'll make a motion to approve this to LI.

Commissioner Barnes makes a motion to approve. Is there a second?

I'll second it. I'll go with Commissioner Beloyed.

I think I heard him first. All right. Those in, is there any discussion on that motion? Any further discussion? All right. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We'll go to our next case.

All right. Our next case is case number 2609020. This is Karen Lance for Tony Little. It's a 5.91 acre piece of property on Heard Road. They're requesting to rezone the property from R80 to AG so that it can be added with the rest of the farm property that Mr. Little owns. This is in the Commission District 1. Here's kind of an overall vicinity map. This is Heard Road, heads almost directly towards the airport from the roundabout at the end of Technology Ridge Parkway. This property is about halfway between that roundabout and Lower Bethany Road. So you know the pink that you kind of see this dark pink those are all areas neighborhoods that are in the city But this is kind of on the edge of that. It's still within the growth boundary But it is it's on the way to the airport There's a closer view currently the properties fairly wooded Mr. Little has a lot of pasture on his property and The zoning map in this area has a mixture of AG and R80. There's AG across the street. Mr. Little's property is AG already. But then there's some R80 to the south and west of this property. The future development map puts this property in suburban growth, but it is right on the line with the workplace center that we have located around the airport. Here is the survey that the applicant provided of the property. There's a stream in this southeast edge of the property. I believe that stream or that ditch kind of becomes the property line for a little bit. And then there's some drainage easements that kind of cross the property as well. So from the staff report, as I mentioned, Stormwater had comments about the original site plan. But those changes have been incorporated into that revised plan that I just showed you. Things that are kind of in support of this application, suburban growth, while it's primarily focused on residential, it does encourage preserving green spaces as transitions between residential areas and active agriculture. In addition, there's existing AG properties along Heard Road. In opposition, the agricultural uses are not particularly supported by that suburban growth character area or the workplace center. And there's kind of an awkward situation where when this gets combined, the overall property will kind of straddle the line between those two character areas. So that's the end of my presentation. I think we're ready for a public hearing.

Any questions? I've got a question. Did the harbors have a chance to look at this? I don't believe so Because it looks to me like the property's got a lot of trees on it Are there any specimen trees on there that have to be protected?

They weren't required to create an existing site resources map because they're not proposing the construction of any any buildings or anything like that so they can just clear cut all the trees and Well, I mean, there are agricultural exemptions in the tree ordinance for the creation of pasture and agricultural land uses. Yeah.

That's what I was going to mention, the exemption. Oh. OK. Go ahead. OK. OK. Any other questions? All right. If the applicant will step forward.

Good evening. My name is Karen Lance. Thank you for having me tonight. My office address is 2288 Marietta Highway here in Canton. Thank you for allowing me to speak and present the rezoning case of 5.91 acres adjacent to 250 Heard Road on behalf of Mr. Little. He has owned the property adjacent to this, this 100-acre farm that is currently zoned AG since the late 70s. He recently purchased the subject property, which I can... Just recently purchased this 5.91 acres to add to the existing farm. The property that we are requesting to rezone is currently zoned R80, and we would like to add it to the farm, enlarging the hay production area that he currently has. So if you see here on the survey, this strip right here for some reason was taken off years ago and put with this. So we're adding that extra road frontage to the existing farm and adding this to the 100 acres that we already have. And as Margaret mentioned, it would not be conducive to have, this is AG. And this is R80. Currently, it is suburban growth. And we are workplace center. But there's no intention for this to be a 100 lot subdivision or an industrial park or anything. It's going to be a farm, as it has been.

I've got a couple of questions. Sure. All right. So Mr. Little has owned this property for roughly 50 years. More than 50 years, yes. So what agricultural activities does he have currently on his name?

Mr. Wilkie, I think some of the people around here know, cuts hay off of there. And then before that, Mr. Hurd had cut it for years and years. Must have been a hay field. If you go up there now, you'll see.

Are there any other non-agricultural activities going on in the adjacent parcel?

No.

None. OK.

Non-agricultural?

Yes.

No.

OK. Why were the buffers established on this property?

What were the what?

The stream buffers. Why were they established on this property? The reason I'm asking that question, by state law, agricultural activities are exempt from having established buffers. Also, county ordinance does the same.

