Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the 700 pm meeting of the Dixon County Planning Commission on Thursday, October the 9th. I'm Robert Quas, chairman of the Dixon County Planning Commission. Uh we're glad you're here, members of the public. Uh those of you that have been signed up and requested time to speak are going to receive that time just as soon as we come down to that in the agenda, which is going to be here very shortly. We look forward to hearing your remarks. I want to caution the rest of the public here that once once the public comment period ends and we call for discussion or any further uh comments that's for the members of the commission. I think there's been some misunderstanding about that in the past and a lot of the public felt free to join in on our deliberations and you know communicate with your planning commissioner before and after but during the the speaking time once the public comment ends is limited to the the members of the commission and myself. Thank you for that. Uh I could traditionally customarily we open with a prayer. So I guess I will do that and we'll get going. Father God, we're so thankful for the ability that we have in this county to govern ourselves and to seed our own affairs. We pray that everything that's conducted tonight will be in accordance with civility and decency and the way you'd have us to live because we ask these things because it's your mighty name of power that makes it possible. Amen. Okay, Mr. Hayes, could you be so kind as to call the role?

Here [Music] Green Ly here. Robert here. Tommy Brown here. Jeff Chase here. Paul here. Amanda Barry here. Patrick here. Mitchell Har. Mr. Chairman, we have a

Thank you there, Mr. Hayes. Uh, we have several visitors tonight. Did all of you all either sign in as a visitor or sign in as a speaker? It's very important we have a record of who was here with us tonight. But we're glad you're here. I'm always happy to see people showing interest in the functioning of their county government because you all are who it functions for. Anyway, uh we've got the time to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Uh M. Madam Secretary, I I've got a couple of comments about that on the on the minutes. Uh under under five under the agenda items, uh six paragraph that that heading that says commission and public discussion. I think that really is because of what we just talked about that should say commission discussion. There was a little outside discussion, but the part that's for the record is the commissioner's discussion and on the vote uh because the reason it's roll call vote is we were recorded how how who voted how.

Not just we could done a show of hands if we just needed the numbers. So you can go back and get that. I know because there was only one favorable vote on either motion. There was one one yes on the first one and all to approve the second which was motion to deny. Okay. Well, I think that's adjusted that. And now the time has come for those of you that are signed up to speak to do that. I want to ask you kind of limit the the the amount of your remarks for for the sake of time to what you think is the most pertinent thing to talk about. Mr. Chairman, can I make a motion to approve the minutes?

Oh, that's right. Thank you there, Mr. Reagan, for having your head on straight. We have a motion from Mr. Reagan who seconds. Mr. Brown seconds it. Those in favor of the approval of the minutes with the correction suggested state I. I. Those opposed state no. In the opinion of the chair the eyes have it and the motion is carried. The next item is public comment. And I would like to call at this time you that signed up in the order you signed up. So the first speaker will be Mr. J. Dale Brown. Mr. Chair, will there be a time limit set on the speakers?

I hope they would all limit themselves to five or six minutes cuz we can't do this all night. Accounting J policy is total minutes per person. Let's let's let's keep it to that then. Okay. If you'll keep the time then, counselor. Yeah. Yep. Get to the point. Spit it out and go ahead. My point is is that I think we have to this this project that's being planned is going to be a big safety issue as far as the people getting in and out getting out. I live right down the street from it. It's almost impossible to get out of my driveway. Uh mornings, afternoons, uh you have to pick a certain time of day to mow your grass, get run over. Serious.

No, I I know you are. And uh there's been so many wrecks out there between our place and and Rock Church Road. It's not even funny. A lot of lot of fatalities. Yes.

