Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

with no family members and stuff, but they wanted to give a member from the church or caretaker some property. Uh that variance would also cover that. And if we put it as family, that would eliminate that. I I think we I think we need to leave it open. And I'd like to hear anybody else that we did have Um you did did you?

Yeah, we had uh neighbors that were kind of tag teaming. Um, one was, you know, they wanted Tremen, but I guess they've been together for so many years they wanted to keep it, you know, close by. And then we had several laws that is like uh father-in-law or someone else that's not first if Ken or you well I guess father-in-law would be in that case but I would say secondary members

and which in our I guess we we did approve several that were pretty close together but it seemed like they had valid you know nearly family um situations. Well, I personally think with what we have that's going into the res into our zoning resolution, I think we can cover just about anything that needs to be covered. And and again, kados to y'all for doing what you're doing. It's it's it's been

it was a lot better than I anticipated it being. And uh and as we get farther on and people get more and more used to what's happening here, uh there's going to be less turmoil in their curtain. Yes. Not getting the phone calls that you were, right?

So if is everybody satisfied with that? I don't think we need to vote on that. I just think we need to uh it it's going to be in the minutes that uh to leave things as they are. Yeah, I agree. I agree with it too. like you say, leave it like it is and that way the variance will cover, you know, the they can look at the variances and it would cover family also and plus also, you know, about the two Laura's and Sammy when you guys got an opinion on that at all. I like the direction you're going with this. I do.

Leaves us an avenue to let people, you know, that need to be I think everybody's in agreement to that. When do you think uh Amanda will be here? Amanda's coming. What I'd like for you guys to do is go over the checklist and she has reasons why she all check it out the way she did. And y'all can ask her questions. Cindy just brought this. Did you special.

Yeah, this basically is covering what we what we voted on and passed last week. We see if there's needs to be any changes or any clarification on anything. Uh, is he talking about going over the checklist like like this resolution and the resolution? Okay. Okay. I read through.

Now, I think Amanda, we talked about putting this both of these in the definitions. Amanda I think feels like they need to be put in the zoning resolution. If you'll see one I don't know if you have it on yours but under amendment one it says adding definitions and under amendment two it says adding a letter E in 10.0. AO that'll be in our zoning resolution at that point. So, it's going to be it's it's going to be very clear in three places. Mhm. But Anna, with the checklist that you guys already have in addition to this, I think we're pretty well covered. you see something different, let me know. be honest with you. Some of the chatter that I'd heard in the last two or three weeks, I thought discussion going to go off into other areas. That's why I invited here. This is this is her first uh

resolution that she actually crafted going to be approved by the county attorney, but she actually drafted this langage. She do that. I felt like there'd be some questions on how she did it and I felt like it was we went over this pretty much the last in the last meeting in pretty much detail. Don't you guys think that?

Yes. I think the only thing that I had question was did we decide on whether we're going to put a limit on it how many times they're going to be able to get the special variances or do we just kind of leave that out for now? I think I I you're sitting on both boards. I think that we can leave that up to the board of zone appeals. Okay. In other words, I've seen you guys in action and y'all don't miss much. And

what got took off the agenda tonight? a site plan review for lot 10 in the joint park boulevard Eric deal and he the applicant asked to be deferred was that not a reszoning request that you thought was coming up

no I don't think so I haven't heard Okay, while we're waiting, got one more item. Uh, the city has made some changes to its fee applications. And did all of you get a copy of this? Yes. Okay, Kurt, I have a seat right here for you, Miss Amanda.

Oh, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Apologies for my error in calendar. It's okay. No problem. Thank you. Uh, if you take this home and look it over, Kirk, can you explain exactly what you think needs to be changed as far as as far as the square footage?

I think that uh y'all could take this home and look at it and see what changes y'all want to make compared to what they've done. The biggest thing I They went from $75 a foot to figure the valuation of the house to 125 for heated and unheated.

