City Council - Regular Meeting

Make good decisions. Amen. C.J., do you do the pledge?

To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mary Ann, if you can do the roll call, please.

Here, Schreiner.

Here.

Here's Alexander. Here. Here. Mr. Moore? Here. Mr. Morrell?

Here.

Mr. Dempsey?

Here.

Do you have a quorum?

Thank you. The June 25th Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals minutes. Has anyone had a chance to review the minutes or make a motion on those?

I'll make a motion to accept them as written.

Okay. I have a motion to approve as written. Do I hear a second? Second. Minutes carry.

We're going to vote.

Okay. All in favor of passing the minutes, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Minutes carried. Thanks, CJ. All right. And we're going to open up public comment for agenda-related items. If there's anybody in the public that would like to come forward to the podium, please state your name.

Say it again. I don't think I heard.

At this point, we're going to open up for public comment on agenda-related items. So if anybody wants to come forward, please come to the podium and state your name, please.

Hi. My name is Andy Stokely. I live at 165 Branham Mill Road just outside the city. I own the adjoining property to the property that's on the agenda tonight, and so I wanted to come and speak to that piece. I don't necessarily know. My understanding is I don't have a full picture, but my understanding is I think the city is asking for a – uh a site plan on an existing business that's that's been operating um i own a eight acre track or just shy of an eight acre track just south of that on blythe avenue i know mr helson and always been above board does what he says he's going to do i count him as somebody that's honorable and I can tell you that as far as what he has on his sites never bothered us. Um, obviously we're not there that often, but when I am there, his place is clean, it's tidy, there's no noise. Um, prior to him being there, the place was unkept. Um, it was, um, you know, I can't speak to necessarily, you know, the history of the property, but I can tell you since he's owned it, it looks a thousand percent better. Um, And the other piece that I'll tell you, I don't have a whole lot to add to this, is that as you guys well know, the city's about to tear up Blythe Avenue. That whole area is going to go from a sleepy little road that's kind of busy to being, you know, you probably float an aircraft carrier down there by the time they get done with it with all the bike lanes and everything else. And so... I, I would, I'm not in Chris's shoes, but if I was, I would tell you that I don't, you know, I would say that I don't necessarily know that now is the time that you want him coming in and, you know, having to do things to it because the property is probably going to change radically over the next little bit. I know our property we have for sale. Um, we've gotten everything from multifamily developers to commercial interest, uh, in the property. And, um, I think everybody's kind of waiting to see how that road's going to develop out and everything. But I have no issue with what he's doing, and based on the audience that's here, I don't think any of the neighbors have any issues with what he's doing. So I'm not exactly sure where the issue comes into play. But I'm here this evening in support of him, and I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Anybody else come forward? Say his name, please.

Yeah, Chris Helson. I go by Chris. First name is Robert. I'm the applicant here. And so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to, say, start our spiel or how this actually works.

Yeah. OK. Yeah, we're, if you're the applicant, we'll close the public comment section, and then we'll call you back up whenever the item comes up. OK. Thank you. Yes, sir. You can close it.

There's nobody else come forward. We're going to close the public comment. Now we're going to move forward to GMBZA resolution 2026-006 for 727 Black Avenue, where the owner and applicant request to appeal an administrative decision in issuing a zoning enforcement action for 727 Black Avenue for an active commercial property operating without a site plan in accordance with Article 15, Section 0.3.020, change in use of a building or site.