And you're talking about building all these units. You're talking about at least two cars per unit. And uh you know that's a whole lot more folks in the neighborhood. Another thing, what about our infrastructure? Water, gas, sewer. We don't have city sewer. We're going to be digging up the streets and everything else trying to improve the gas and water lines just for this project. So, I think it's a big safety issue plus infrastructure. Uh 70 highway cannot take that kind of traffic, especially where you want to enter and exit. And uh uh I think I think we're going to have a big problem traffic-wise. And I don't think a red light at Buddy at Buddy Road is going to solve your problem is uh coming out on uh my loop my lof is a little deal too trying to get out without getting run over and there's a lot of people live there. A lot of people take the back way out. All depends on where they're going from McGabell Estates. McGel estates comes out on 70 highway right there at Catfish Kitchen restaurant. And uh it's it's it's bad when you can't turn into your driveway or come out of your driveway without almost getting run over. It's pretty serious cuz you got a three lane turns into a two-lane. So I think that's about all I have to say at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. The next speaker I have signed up is Mr. Ty Corland. Well, I just think this this proposed change is a bad idea. It's a bad location. I mean, high density housing in that location. I mean, there's a bunch of small houses, a bunch of small farms, and and the main thing is the county approved a growth plan. And in their growth plan that they approved back in 2024, I think it was, they said that they wanted to keep a boundary around the park to keep stay well the curve development around the park area. Well, the from this proposed place to the entrance of the park is about a mile and a half and as the crow flies, it's actually just a quarter of a mile from the actual park. Uh, and like has already been said, the the uh the road there, it's a bad intersection right there at Buddy Road and Highway 70 and Rock Church Road, and they're just uh it's going to add a bunch of traffic, a bunch of people, and it's just bad for the area because that area is I mean, you can have your high density housing in town, but out in the out there, out that far out, I just don't see how it benefits anybody that lives around there. Um, and that's about all I think I have. Uh, oh, and there's also a gas line that runs the south side of the property, a high pressure, uh, gas line um, that's also there that could pose a hazard if they build something and the thing blow up or whatever. I don't know. But, uh, but there is a gas line that runs across the south side of that property. And I just, like I said, just think it's a bad idea.

Thank you, Mr. Coroo. The next speaker we have down is Mr. Trent Smith. You want me to speak now or at the time of our Mr. Smith is here representing the the developer? Well, then then I I this is the public comment. If you're here to present, then you present when when I'll call for that later.

Mr. Mark Tenude. Did I get that right, sir? Close. Okay. Okay. Well, I I'm sensitive about trying to get people's names right because people murder mine all the time. It's uh 10 and old. Like 10 10 old. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tenno.

Yeah. I just want to say a few words. My neighbors over here. Uh I agree with them. They basically said all I was going to say. Uh I live right next to Mr. Brown and on Highway 70 and uh the traffic at Buddy Road and and Highway 70 is just terrible. Terrible. They need to do something. They need to do something as far as turn lanes, lights, widening it or something because certain times of the day I don't want to even turn left and go down buddy road to go to Dixon. It is just constant traffic coming up over the hill from Dixon and they're doing about 60 miles an hour. They're supposed to be doing 35 according to that flashing light. They don't they don't do it. Uh, but the traffic coming in and out of Buddy Road right there and I I go to work every morning and I take turn left on there and it's difficult. Sometimes I turn right on the Rock Church. It just all depends. But the but there's so much traffic unless they got something figured out at that buddy road. I'm not I'm not for this development. Unless they got something figured out the buddy road intersection to the traffic. Two cars per household like Mr. Brown says, it's just going to be it's just going to be terrible. safety issue like he's talking about mowing the yard. I know what he means. I almost got killed one time mowing my yard on Highway 70 by a car swerved off doing about 60 miles an hour.

So yeah, the traffic is just constant certain times a day and it'll get worse if developments across the street. Thank you, Mr. Tol. Uh, okay. At this time, we're going to move into the agenda. And item one on the agenda is the final plat Shelton Road Estates Tax Map 76, part of partial 4.05, 6.05 acres, Shelton Road, Charlotte, Tennessee, A1 First District. Final plat Shelton Road estate surveying was done by Ron Briner of Briner Surveying. This body passed a preliminary plat on July the 10th of 2025.

Does anyone on the commission have any comments to make further about this thing that as as is stated by Mr. We've already seen it once and approved it and this is the same thing on the final reading. In that case, the chair would entertain a motion for the approval of item number one, final plat of Shelton Road Estates. Mr. Chairman, I will make the motion that we approve final plat Shelton Road Estates. It's been moved by Commissioner Todd Barry. Is there a second to that motion? I'll second the motion.

Okay. Mr. Todd Lley has a second. Who else? So, Mr. Okay. Obviously, it's duly moved and seconded. So if there's no further discussion, the question is uh the approval of a final plat of Shelton Road Estates. Those in favor of approving the plat as was previously submitted state I. I.

Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the plat is approved. Now we move on to item number two, the resulting request from Mr. Ver and Sha tax map 101 parcel 017.00 149.92 acres on highway 70 east Dixon Tennessee from A1 agricultural to R3 residential part of C2 general commercial to R3 residential in the 10th district. This resoning request is at the old drive-in theater on Highway 70, which is a split zone property of C2 and A1. And they are seeking to keep a portion of the property C2 for retail commercial and reszone the remainder of the property to R3 residential units.

Thank you there. Uh that that really sums it up, Mr. Hayes. Uh I think we need to call on if if Mr. uh if if Mr. Smith is here to present on behalf of Mr. Shaw. Mr. Shaw is not present, I take it. No. Correct. And and you're going to present on his behalf, Mr. Smith. All right. You're you're recognized for the amount of time you need to thoroughly present this proposal.

Put the pressure on me when you said thoroughly. M um I'll talk about the traffic issue kind of more at the end of the discussion because that appears to be the most pressing issue or or at least the most vocal issue. Um the project the he uh Curtis mentioned there's a commercial portion and a residential portion. Commercial portion is really not much of a discussion for this tonight. Now we in some point in the future would come back to you with a site plan or site plans as that might be. Um so we don't we had prepared a concept at one point that showed a car wash and some retail. I don't that's a concept just someone's thought of what might fit in there. It may be it could be almost anything that's commercial. Um it's it we're premature to even say it will or will not be car wash. They might get someone who approaches them and wants to put in something I don't know that we haven't even thought about that still fit that zoning. So they they would probably get the opportunity to buy that portion from the developers. So let's I'm going to set the commercial aside. We'll hit on the residential which is the biggest um topic of the meeting. We're trying to reszone the A portion of the property to residential R3. There's a small part of the commercial that we're going to want to drag into the to the R3 zoning, but very small. Um, we're looking at in our our concept with the R3 resoning. Our current concept is some townhouse development. Um, I've looked at worrying about the what the neighbors might consider bad in terms of what their view might be. If

you go north of Highway 70, and I made some notes, uh, and this what I'm about to talk about is in a package that was mailed to the residents and I believe given to you all, but we did a line of sight analysis. And when you go north of Highway 70, uh, approximately 135 ft off the edge of pavement, you can see a portion, not all, but a portion of our proposed development. And I say proposed development, I don't really know exactly what the development will be. We haven't, but we're pretty we kind of think we know. Um, I may have more homes in my development in my concept than what we can actually do when we get to putting the the pencil to the paper and doing calculations, but there's going to be a very small portion of that that will be visible from 135 ft off the edge of pavement up towards the highway. When you get further than 135 ft north of the road, you drop off, the topography drops off and the topography will block your view. Now let's go to the Matt is and on May we can't uh can't really block the view with topography but we do have oops let me approximately 200 to 240 ft of undeveloped real estate that that is our developers that will stay as either natural or landscaped. We can't landscape that whole 200 ft or that whole 240 ft because of the gas easement. But we there's portion that gas easement doesn't reach my loop. So we can do some landscaping in that portion. There's a portion of the easement that doesn't reach our development. So we can landscape that with some trees and so on. So we think that we're going to block the view for

those people living south of Mile. Um, so there should still remain 200 to I'm gonna say 200 to 250 feet of open green space. Then we go into the townhouse development. Um, one of the things we originally did was a concept where our road our ingress egress access was all coming in off of my loop. And I kind of did a brief talking with some a couple of planning commissioners and one of them said, "Oh, you need to have two." So, we added a connection to Highway 70. If that becomes an issue, we can eliminate that and only come in off of Mant Loop, which would then make our traffic come to the intersection. Now, let's talk about the traffic. It's I'm not going to give you information that it came for free. We spent over $12,000 on a traffic study. The traffic study identified that what the level of service is and that we're not going to increase or decrease, excuse me, the level of service. Now, it did recommend some painting, striping, new, you know, those kind of improvements to Highway 70. Um, but we did not cause a decrease in the level of service, which is a good thing. Uh, now I can't I hate to hear I talked to a couple of the neighbors before the meeting and they told me some horror stories about the traffic and almost getting hit and unfortunately some people getting hit.

That's occurring now. That's occurring not because of our project. Our project is not going to help that. I don't believe that we would help that. I don't quite see how, but I don't believe but we're not going to cause an an or exasper exacerbate an existing that problem. When you do a traffic study, you identify the current level of service and it's ranked kind of like you do in school, A, B, C, D, F. And we're not decreasing that. Um, so I don't know if there's any I I'll I'll be quiet and you guys might want to ask me any questions and I'll do my best to answer those.