Ben from Stormwater requested that they be shown on the site plan.

OK.

He's just trying to make sure that they're identified.

OK. OK. But from an agricultural standpoint, buffers don't have to be recognized. You can disturb the buffer for agricultural purposes. Similar to the question about the tree ordinance, you're exempt.

I understand that. But that stream goes down on into the farm. And we've not touched that in over 50 years. So we have no intention of touching this one either.

Okay. I'm just asking questions. Sure. That's why I was there. Okay. I'll have some other questions later.

Okay.

All right?

Thank you.

All right. Anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Please step forward. And if you would, please make sure you state your name for me to write this down so I can catch up with you.

William Luckett, I'm adjacent to that. And I agree with Tony's proposal. And I know he's trying to get that triangle of land. And I trust that he's not going to clear cut it or anything like that.

Anyone else here speak in favor?

I'm Earl Darby, and we're on the property at 300 Heard Road. My son lives at 350 Heard Road, so we're right across the street from there. We are in support of Tony changing this to agriculture. That's the best use of that land, the best use of what's going on in that neighborhood. And if you've looked at the property, you couldn't build a house on it if you wanted to. So, I mean, it's up and down, and it's just... It should be agricultural land to be in what the neighborhood is. And you just can't build a house there. So thank you for your time. Yes, sir.

Could you state your name one more time for me, sir?

I'm Earl Darby. Earl Darby.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Anyone else here to speak in favor? All right. Seeing none, anyone here to speak in opposition? And now we'll close the public comment. I have a couple of questions. I've walked the site. It is, in my opinion, not really suitable for hay, which is the production, which is the stated reason for this. And more importantly, there's no reason to rezone it if he wants to put hay on a property at $1.80. He can do that without rezoning it. The property. Roughly has, based off the USGS quad sheets and my walking, it's about a two-to-one slope. That's the horizontal slope versus the vertical. Every two feet horizontally, you go down about a foot, which is a 50% grade. Maximum safe tractor for hay production is around 25%, 35% based on manufacturers that I've looked up. That's the maximum slope. What really troubles me about this site is not being used for agriculture, the adjoining site. Let me provide a little more detail. I reviewed aerial photographs from 1945 to 2026. Up to 2005, this site in question is an agroforest property. In 2006, there was a major site disturbance. earth movement, grading, stockpiling of soil, et cetera. 2007, it continues, and there's silt fences added, and it continues to be disturbed up through 2009. Around 2009, the site begins to stabilize and remains stable to 2015. After that, there's a significant site disturbance coming on in 2017. There's a presence of two excavators, numerous dump trucks. Land is being disturbed, excavated. Soil is being stockpiled. That's not an agricultural use. This property that we're asking to be zoned is not suitable for the stated use. In 2018, 19, 2021, 22, 25, and as recently as 2026, this is still presence of excavators, dump trucks, stockpiles of soil, land disturbance. If you look at the USGS quad sheets from 1928 to 2024, you can see the changes in elevation that occurred. I am not supporting this reason I'm in classification. On the surface, it looks pretty benign. I was the first one to say, why are we here? Why are we even doing this? Because this activity could occur, if it's stated activity, it could occur without the rezoning. But when you start digging down into the details, this site's not suitable based on the elevations and topography, and the adjoining property is not necessarily being used for agriculture and hasn't been for the last 20 years. So what are we proposing to do here? I don't know. I offer that to the board. But I'm clearly not going to support this application going forward.

Well, my comment on here is that I do see agriculture use is happening because it's hay. They're producing hay. I don't know if it's two times of the year. But that part is in there. I would assume if we're doing this parcel for, further hay production that the trees are coming out, I would imagine. Do we know that for a fact? Or is that what the... But some are coming out to expand that? Okay. Because I think that's what a concern was of one of the other neighbors was that it wasn't getting totally clear cut to their property or anything. Is there, what do you imagine then, the plan is for a tree buffer of how much, like 30 feet, 40 feet?

When you talk about the hay production, you're talking about on a good year, you're $4,000 to $5,000. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Yeah. The property that's being requested to be rezoned?

No, next door.

Next door.

But this will be in addition to that. Can we have her come to the microphone? Yeah.