And they also passed an impact fee which we cannot do. So, but we will discuss this at the next meeting if you guys deem it necessary. I think we don't need to be charging less than the city is myself. Uh, any questions on that? We're going to go back to Miss Amanda. It's good to see you again. Likewise,

and we are ready to look at this resolution. Okay. We we looked at this and passed it at our last meeting and we're just intending to go over it and I haven't had anybody ask any questions yet. Okay.

Okay. So, there's there's a couple of things in here um that we we could have a little bit of a conversation about. Um the first off is in combining the two um items that were sent to me. There was the first thing is the amendment um for adding the definition of um a special question or variance. And you see that under your number one uh under your amendment adding the definition of special question variance. For purposes of the administration of the resolution, a special question shall be construed as synonymous with variance as controlled by section 137109 Tennessee code annotated. Um the mayor and I had a good conversation about um where this should go in the zoning resolution. Um, apparently there are some definitions that could be included. Um, there are some um there there are some definitions in the zoning resolution that talk about special questions uh not special questions but variances and special exceptions. Um there's also an opportunity for it to be included in the resol in the body of um section 10.70E itself. Um so where where it's landed um is adding it as a definition a special question. Um so that's where it that's where it's being proposed.

I was going to ask do you think it should be num should be a separate like number four under E or included in the senates of three which is right here. So what he's looking at

I have 10.8 instead of 10. Well, we're we're getting to 10.8 right now. She's dealing with 10.7. Okay. Well, I'm looking for that. Yeah. 10.70 paragraph E powers of the board TCA that you have uh noted in here which is 137-109 gives the BA actually a fourth power which is to answer special questions granted under the authority of the

zoning regulation So one of my suggestions was to add this as a number four as a special question. So number it would be the first administrative review number two special exceptions number three variances number four special question that's much more clear. Yep. And then the definition of spiritual question would be there. Yes. Okay. Yes. So you would we're adding a number four to 10.70 paragraph E sub. Okay. You got it, Randy.

Yeah. three. It'll be added after three. It'll be accurate. It'll be the fourth basically the fourth power of the board. Now, the uh checklist that you've uh compiled for us, you said adding letter E. That should be 10.80 should be noted there. Would it not? Um I don't have a 10.80. 80 in. Oh, really? Okay. In in mine. Yeah. The So, so I guess there's under variances. Have you got a 10?

But if 10.80. So, I guess down I'm sorry. Yes, it is 10. Yeah, 10.0 in our book just gives the definition of a variance. That should be noted that we're adding letter E under because you have a A B C D. Yep. And then then you skip to 1090. So 1080 under variances. And we've already established in the section before that special question and variances are synonymous. Yes. Correct. Yes.

Okay. So I wanted those min minute changes brought up in here to be sure that your recommendation moving forward is not affected other than the uh small text changes. Right. Granted special. I knew I had it somewhere. There it is on my phone. So it'll be 10.80 E

E. So it'll come after so it be so it'll be added right there. That's correct. D is standards for bares. So we on 10.7E and what I now this is my own version that I retyped. Um it does have Here it says powers of the board. So would that be? You're adding the number four under E. Got it. Got it. Okay. We're affecting two sections 10.70 and 10.80. That's right. Takes care of everything in this uh zoning resolution amendment. Yes.

Do you still want to put those definitions in the back of the That's up to you guys. Well, we voted to put them in the back of the book simply because you can look in alphabetical order and find and find that and then we'll put the definitions in the back. Okay.

So, the just looking it says standards. Yes. And that's already standards for variances. special variances when there's not any kind of conflict. Okay. And then that's their adding definition special question variance. So that would go in the back of the book. Back of the book. That's correct. I think varian variance is in look back there and see your definition. See if is already there. I think it is.

Does your copy of our zoning resolution have the definition? I think we sent you a digital version. It's quite a bit different than our printed and I hope we get that all straightened out so everybody has the same thing when we're looking at it.