Good evening, board members, Brad Hickman, staff planner. I'll give you a bit of history. This issue came to planning department's attention that the subject property was operating without a commercial business, operating a commercial business without a site plan on July 8th, 2025. A notice of zoning violation letter was mailed to the owner of record on July 16th, 2025. Planning staff has had four separate meetings with the owners and their representatives over the following year, but no solution to bring it up to code could be agreed upon. The owners and their representatives applied to appeal the zoning administrator's determination that a site plan was required in June of 2026. They did submit a letter from the previous owner and to quote, From 1980 to 2022, the land was consistently and exclusively used as a storage lot, including commercial storage purposes. And now I will show you how it, this is our most recent overhead that's publicly available. This is from February of this year. We have around 20, 21 trailers, trucks, and cars stored on this lot. You can see the surrounding chain link fence that's topped with barbed wire. And we'll just go through a bit of the history through images that we were able to gather, and these were publicly available through Google, Google Earth. You can see here this is from 2013, the street view, and the satellite view from 2013. There was an outbuilding here at some point, but you can see maybe there was some traffic on this lot and the around 2,000 square foot building is there. Overhead from 2014, not a whole lot of change. 2015, you can see a bit of a dirt road that's been put into the lot, but still it's difficult to discern any kind of storage. 2016, you can see the lot's quite overgrown in the back. 2017, not much change there. 2018, same. And here's a street view from 2019. And you can see next to the building back, the overgrowth has gotten quite high. This is the bird's eye view of the same year. At this point in 2020, the outbuilding was torn down, leaving a bare slab, but not a lot of change otherwise. And here we are in 2021. A fence is erected, a six-foot chain link fence, bare chain link fence with barbed wire, and a gravel lot is poured. And this is the overhead from 2021. 2022, I'm sorry, 2023, it's difficult to read. We have the street view and the overhead. We begin to see storage of vehicles. We have the street view from 2020, I believe this is 2023, that was 2022. Not a whole lot of change, but still more vehicles, gravel, The 2024, we got a 2025 from Street View. Some slats have been put in the fence to, or some fabric to obscure it from the road. And then we're here 2025, very similar to more recent picture that we had. The planning department recommends denial of this resolution. Thank you. sorry this is a mistake we recommend acceptance of the resolution it's a little confusing but the resolution states

The resolution states that you would be denying the applicant the appeal. So it's approving a denial, which is how it's drafted. Normally, your resolutions are drafted the opposite way, where it would be for approval of it, but in this case, the resolution denial of it.

I have to apologize for that mistake. Last time we had one of these was 2019.

I'll just also add in, you know, the current property owner purchased the property, I believe, in around 2022 after these changes had been made. So it wasn't them that made the change. It had been done by the prior owner and then sold. But... Nonetheless, those improvements were done illegally without getting a site plan prior. Then the current property owner has since been operating the business on the property still under the same pretense that existed before which was it was done illegally. When we noticed it, we brought it to their attention. and said, hey, we need you to do a site plan so that you can be legal on this property. And they've proceeded to now file this appeal saying we don't think we need to do a site plan because it's something that existed prior to this as a storage lot. And so we don't think that there is such a change that occurred on the property. So really it'll be up to you, this board, I think to determine Was there a change? And that's partly why Brad illustrated all the photos for you. And was the property in use as a storage lot or was it not in use? We can't tell you what was being done with inside the building, but we can show you with those photos that there was no storage happening on the lot. And it only has to be discontinued for a period of 30 months, two and a half years, for it to be considered needing a change of use site plan, which is what we asked them to do.

Mr. Moore, you have a question?

In my opinion, what I've seen in this lot, so much cleaner than it was when you started those first few years. That's what I thought.

It has been, yes, it looks like it had been graded from this point to here, and then gravel put down.

So much better. I remember the lot from years ago.

It may be aesthetically better, but if you're parking more than five vehicles, it has to be a dustless surface that can be striped, and then a six-foot bare chain link fence. Chain link fences have to be coated. And in this zoning, barbed wire is not allowed on top of the fence. So those are the main violations. Why would not barbed wire not be?

It goes against the zoning code.

That's the zoning ordinance regulation. It's what? It's the zoning code.

That's stupid. So my question is, what you're saying before this board is that In your opinion, and the reason that you're asking that a site plan be required is because between the period of 1980 or whenever they were saying it was a storage facility, because it, in your opinion, had not been utilized at all, it was abandoned, and then now it's a change of use. Therefore, there has to be a site plan required based on the ordinance.

Is that correct? In this particular zoning CG, when you want to establish a business, a site plan is required typically.