I have a question. Miss Barry, go ahead and be be sure to get close to the mic. Okay. This is my district. Um, I'm just wondering, were any of these traffic studies sent to T Dot?

No. But T dot was um consulted prior to the study because in the future we're going to send them the traffic study when we go to get a driveway permit the act when we connect to highway 70 at that point in time we will have to give them the traffic study. So we consulted with them. It wasn't me. We have a traffic engineer, but she consulted with T dot to find out everything that they would want and she did those that and you didn't ask the question, but I'm going to throw something in there while I have the opportunity. The traffic study was performed during school session or when school was in. We

I think we held off until till summer was over to to do it when the school traffic was was going on, I guess. Are you familiar with my loop? I've been on it once or twice, but I don't live at cannot imagine no entrance on 70 and all of these people being directed through my loop. Well, they wouldn't be nec and I I see your point that probably the real the reality is that they wouldn't be driving through Matt Loop. They would hit Matt Loop and go up to Buddy Road.

That's a lot of people on Matt Loop. Uh what about the infrastructure as far as like water, sewer, whatnot? Can you tell us? Well, there would be no impact to the county uh of Dixon. There there is water and sewer on on Buddy. The developers would design and construct connections to their project. So, it would there would be no cost or no negative impacts to the county. Would any rightways be required for that connection through other properties or adjoining properties for the sear?

I don't believe so because we can go in the right of way of Matt Loop during um first of all I I do want to say good job on the traffic study. It is thorough. Yes.

And and and I I can appreciate the thoroughess of it. What I would also say is that um and I believe it's page 49 is where the recommendations and conclusions begin. Um and to be con you know to kind of parallel much of some of the comments that are made. These recommendations and conclusions um kind of stand as as the as the intersection is now that this needs to be done regardless of this development occurring.

Okay. There needs to be a light. There needs to be dedicated turning lanes. All of this needs to happen. During your consultations with T Dot, did T do DOT, because they are responsible for building this, not the county of Dixon, did they give you any inclination as to their budget, their timeliness, if they even agreed to being being able to do this? I was not the one having a consultation with Yeah, Mr. Chairman, correct me if I'm wrong. This is already partially zoned C2, correct? That's correct, Mr. So, any thing that would fall under C2 could potentially be built there right now without having to come in for a request.

That's correct. Essentially, and let me oversimplify the situation a little, and correct me if I'm wrong, the gravel part in front of the screen where the cars used to park back when it was a drive-in movie house, that gravel part is already C2. And so is like the ticket booth, the entrance and all of that. I think what the part that's going to change from uh C2 to R3 if this will be the where the screen is. Screen. Yeah. I Okay. Way in the back where?

Yeah. There where the screen is. Yeah. And uh so it's Yeah. This this in the the entire park that fronts right on 70 right there at the entrance, not all the way down to the park, but right on the is already all CT. So really the part of contention is not the C2 part because businesses could already go in there now and create the same traffic that we're expecting with this plan that was submitted. The only thing that we're arguing is is the A1 be turned into residential to be added along inside of there. Correct.

Yes. Because again, they'd have to come to us with the site plan of, you know, the the layout. But yeah, that the the whole gravel park can be used for businesses once it has the approval of this body of the site plan and the you know the the things they every developer goes through. They could do that. Now, the part that'll change is that now it's not in my lifetime ever been used for agriculture. that was just put in agriculture by default when we first adopted zoning here in the 1980s. Uh there's there's never been any farming there in my lifetime. I think I saw in this the drive-in started in 1950. So I remember a long ways back, but I do not remember before 1950, but when JC Brown put in the drive-in, I don't think there's been really anything except open field back in that area ever since. And I I don't think anybody here I don't know if anybody remembers further back than I do, but I remember back to then and almost and I was telling somebody my aunt worked at the drive-in taking up the tickets. So it's been a while. But anyhow, uh I I hope that answers the question. I think I got it about right. And that gravel parts C2 right now as we sit here.

Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Reagan. Does anyone else have further discussion on this? Mr. Morgan, what would you have to tell us? The the issue I think here is though that the this commercially zoned looks like it's about a quarter of the total property, right? And so I'm if if commercial or businesses were allowed to go in there, that's a lot less impact on traffic than high density. That would be the other three quarters of this. How many units total are in this site? Well, in my concept, I have approximately 160. Looks like okay.