You do have all the definition. Okay. And I wanted you guys to go over each one of these individual checklist and if you had any questions or if you saw any deep this document this is what will be approved. Okay, not what you talked about.

It's what's printed. So everybody needs to know that what's printed here is exactly what you guys desire the changes to be. So if you've read over the checklist and have questions, uh Amanda's here to answer them. Okay. So we can we can do you want me to step through each? Why don't you do that? Okay. And we can do that.

Okay. So we'll start from the top. So adding the definition of special question parentheses variance. So for purposes of the administration of this resolution, a special question shall be construed as synonymous with variance as controlled by section 137109 Tennessee code annotated. So that's simply saying that the same that a special question is the same as a variance adding excuse me section 10.80E 80E U. So adding letter E, standards for granting special question variances. So A, a subdivision of land into four or fewer parcels of less than five acres in the A1 district may be permitted by the board of zoning appeals as a special question subject to the following conditions. Number one, minimum lot size and dimensional standards. Each proposed lot must meet the frontage, width, and setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is located unless a separate variance is granted subject to the local subdivision regulations. Number two, compatibility with the surrounding area. The subdivision shall be compatible with the character and density of surrounding properties, excuse me, and shall not create a pattern, thank you, of development that is candy,

that is inconsistent with adopted land use plan or zoning intent. Number three, access and infrastructure. All lots shall have direct access to a public street or an improved private drive. Adequate provisions shall be made for local utilities, drainage, and other necessary infrastructure as required by the local subdivision regulations. Y'all stop her if you got any questions. I'm about to choke, too. But anyway, if y'all got another Oh, we got If y'all have any questions on any of these, ask her while she's reading them.

Yes, please. Number four, no adverse impact. The the proposed subdivision shall not a increase traffic to a level that creates safe creates safety capacity concerns. I'm going to have I've got some mayor. Thank you. You do? I do. um contribute to an environmental degradation including erosion or flooding or C negatively affect neighboring property values or the peaceful enjoyment of adjacent properties. I have a question on that one. Yes, sir. An adjacent should not be captivized. Well, that wasn't my question. Is that

I knew he would get it. I knew the mayor was on it. Is that uh is that somewhat ambiguous? Yes. Huh? Yes, it is. Yeah. I it is.

I'm not assure I'm not certain that we can uh use property values and what we consider the peaceful enjoyment of adjacent properties is I mean that's that's kind of wide open. I would agree with you um on the negatively affect property values. Um unless you all are going to get into a habit of um doing a property estimation or property valuation or appraisal with your with every project that comes through. that could be a difficult one to ascertain um for those that come through besides just the just the opinion of the property owners or or people who have opinions on the on the on the applications. Um peaceful enjoyment of adjacent properties I think is a little bit easier. Um, I think that's a little bit easier to be able to judge if if something is going to be noisy or or has the potential of violating any noise ordinances or or things like that.

Now, we have in our zoning resolution a paragraph if you build in an A1 area, anything pertaining to agriculture, you know, you can't call a farmer, and that was just an article in Ry's out. You can't call a farmer because he's working on his tractor after dark and tell him to be quiet, right? Or you can't keep him from combining. You can't do this. You can't do that. If a cow gets up against your fence and he's mooing and making noise, that's not a re That's not in an agriculture area. That's not a nuisance. That's right. You should expect that. That's right. And uh and we have that in our We already have that language. Yes, we do.

I've got a point to make on number four. And this might we might need to go back through all of them. Every bit of this is regarding minor subdivisions, right? Correct. That's what this is all about. Minor number four, the proposed subdivision. Should we not say the proposed minor minor subdivision? That's a good point. Sure. Okay. We don't want it to be misconstrued with major because this is not what these provisions are for. And everywhere number five the agricultural world I see where applicable the minor everywhere we see the word just subdivision under this I think should have the word minor

minor. Okay.