I'm sorry.

You were talking about the hay production. In a good year, it's been anywhere from 4,000 to 5,000 bales.

Per acre. Per what?

No, that's in total. And that's at least one time. And we're getting at least three cuttings.

OK. Well, if you look at the photograph right there, you can see this photograph is roughly somewhere around 2009, thereabouts, this photograph you hear. If you go out there and look at it today in the current, you would see a lot more disturbance than you see in the central part of the adjoining property. So my concern is this for your client. He says he wants to put used hay on this property that he's asking for rezoning. I'm saying it's not suitable because it has a 50% grade. The tractors aren't even, that's not a safe grade to even operate a hay baler. That's why I'm saying that. Secondly, the drainage easements that come in there have a similar slope. That likewise. And I'm also saying the existing use may be hay in and around here, but there's other activities that are not agriculture related whatsoever, do not appear to be. I was offering you to tell me what they were, but I don't know what they are. What are they?

You have an agricultural use. You can move dirt around your site. We've been expanding the area for hay. So that's what's been new.

Well, I don't think that's correct. You have a farm. You've been moving dirt around for over 20 years.

You can do that on a farm.

You can do that. But at the large scale that you're doing it, you're removing most of the site from hay production.

No, you're not.

Listen, I'm not here to argue with you. I've looked at the record, and I know what I see.

Well, we're not going to be removing all the trees off the site that we're asking to have it zoned. We're not going to.

Okay. Well, again, you don't need a zoning to do what you want to do. If you want to grow hay there, you don't need to rezone the property.

But we want the rezoning to add it to the farm. Are you going to allow us to add the six acres to an AG zone? And why not let us add it in there?

You don't have to do it. There's no hardship to do this.

So you're going to add this to your deed to combine it all? Yes.

So where we have almost 100 acres under one tax parcel, this will be added to it. And that was the only reason we bought it was for that road frontage there. Because for some reason over the years.

Are you currently in tax conservation?

No. Because it was about the same amount of money because he gets school tax exemption. And it's his personal.

All of it. Is it? The 90 acres in tax conservation?

No, it's not in conservation. No, we did not put it in conservation.

You should put it in tax conservation.

But whenever you do the school tax exemption, because that's his primary residence. Oh, okay. So it's one or the other. You can't do both. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, does anybody else have a follow-up question?

I have a follow-up question for Ms. Lance. So I just want to double-check that we're speaking the same language here. The conservation use program.

So for years we had it in conservation. I'm sorry, I cut you off. No, you're fine.

You're fine. Go ahead.

For years we had it in conservation. For years and years. When he turned... What is it, 62? So it was about the same amount of money. I think it might have even been a little cheaper. Because it's his homestead and he resided there as a primary residence, it was cheaper to put it as his primary residence and not have it in conservation because he got the school tax exemption. You can do both. You cannot do both.

Yes, she can. Yes, she can. Because I've done it.

My family's farmers.

OK. Well, the tax assessor told us that we couldn't get a conservation and the school tax exemption on a piece of property.

OK. Well, I am here to tell you that that's on my property, both.

OK. Well, I guess we need to go visit the tax assessor.

You do.

And maybe it'll be a little cheaper now.

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were all talking the same thing because that was confusing me.

Any other discussion?

Is there a water resource on that piece of property that maybe they need?

Well, there is a stream on the downstream, the down gradient portion of it as you move away from the road. Yes.

We haven't had a lot of rain this year, so a water resource would be nice for hay production.

Well, it's an intermittent stream. I don't want to get into the details here. It's an intermittent stream. It's seasonally. It does not flow. It's very rocky. Yeah, it's not flowing at the moment.

I can understand why they want to have it deeded and all together and rezoned. I'm going to make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

All right. Motion by Doss and Shrestler. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor of that, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? No. Motion passes eight to one.

Seven to two.

Seven to two? OK. I missed yours. Seven to two. And that was Whiteside and Whitaker. OK. Let's get to our last case.