I'm I'm I'm optimistic. I don't think I'll get that. Obviously, we would hope to, but I'm at one part of the in in my plan. I'm over a stream. Well, you can't do that. So, there's a chance. What are what we envision doing if we get approved, let's think positive. Our next step is we're going to do a study to on for the site to see if there's any streams, wetlands, things like that. We suspect there is a little portion of a stream there. There may be a lot of a portion of a stream, but it where there are streams, depending on the type of stream, there's a buffer requirement. Yes, sir.

We would in in most cases, it's a 30-foot buffer either side of the stream that we're not supposed to disturb. and some sometimes it's a 60foot buffer. So I'm pro there's a good possibility I'm going to lose some of my optimism when we do that next study to to the point of it being commercial already. Um we need to consider the amount of traffic that can be generated with what we have versus what would happen with the reasonzoning and I think it's significantly more traffic if we do reszone it. So that's my only concern. Well, I if if does it do any other commissioners have something to say?

Yes. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Barry. Go ahead. We'll go across the back and and then we'll go from there. Mr. Smith, have you have you spoke with the water authority? Would there have to be a a sewer lift station installed here? We We'll have a pump station on.

Okay. So, there there would be a sewer lift station on this site. Okay. Correct. Um this type, in my opinion, this type of of R3 is the most dense um zoning that we have in Dixon County. This area, M Loop, there's still operating farms on M Loop. Still operating farms on Buddy Road. Um you know, you you may have some agricultural traffic uh out there in those areas. Uh it it's already a highly populated area. Again, very close. I believe Mr. Corley brought up. It's very close to the park. Uh that area is and that's a point of preservation for our county. I would rather see something like this in the city limits closer into town, not out. As I'm telling you, we're we're just right at the cusp of country living out here. Um, this this is a lot to consider and going out onto M loop would be drastic in my opinion. Um, this is something I would rather see someplace else. I'll be honest with you. Some of it is is C2. The C2 was honestly active most recently probably in the late 80s I believe possibly early 90s

for good in 2014. Okay. So it was open that late I think the heyday sporadically right the heyday probably in the late 80s early 90s that would be right also obviously we didn't have the traffic in the late 80s early 90s that we do now also. Uh so just some points I wanted to point out. Go ahead. Okay. My concern is that our growth plan, as Mr. Barry said, is to a limit around the Montgomery Bell and so this is way close to that and bringing in 160 units is a lot. So I have a lot of concerns with that. Mr. Shoot,

um, yeah, I feel the same way. I'm saddened to see the Broadway drive-in go away as I'm sure a lot of us are. Uh or it's gone away. Maybe somebody will resurrect it. Um I also have some concerns. Um you said, sir, that the traffic study was done after school was out in Oh, during the summer or It was done during school. During school? Yes. Started back. Okay. Um I'll circle back to that in just a second. Um what's is the your estimated price point for these town homes? Are these rentals or are town home rentals or are these uh you know soul and separate individual ownership? Do you know the price flow?

It's I need to know if this is an apartment building or is this a you know owner occupied individual uh title. Think currently we're plan we're I think the current plan is owned to be sold. Okay. And price point only because that will lead me into my next price point. Okay. Might be a little early.

Okay. Well, my my my thought here is that there's going to be kids in here. I'm sure if they are lower priced, it means you're going to have young families, a lot of kids, a lot of school buses. I don't know how those school buses are going to get up to 55 miles an hour in that, you know, coming out onto 70. So, I have a real problem with the traffic there because like you mentioned, like some of these people have mentioned, the average speed limit there during the day is 65 70. That's what people are going. Okay. Uh people don't pay attention. They're in a hurry to get to Charlotte. But I have a real problem with something in that area because I don't believe that the roads will handle it. And I also don't believe that it's in keeping with what is in that area right now. I too would like to see it closer in to the city someplace where it could then have everything that you need, sewer, water, everything else, including a much better traffic plan. My thoughts. There's some more comments from the commissioners.

Uh yes, sir. I go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Um I'm just going to support all the comments that have been made so far. um uh with with the density with the uh concerns with it being as close to Montgomery Bell Park also u which was mentioned by uh the gentleman representing the the builders here there is a concern regarding water water runoff and that being the headwaters of a small creek that does run into the park itself and whether you've got a 30ft buffer or not when you put that many roofs and that much asphalt in an area that water's got to go somewhere and it will go into the draw. Wait, that's not true. What's going to happen?