And usually if something's changing use, if it's been, if it's sat vacant for, is it 30 weeks, 30 months, 30 months, that a change of use site plan is required, which is a formal process within our code.

Whether the property looks nicer or not, they still have to go through a legal process to make it look nicer first. They have to get the approval from the planning commission or from city staff depending on the type of application that they're getting to get an official approval to be able to use the property in that manner before they make the improvements to the site. So the improvements are great. Yes, we agree. It does help to make a property that was abandoned and overgrown and things like that to look nicer and to have a function. But there's a legal requirement that you come through and get that approval through the city first before you do those types of things.

When did this come in effect? This didn't apply to the years prior before they owned it? It didn't apply to that? It was in effect prior to that. But you didn't enforce it at that time, is that correct?

The enforcement at the time, the enforcement personnel, I would assume, was just not made aware that the change had occurred. When our enforcement personnel did get made aware that the change had occurred, then that's when we approached the property owner and notified them that the site plan would be required.

Was a business license applied for?

No, there was no business license we could find.

And still, to this day, no business license has been applied for?

Correct. Now, that would normally trigger review? Scrutiny of the site and see if a change of use is required, yes, sir.

And sometimes it's a visual inspection that helps us to find where violations have occurred. So it's not always going to be that the applicant comes forward and asks for a business license or to be able to get that approval. Sometimes we are just driving by and see that, oh, look what's going on on this property. We need to take a look at it. Or we see it in our investigation of other sites as we're looking at prior images and things and see that a change has been made. Those are the types of things that just clue us in that something's changed. And then we look and see if it had approval or not. And then when we notice it didn't, then we reach out to them.

Okay. Can we hear from the applicant before we go to discussion? Y'all cool with that?

Chris Elson, live at 178 Flynn Road in Gallatin. I am part of the owners of the property, and I put my thoughts down on paper. I don't know if you guys had a chance to read those or go over if you guys have any questions. Be glad to answer those, or I'll be glad to summarize, kind of give you a summary of my position on it. If you don't mind providing a summary, that way we just have it in the minutes. Yeah, totally. Okay. I would say that the significant factor in this appeal is the city's planned Bligh Street roadway improvement project. The city staff has advised the applicant that the right-of-way acquisition associated with this project will take place pretty soon. And since this meeting was... given. I have met with the city on the roadway acquisition so I do know kind of how much property they're wanting to take now so I can talk to that later on. But the planned roadway improvements will remove a portion of the property and substantially alter the site's frontage, access configuration, the grading, and the future development of the property. Once completed, the roadway project is expected to significantly enhance the commercial viability of the property and may support a substantially different use than the current storage operation. And as a result, requiring the applicant, that's myself, to prepare a full engineering site plan and construct improvements such as landscaping, stormwater facilities, fencing modifications, and other site infrastructure at this time would likely It would likely result in substantial expenditures for improvements that may be removed, relocated, redesigned, or rendered obsolete by the city's own roadway project. So we're not asking for the board to eliminate the city's ability to regulate the property forever. We're just asking the board whether requiring a full engineered site plan today is a reasonable application of the ordinance considering the history of the property and the city's planned acquisition of a significant portion of the property. And so this property has been commercially zoned for decades. The current use is a permitted use. We have acted in good faith, met repeatedly with the staff, and offered reasonable improvements. The only thing we're asking is that the city not requires to invest tens of thousands of dollars in permanent infrastructure that both parties know may be torn out or redesigned because of the city's own roadway project that's coming up real soon. We're just asking for a practical solution, not permanent immunity from the ordinance. We have offered some what we believe to be practical solutions. We can move the front fence back. We can take off the barbed wire, which is pretty reasonable. put some dustless surface at the road, the entrance to the road coming and going so it doesn't track in and off the road. But everybody knows, I mean, this is going to be a substantial road improvement project that's going to last. I've met with the engineers, and the temporary construction easement is for four years, and so all the business is up and down. Bligh Street is going to be hindered and burdened for the next three or four years. We would just, in all cases, I know you guys know as well, in every case that there's road projects going on, there's always businesses being heard. That's always in the news and newspapers about that. And we're just asking for the city to... postpone or delay any improvements giving the major roadway project that's coming up really soon. I'm open for questions.