All right. This is another ball-ground case. This is case number 2026, V01, Doug Strahl for KM Homes. Location is 1065 Cartersville Street. It's in District 1. The acreage is 9.12 acres. This is not a rezoning. There are some things about the ball ground code that requires changes to density to go back through the rezoning process, but this is actually what we would consider a modification to zoning conditions. They want to increase the number of homes on the site from 38 to 42, as well as modify four conditions and remove one. And I have a slide that provides more detail on that. So here are the conditions. The first condition, they're modifying it to refer to their site plan as opposed to the one that was used in the original rezoning. The second condition, they are just requesting that increase from 38 homes to 42. They're requesting to delete condition number four And they are requesting to modify condition number eight, as well as condition number nine. Their site plan is slightly different than the original rezoning case, and so there's some good reasons to make those modifications. But they are preserving these conditions that refer to buffering and fencing, again, adjacent to the existing neighborhood to the east. Here's the site It is almost directly on top of the interchange at Howell bridge and 575 There's an adjacent neighborhood called lantern lantern walk. It's been there for quite some time and the buffering that's referred to in the conditions has to do with that that property line that Eastern property line and Here's a closer view of the property. There's an existing house on the Cartersville Street frontage, but the rest of it remains wooded and undeveloped. Here's a clip of the city of Ball Ground zoning map. This piece has already been rezoned to RZL. The surrounding property is traditional neighborhood development. And the Lantern Walk neighborhood is part of that, as well as the medical office building that exists at the roundabout. So here is the annexation plan that we received in 2024. Their original plan when this was rezoned was to preserve that existing house on the road frontage on Cartersville Street. The new site plan from a different developer is really where they're picking up the extra lots is right here where that existing home was located. So here are the notes that we produced on this. What they're asking for is consistent with that RZL zoning district. The density is within that range for neighborhood living or urban core character areas. If you want more detail, this modification allows them to go up to 4.73 dwelling units per acre, which is well within the six units per acre that's allowed in RZL. I mentioned the fencing and landscaping against Lantern Walk. In opposition, those four additional homes will increase traffic on Cartersville Street. And we have heard a little bit about this in the past on this application. So that's kind of the summary of our staff comments.

Can you go back to the various conditions? Sure. Because these are the ones we have. I just want to make sure we can. These are the ones we will be considering.

Correct.

OK. So there's one, two, four, eight, and nine. OK. If we can leave that up, that would be fine. Great. So we'll know what we're doing. All right. Thank you. Is anyone here to represent the case?

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Ethan Underwood. I'm here with Doug Straw regarding this application, if I may. Yeah. We have a presentation here. I think you all have figured out this is my crutch. There we go. I think that Margaret's given a good summary. The property's already zoned RZL. We are asking for a four lot increase. And we'll explain to you why. As shown here. We do have the RZL zoning adjacent to the traditional neighborhood zonings. Important that we want you to know here, there's a food line that's being installed at this area. And there is a very steep topographical change. It's about 20 feet in topo change. That's important because one of the conditions that you're considering, condition number four, references an inter-parcel connection. And we just do not believe that is practical from a topography standpoint. uh... putting this subdivision in here you can see how that would lay into cartersville street uh... zooming in what we have done is we are are showing you additional uh... or or four extra lots up here at the front and the condition modifications are almost entirely to match the new site plan so we still want to accomplish the goals of the original zoning but we do have to tailor it to the new site plan so this is the original site plan and the intention was to keep that front area with an existing home and in hopes that it would be maintained and that would keep the the I guess the past character of that of Cartersville Street unfortunately this is what has become of the house it's just not been maintained and we don't think it's salvageable at this point so we think it would be better to develop at this with houses that match what's been approved behind there and create a uniform entrance and appearance. So again, this is the change. This is really the only area that we're asking to modify significantly. And then there's some site plan modifications, just particularly with numbering. So if you can read this, I know this is small print. The biggest change you can see is in condition number one, is we are asking to reference a completely different site plan. Well, when we reference a different site plan, the old conditions, number two number eight and number nine reference lots on the old site plan so we've just changed these to match and make sure that we're still preserving the intention and then again we are asking to eliminate condition number four because of that topographical change obviously that's something we've got to still work with the City Council and ball ground about as to whether they are agreeable to that but we would submit to you that is impractical so putting this into to visual connotations. Condition number eight, the original zoning required a buffer along these lots. New condition number eight, we just said it has to be between the right of way and all the homes. So that way we're not referencing specific lot numbers, but again, accomplishing the intention of condition number eight. Condition number nine only required a fence along a portion of the lots. KM Holmes is proposing to put a fence along all the lots on that eastern boundary. So that actually extends that. Condition number four, again, the Ball Ground City Council wanted connectivity there. And in two dimensions, it makes sense. We're proposing that that is not viable. So we'll leave that to your discretion as to whether you want to recommend that. Well, obviously, we still have to deal with the city council and what they're going to do. But we would suggest to you that, based upon the topography, that that is an extraordinary hardship that cannot be accomplished. Homes that are proposed on the site, they blend very, very well with traditional neighborhoods next door and the traditional architecture in the city. So with that, we hope maybe back to the chairman's point. That may be the most important slide for you all to consider. We do request that you would recommend approval to the city. We are happy to answer any questions, and we will reserve any time that we have remaining. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Anyone here speaking wish to oppose this application? All right, we'll close the public comment and open it for discussion.