Since since that is covered already basically that C is and what we've already got and stuff. And like I said, there's such a broad interpretation of it. Can we drop it? Remove it. Mhm. What do you think? Remove what? CC under no adverse be up to y'all now. I'll take some comments from anybody else. Like I said, this is going to be the document. These are the words that will be in our

res. Like I said, that a lot of that is covered already. And it is a awful broad, you know, interpretation of that. Well, I'm looking at if you tell somebody coming in for a variance and you're saying, well, it might not do something to the property, saying that against them. They're saying, well, you can't. You said we couldn't use property values as Right. Right. I do feel like that's going to get into it and then are we going to get, you know, called out for did you verify how it's going to affect the adjacent property? And I don't have enough time honestly realistically to be able to do that and evaluate what's it going to do to the lot next door.

Yeah. Like she like she was talking about. I mean, you would have to basically require all of them to have an appraisal, right, and stuff and we can't do We don't want to get another Right. Mr. Chairman, I'd like for you to entertain a motion to remove that. I will ask for a motion to remove that. I make a motion that we remove uh 4C from the document. Do I have a second? I'll second.

I have a second. Uh motion from Randy, second from Miss Anastasia. Uh and that's to remove four no adverse impact under 4C negatively affect neighboring property values to strike C. Any other discussion on that? All those in favor say I. I.

Opposed. Okay, it's struck. It is stricken. All right. So, moving on to number five. Agricultural or rural character consideration if applicable. Where applicable, the minor subdivision must be designed to preserve the rural or agricultural character of the area including shared access points, flag configurations if or clustering to reduce fragmentation of open land. Number six, review by planning commission if applicable. The proposed

Hey, stop just a second. I'm sorry since nobody else jumped in. The U including shared access points, flag lot configurations or flag lot configurations, zoning resolution or subregs? Usually it would be subreg.

Okay. Um so review by planning commission if applicable. The proposed minor subdivision may be subject to review and recommendation by the planning commission prior to final action by the board of zoning appeals. Number seven, plat approval. Approval of the special question sorry that should be singular. Approval of the special question does not substitute for plat approval. All minor subdivisions must comply with applicable regulations including the submission of a preliminary and or final plat as required.

Are we getting six and seven? Is there a little confusion there? I mean, our plat I mean if it's minor, it's probably just going to go to final. We usually have a Kirk. We usually have a preliminary and a final PL of course. No, not for a minor. For a minor, you do that. Final. Okay.

Judge final. Yes. We could just say all minor sub subdivisions must comply with applicable regulations. Period. And strike. I was going to say we had a company that came in. They wanted to just, you know, put a access road for business. But I guess what I'm thinking is if we approve it, h how are we going to verify that they meet traffic and uh storm water and handle all that? That would have to go before

through the planning. So it's going to cover it when we require the review by planning. Is that what's going to happen? Right. So I think the question the special question would be answered first by the board of zoning appeals and then it would come to the planning commission for final final approval. So they'll verify that portion. Yes. It would not have to go on appeals. Not after. Okay. I think just just for the special question answer. Okay. Yes. I I like to just leave off the including submission and leave it just at regulations period. Okay. Mr. chair. Does that make sense to you? It does. Okay.

So, we're talking about removing including the Myers subdivision of a preliminary or final plat as required. So, on number seven, um it would it would read approval of the special question does not substitute for plat approval. Period. All minor subdivisions must comply with applicable regulations. Period. Right. Yes. Okay. So you're scratching the including the submission of Okay. Yes.

Do we need to make a motion on that? I don't think so. We don't know. Okay. I mean, actually, this is already passed. We're just tidying it up some. Yeah. Well, you're not removing a whole paragraph. No. Right.

Just giving it some clarity is appropriate. But number six, nobody had any problem with the language in six. The proposed minor subdivision may be subject to review and recommendation by the planning commission prior to the final action by the board of zoning appeals prior to once the planning commission approves it. It doesn't have to go back to the board of voting bills, do it. Well, it's not going back. That's saying it's going there for the first time, correct?