Thank you.

Please postpone what? Did you say that?

Like site work stuff, given that they're substantially widening the road, putting in bike lanes, sidewalks, taking several square feet in front of the property. We feel like that's going to alter the site and the engineering of the site. Of course, site plan requires sidewalks and landscaping and all that. All that's going to be it's just for the next three or four years, it's, it's going to be a mess out there and it's going to be kind of, um, burdensome to, um, to deal with that. And so we're asking for, um, you know, relief or, um, uh, for, you know, for the, for the board here, not to require it at this time.

Mr. Elson, I apologize if I'm mispronouncing your name, but when were you all made aware of the Bly street project?

It's probably a couple of years ago, maybe.

It's been on the agenda for several years. Probably when you was mayor, Dick.

Brad. Were you aware of it before you purchased the property or after the fact?

So I purchased it in, I think, May of 22, so four years ago. So I don't think I was aware before that. Again, I don't want to say for sure, but I don't think so.

Where is the new right? So, well, let me ask this.

Do we have design files yet for the widening of Bly Street? Engineering has some preliminary ones. It will fall short of the building here. I believe their front fence will get caught in the construction easement. Correct.

But it will not affect the building?

It will fall short of the building, since most of our issue is with the fence and the gravel lot.

Yes. What are they widening the road to? They're going from a two-lane to a five?

I think it has bike lanes, and I think they're going to a three with a turn. Is that right, Brian?

Do you recall? I don't know for sure on that. I believe it's a three-lane.

I guess what I'm asking is, where will the back of sidewalk along Blythe Street fall? I was like, like actual right away. Is it in front of the fence?

The fence was in the construction easement, which is my understanding. They just want that to operate equipment. Yeah. They would not actually have any sidewalk in that.

Okay.

So it would be, the sidewalk would theoretically be in front of the fence then.

Is the applicant offering to move their fence back?

They are, but our issues, our review are the gravel lot needs to be a dustless surface that is striped. The fence needs to be a coated fence by code. It needs to be laminate brown, black, or green. And the barbed wire needs to be removed.

Before any of these improvements occur, though? A site plan has to be approved. The applicant can offer, hey, we will do this and we will do that. These types of things we'll make concessions on, but we'd like a delay on it. The problem is they don't have a legal right to operate their business there today. As a zoning administrator, I have the ability, my role is to enforce that rule. I have the ability to tell them you cannot operate today. You must discontinue use of the property. I'm trying to work with them to say, hey, come in and get your site plan approved and we'll work with you and that sort of thing.

How long has that been going on? Why has that not happened? Are you opposed to doing that?

This is why they're now before you because we've asked them multiple times and it does not seem to be going anywhere.

I would add that this would almost definitely have to go to planning commission because they could not meet code completely due to the fence unless they want to revamp the whole site, tear it down, put the buffer yards in. So it would go to Planning Commission, most likely.

Applicant, do you understand all that? And why haven't you made some steps forward?

Well, because of the, primarily because of the road widening, what they're going to be doing out at the front. And doing an engineering site plan now will, and if I get that done now, all of that's going to change by the time, you know,

Well, that doesn't seem too hard for the city to understand that and not have it, but have some commitment, solid commitment.

Ultimately, what they're asking you to prepare is a change of view site plan. Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, that is not a full set of site construction documents for the site. I mean, yes, they're going to ask you to bring your site up to code. But in the Change of View site plan, you can request variances from certain measures of the code, meaning landscape. I don't think you'll be able to get away with not having a dustless surface. It's been few and far between that the city's approved that in the past. I've even seen it where they've allowed barbed wire on the top of the fence, but it was a request that was asked at Planning Commission. In my opinion, the... easier path of least resistance is putting a change of your site plan together and having it go before the planning commission.