I'll take the lead on this one again because, again, my area up in ball ground. We're in agreement on making these adjustments to the various conditions. It had changed. Mr. Armwood said once the home was being removed out of there, it was not viable to the neighborhood. So the property changed hands. So that's why these things, they fit to what the adjustments that need to be made and remove those conditions off. And these will be heard by the city of Ball Ground starting on this Thursday as well if this case moves forward.

One thing, if I may, I noticed they actually add six parking spaces in this new site plan, which they did not have in the previous site plan. They just had a male kiosk area.

You're right. That is a better.

There's a good bonus then for that table. It's a bonus. It needs it. Yes. Right now it says 20-foot driveways, which as we debate that whole whether that's long enough or not, at least we have more parking. I would encourage them to actually add more because it looks like you could add more along that southern or I guess actually the western boundary, wouldn't it? Yeah, there's more down. There's more chance to add three or four more down there. I'd encourage that to happen. But for me, this makes sense.

Any other discussion?

All right.

So I assume we would just need to go through the first.

I think we need to go through each condition. And again, these are recommendations that will go to the city of Ballground for their final approval. So condition number one is the new site plan by Graydon Engineering, dated August 10, 2026.

I'd make a motion to approve condition number one.

Second the motion.

OK. Motion made by Barnes, seconded by Van Zandt. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Unanimously, condition two is to change the maximum lots from 38 to 42 homes. And that's based on the grading plan that we just recommended for approval. So is there a motion for that?

I'll make a motion to approve condition number two.

Second the motion. All right. Motion made by Commissioner Barnes, seconded by Commissioner Van Zandt. Any discussion? All those in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 9-0. Condition 8. I don't know why we skipped that. It's a 10-foot undisturbed buffer located west of the new internal road lot. So the lots that are on the west side of the new internal road on the west side, it would be a 10-foot undisturbed buffer. That's condition number eight.

I'll make a motion to approve condition number eight.

Second.

OK. Similar to the past two, motion Made by Commissioner Barnes, seconded by Commissioner Van Zandt. All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Condition number nine. Private fencing slash landscaping behind units 1 through 27. This is on the east side of the internal road. So if there's any discussion on that or a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve condition number nine.

I'll second the motion.

OK. Motion made by Commissioner Barnes, seconded by Commissioner Van Zandt. All in favor? Aye. Condition four is to be deleted. That is the road stub out. Is there a motion for that?

I'll make a motion to approve it.

All right. I'll second it. All right. Commissioner Belote and Whitaker.

Okay.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Motion carries. All right.

Any other business?

Can I have just two minutes? Yes, ma'am. I did want to introduce our new zoning division manager. I didn't warn him that this was going to happen. His name is Sayer Brennan. Hello. And he's had some experience in the private sector. He's worked for Pond for a little bit. And he also has public sector experience. So I'll let you, you know.

Welcome aboard. The opening comments come on.

Appreciate it.

Look forward to working with you.

Thank you. Likewise.

All right.

Thanks for catching this. I know you're relieved. I am. And you'll start seeing more of him and less of me. OK. All right. There's no other business. Motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

By Commissioner Belog. I'll second. Second by Commissioner Tressler. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We adjourned at 8.45. How many cases next month?

Three.

Thank you.