Yeah, for first prior to the final action. times in reverse question. Yeah. So, we need to reverse that. So, after we approve it, it goes to the planning commission to verify versus it says prior to final action which they come to us first. If it's applicable if if it's if and that's in Yeah. Sometimes it may and sometimes it may not apply.

I'm trying to think of situation where it would be applicable where it would have to come back where where the planning commission would see it first before going to the board of zoning appeals to answer the special question. Wait a minute. Now, if it goes to the planning commission and the planning commission takes a negative action on it, then it's not going to come then it goes to the board of zone. Yeah. Okay. Correct. Is that Is that right? Yeah. I mean, they have a right to appeal the planning commission's decision.

I'm just curious what that final action means. What final action? I think I would think I think the BZA's already looked at one where they had a rough sketch of a plat and we didn't know if they granted the special question variance. We didn't know that you guys were even going to approve the plat. Well, that's that's true.

So, I think that's what uh she's getting at here. if applicable, if they're if they're wanting to do multiple things on this um minor subdivision, if granted, you could always do this uh subject to approval. You know, you could look at it the planning commission and say um that it's contingent upon approval by the BZA.

Yeah. That way uh that way the BZA would have something say well you know planning commission likes what they're going to do with the property but maybe y'all don't but it's uh I think that if applicable Kurt do you think you're the one going to see it they're going to come in your office speak into the microphone when you answer please

either way I mean some situation And I guess the planning commission, they might uh refer it back, the board of zoning appeals might refer it back to the planning commission if they've got a question on something is which is what you have here on six now is the way I read it. Is that correct, Amanda? Yeah. Um I'm just curious if that doesn't hamstring your BZA. If having the planning commission go through and go through its approvals doesn't necessarily hamstring your board of zoning appeals into a necessary approval. Makes it hard for them to give a negative approval. It does. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Yeah,

it does. And plus, I'm not so sure that just playing devil's advocate here, um, in terms of an an applicant putting together all of the materials and yeah, putting the exp putting going through the expense of putting together an application and a submitt if there's a chance that it might get turned down at the board of zoning appeals makes it through planning commission, but at the end of the day, the board of zoning appeals may decide to do something contrary. So I'm I'm curious if that doesn't just most of the things go on appeals is something that you turn down. Correct. It's administrative review most of the time. Correct.

It could be. That's what this is all about. Every word in here is for the BCA. So it's going to the BA here. No, that's what we're discussing. Okay. I my recommendation would be that the two processes are very separate and distinct. That the first is that it goes to the board of zoning appeals for the question to be answered first and then once the board of zoning appeals makes their determination then the applicant knows that he can spend the money and go to the planning commission. That's kind of what I think too, Amanda, which would render six not necessary in my opinion.

Number six is ill relevant or could be based in its entirety. That's I wasn't saying it very well. That's what I think. I I do

and then seven becomes number six. Yes, sir. I think you need to make a motion on that. Mr. Chairman, please make a motion to remove number six. Do I hear a motion to remove number six? review by the planning commission if applicable in the paragraph that's included uh to remove that from the list. I'll make a motion to I have a motion from Miss Laura. Is there any more discussion? Second. I got a second. Who does the second? Miss Laura.

Miss Laura made the motion. Miss Laura made second. Uh, any other discussion? Though I think we explained it pretty well there at the end. Uh, all those in favor say I. I. Opposed. So now we still have six, but number seven is number six. Correct. Right. Correct. I felt this was really important that we talked about this. Yeah. I'm glad I'm sure glad you're here.

Anybody got any other questions or see anything else that needs to be addressed? with what you guys have uh Anna plus what we've added here. It ought to put things it ought to make your decisions easier. Yeah, I think

I should have asked Sammy to come, but I I didn't. Sammy Morton, he's the chairman. He did set in on the meeting where you pretty much Oh, yeah. He was here. He was here last meeting. Yeah, he was. He was. And he pretty much agreed with everything we were we were saying. You'd be so proud of our board of zoning appeals. They've done a wonderful job what they've done. Yeah. Look at Anna Grin and Bush.