Okay, ultimately go there. Oh, pardon me. Are your your detention areas on there going to take care of that? Cuz I It will have to plan.

It will have to take care. Part of the design is we have to control our storm water so that we cause no increase in our runoff rate. When I say runoff rate, you're asking what does that mean? Well, I'm going to look at a 2-year, the 5year up to the 100-year storm, and I'm going to model what's currently occurring, what's running off under those storm events. And we're going to design this project so that we don't increase that rate of runoff. How do you do that? The most common way is we'll build a detention pond so that water may rush into the pond and fill up slowly, hopefully slowly, but we release it slowly so that we have to show that we don't have an increase. That's that's state law.

Is that possible? We do it all the time. If you see a construction project in Dixon and you see a pond, it's there for that reason. We have a a many mine are usually a concrete riser, a a vertical rectangular shaped structure that's up. Water has to rise up in the pond and get to the top of that and spill over in it. And we size how big that is. It's a weird. We size that to red recrol the rate of release of the water. Well, ultimately it's still got to go through the stream some point in time.

It always did. We're not introducing more water. We're controlling the rate that water is going to the stream. Disagree with

I can agree with the plan and the intent and the engineering behind it. I can also show you right now if you want to go a couple of these ponds that have failed in new developments that have been designed by large national firms because it just didn't work. I think the bigger part is is even if it does work as it's supposed to be engineered is we're looking at the introduction of all the other new chemicals that weren't previously in that area. Okay, everything that comes with the household, washing cars, anything else, runoff, radiators, busting, you name it, it happens. Okay, so let's move beyond that because that's a maybe down the road if we get to that second discussion. Agreed?

Sure. But it is a major concern as I to come back to my point about the park. Um and another point here is that I think in the past two years or so, you know, we've passed if if something is in a county, if it is zoned in the county, not within a city limit, we have a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres. And the purpose of that was to try and deter some of this overdevelopment that we're discussing now. One of the major purposes. And so for us to me personally to agree to this to say yes, I would approve this goes against I think the whole point of that body and us making that change recently. So I I just I don't like it. I again I agree with the the majority of the rest of the body that's spoken here. Um, I think there's some very valid points that I think everybody would like to see something happen with that property. I mean, we would like to see something go in there. Uh, but I don't think this is it. Thank you. Thank you for your uh words, Mr. Commissioner. I have questions, I guess, based on not the thoroughess of the traffic study, but I question some of the content. There's a lot of emphasis put in the latter part of the traffic study. Tra what the traffic the big one. There's the assessment and there's the what's the the other one's the impact study. On the impact study it talks about things like well the advisory speed on Rock Church Road is 35 and the advisory speed on Buddy Road is 35. I know that that is part of a traffic study, but we all know so what. I mean, if you drive from Dixon to Nashville on 70 and take the advisory speed around those curves, people are going to be shooting at you. If not, they're they're going to they're going to be trying to run you off the road.

That that I mean, that is a nullity in reality. Whether it whether it it I'm sure it had to be included to meet the paperwork requirements, but that doesn't mean either. And of course, everybody here has expressed the opinion that we all kind of agree that there needs to be a traffic light there now and that's T Dah hasn't done it. And but it it's just I I this this level and again I I certainly want to agree with what everybody said that yeah, I'd sure like to see something there and the drive-in movie business sadly is not coming back. So we don't have to worry about that. But for reasons I'm not going to get into right now. But I know that we need to do something. I do. I I I am going to I'm going to call for a motion on this pretty soon. Uh I think you've heard what the sentiment is. Now, you know, I will say this for whatever it's worth. We can do one of three things on this issue this evening. We can vote to approve this and send it on to the county commission. We can vote to recommend not approving it before the county commissioner because it's going to get to them either way. Or we can defer at one meeting and that means that the meeting in November, we have to address it. And if I'm in the hospital, somebody else will be sitting here and he or she'll have to address it. But it it'll have to be handled then. Now, I I don't want I don't want to see this rejected out of hand because I think something good could come out of it. And I really would appreciate if you can make it happen. And I know that you're working with them and not them for you. But, you know, if you could get say Miss Fishbach to come, Mr. Shaw come and and kind of show their face and say, "Here's