Uh, anybody got any other questions for for Miss Amanda? I would like to say that uh you know the reason we've done some of this is that our our zoning resolution now states A1 district only minimum parcel or lot size is now five acres with the ability to obtain minor subdivision by variance. That is what the document now says as Amanda pointed out and what uh gave our BCA reason to pause and exercise caution is because TCA Tennessee code annotated as Amanda put it the word variance is nuanced. In other words, it's sort of specific what the TCA thinks or portrays a variance to be even though the same TCA says the BZA can answer special questions. So since as a fourth power and since they use that terminology, we felt like that our zoning resolution should use the same terminology and that the special question and the variance are synonymous and that's what we're establishing with this amendment to our zoning resolution. So that's a reason for all this. U

it sounds the checklist really frees up gives them more ammunition to do the right thing which have already I think shown by example that they are doing the right thing. They are doing a great job. No question about it. No question about it. Anybody got any more questions? We have Amanda here now. Speak now. Anything else? Anybody including? No, I think the only question I had before you came was should we have a limit of how many times you know like a special variance is approved?

Good question for her. Or what is a common thing that you see that we should kind of you know I guess have as a guideline. So uh you know say we have 20 acres and they came in and gave it to their daughter and then their son, you know, what's a reasonable number that you feel like or have an idea on? I don't think I have a recommendation on that. Uh the reason being because

um you know there's there's any number of of times that there could be a need for a family for a family type subdivision like that. Um, you know, maybe maybe that maybe that brother wasn't or that son was entitled to five and something has happened in the family dynamic and now he's entitled to another five or or four, three or two or something like that. And, you know, we may not be privy to those inside conversations. Um, but that would be us trying to

legislate, I guess, those those types of situations that we may not be privy to. all of the all of the situations. So, I'm not so sure that we would be able to reasonably put a limitation. Um, I guess you could try to put maybe once a year or something like that if you really wanted to, but I'm not sure why you would want to. Okay. That's just my off-the cuff. Yeah. Okay. Gutt reaction. Like we were talking beforehand, I think it needs to be I think it needs to be open to the point that you can make Yeah. special question.

My one question I've got, I mean, we was talking about the how many times and stuff. We're looking at all this under minor subdivision. Minor subdivision is four or less. So if somebody comes in and says, "Okay, I want to split my farm, my 20 acres or what up into five sections," then they got to go as a major set of fishision. Correct. Anything over four. Anything over five. So that's what I say. It looks like to me four may be Yeah. kind of a leadway or something. Minor takes care of that. Mhm. When you say minor subdivision, it can only be four,

right? That's what I'm saying. But yeah, if they if anybody comes in and says, well, I want to split into five. Well, that takes it out of that minor subdivision to put in major. I've had I've had the question asked, well, we can't do a major subdivision out in the A1 area. And I said, sure you can. Just got to be five acre lots. You know, if you got 100 acres and you want to put up 20 lots, you can do that. You know, I mean, we have we have a procedure for that. So, and if all of them front a public road, it's not even a subdivision

by TCA. But if it requires an interior road to be constructed, then it automatically falls under all your subdivision reg. Even if it was 10 acre lots, if it requires an interior road, it's automatically a major subdivision criteria. And I would like to say the BZA, I feel like because the job you're doing, you would be able to recognize if some individual was trying to circumvent the spirit of this and take appropriate action. Well, I know she can. I don't know.

She Hey, you've already done it. I've seen I've seen you in action. Anything else? Anything else? including a motion to adjurnn. Hey, that's my part. I tell you that's his I'll make that motion. I have a motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? I'll second. Everybody hurry. Okay, I got a motion from Sammy and a second from uh Randy. And all those in favor of adjourning, say I. I. Thank y'all for being here. Very productive. Thank you very much.