why we're saying what we're saying." I if I were you, I'd be encouraging that. But uh that's that sums up what I think. And if anybody has any last minute points to add, please bring them on. And if not, I'm going to go ahead and ask uh the members of the commission if any of them have a motion to do with this proposal. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Uh yes, sir. Councelor, since we get these not terribly often, it's always a good reminder, if I may, kind of remind the planning commission of kind of the scope of what we're looking. Yeah, go right ahead. Counselor, tell should I say,

as was pointed out, a portion of this property is being sought to be reszoned from A1 little bit, oops, C2, uh, into R3. R3 is the highest density resing under the county zoning resolution. Um there is a traffic assessment tonight. We appreciate that. You know, this body recommended a couple years ago and the county commission adopted the requirement for when a traffic assessment's required and when a traffic impact studies required. And this is both.

I don't know why a traffic impact study is before you. You should not be looking at one because you don't know what the development is. I want to emphasize that. I'm not saying they're not truthful in what they're bringing to you, but they're not submitting a site plan. They're not submitting a plan. It's an idea and then down the road they could sell to someone else and they have a different idea. I appreciate knowing what's thought of going there, but you cannot look at that. You are looking at the maximum use of an R3 property. Traffic assessment is designed to give you an idea of, hey, what are the traffic implications of this result? What's the ins? What's the outs? Where are they going to access? Um, we have new landscaping ordinances. We have uh storm water runoff regulations. We'll get to that later if this ever comes before you. Right now, this body is making a recommendation of the county commission that if R3 zoning is appropriate for the board of land, I'm asking you to keep in mind what is the maximum use of that R3 zoning. And is that appropriate? And when you pass it on to the county commission and it's R3, if they adjust their plans to have maybe less homes, you still should not take that into account because it's not the site plan they're submitting. It's R3. Once they're there, they get to proceed with plans by right. I want y'all to to recognize that. But that's the vote tonight. So, unless they're

No, I I counselor, that's that's why I'm so proud that you're here. That's what everyone, including me, needed to hear definitively. And if you think it's appropriate, make a motion to say, "I recommend that this portion of this property be reszoned to R3 and call for a vote." If you think the opposite say I make a motion to have an unfavorable recommendation to the county commission that this property be not zone that is what you're voting on yes Mr. Chase, I make a motion to not approve this particular

Commissioner Chase has moved that the planning commission not approve this uh suggested resoning from uh uh from A1 to R3. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Brown has seconded the motion that this property not be re we not recommend for reszoning this property from A1 to R3. Does everyone understand the com the question? The question is should we tell the county commission to go ahead and reszone this land or should we tell them not to? That's the question. I think uh reszoning request requires roll call, does it not?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay. Well, this I think the time has come for uh for the the role to be called and and if you you you're going to do that for us now. Are you you you ready to go? Mr. Chairman, as always, please clarify what yes means and what no means. That's a good point, Mr. Barry. When uh when Mr. Hayes calls you, if you vote I, you're voting for us to go ahead and recommend to the Dixon County Commission that they reszone this property from A1 to R4. No, no. clarify the the motion is for an unfavorable recommendation.

Well, okay, that's right. So, if you vote yes, you're voting that we tell the county commission we don't favor this. If you vote no, then you're saying that you're open at least to the idea that it we we come back and recommend to do it. So, yes means leave it like it is and no means let's go ahead and change it. Is that is that got it? I think the yes is correct. If it's no, you're just against that recommendation. Just against that specific recommendation, you can move. Okay. All right. Favorable recommendations. An unfavorable recommendation. Okay. Mr. Hayes, can you go ahead and call the role at this time? Yes. Dina, yes.

Yes. Roberts, yes. Brown, yes. Yes. Paul, yes. Amanda, yes. Patrick, yes. Yes.

Is that 10 to zero? Uh according to your uh votes as signified by your uh what they call viva vake living voice the uh planning commission has just voted by a vote of 10 to zero not to recommend the reszoning of let me get it right tax map 101 parcel 017.00 00 on Highway 70 East in Dixon, Tennessee from A from A1 Agriculture to R3 Residential. Everyone looks comfortable what they've done. Is there any other business that would properly come before the Dixon County Planning Commission?

Mr. Chairman, yes. Make a motion we adjourn. Uh Mr. Perry, you've moved we adjourn. Is there a second to that motion? All right. Those in favor of adjournment, say I. I. I. We will meet again on the second Thursday of Octo of November for the November regularly scheduled meeting unless you're notified otherwise by mail. Thank you for participation this evening.