And I can say honestly, just because of what I do for a living, it would be hard for me to not impress upon you to do what the ordinance cites that you have to do. I hate that you all are put in this position, but it's difficult for this body to allow you to not comply with the ordinance. So it's my opinion you have to comply with the ordinance. You're just kind of in that position regardless of the Bly Street project. It's required of you to do so if you want to continue having your business there.

And to add to that, I think knowing that you aren't putting a substantial amount of effort into the site because you know that at some point in the future it's going to redevelop because of the improvements along Bly Street, that is... potential reason for the planning commission to side with y'all on some of the waiver requests y'all would have on landscaping and buffers and things like that. I mean, y'all, y'all were essentially put in a, in a situation where y'all, when y'all purchased the property, some of these things were like y'all obtained these, the property, the way it is. But I mean, legally and per the zoning code, it should have followed the proper procedure to, to, make the changes. And I feel my fear is that if we grant this waiver, it opens the door for us to have to grant the waiver everywhere else in the city. And I don't think we want that as a city. Can't set that precedent. We can't set the precedent. And I think that the process of going through the change of use site plan is much more simpler than having a full set of site construction documents put together for this site.

Even with the road widening project and all that, that's going to disturb the property.

The thing is, sorry to cut you off, but the road widening is only affecting the front couple feet of your property. Sure. And the substantial changes to the property have occurred beyond the fence.

And I think that's an argument that you would make once you presented your site plan to the planning commission.

Mm-hmm. Because, I mean, if you were to bring a change of use site plan to the Planning Commission right now, and I'm saying this because I sit on the Planning Commission, I would take into account that a massive road widening project is going to be going on, and I don't think it's necessary for you to put your sidewalk in at this point because it's going to get tore up. Correct. So those types of things are taken into consideration for sure.

Correct.

But whenever you're asking for... Really, it's not even a waiver. You're just asking for an appeal to have to go through the formal process... When you're asking for an appeal to go through the formal process when the majority of the issues with the site are beyond the fence and the reasoning for not wanting to do it is in front of the fence, it's kind of... I think the path of least resistance here would be to go through that change of use site plan process, which has been in the code since before you purchased the property. That's been a formal process in our code for quite some time. It specifically states that if a site sits vacant for 30 months, that if you change the use on it, you have to go through that process. We've even had a ton of discussion. I don't know if you've kept up with it, but we're in the process of changing our zoning code right now. It's going through council right now. And we've had a ton of discussion centered around the change of use plan process. And so our new code is even going to add even more language to it to discuss the formal process and whatnot. I'm not saying that what you're doing on your site is... causing an issue with the neighbors is a life safety issue. I don't think it meets any of that. It's just the simple fact that it needs to go through the formal process. And I think if you would have gone through the formal process from the start, it'd probably already be finished. And you'd have an actual viable legal business there.

What is his business there?

It sounds like it's a storage yard.

Yeah, it's the tenant. You've got the gates locked every day, though. You're not running a business out of there, are you, Bob?

No, no, sir. The business owner that I lease it to, he's got a few trucks, and he's a trucking operation. And that's all he uses it for is storage. I'm not here to, you know, to... To complain too much, I live right here in the city and want to do business for a long time here in the city. I just thought this particular instance might be a little bit different because of what's going on and the burden that it will put on us during the construction phase. I do understand. I was not aware that the site had never had a site plan on it to begin with. I will say since we've owned it, we've not put... a rock of concrete or a rock of gravel. We didn't add the fence. I painted the building since I've owned it, but that's it. It's stayed in the exact same state since we've owned it. I'm not real sure. I guess I'd like to seek some clarification on the 30 months. Like I said, the previous owner We had a letter, I think you guys have it, that they've used it for personal and commercial uses throughout that time. Then obviously when I bought it, I don't know what they used it for. Since I've owned it, we've used it for that same purpose. I'm not sure where the 30 months lapse is coming into play. It was pretty evident the site was not being used. Well, in the manner that we're using it, no.

It appears abandoned. So practically, if maybe the previous owner came in with evidence that had actually been used as a storage property, that would have been better for your case. But based on the pictures that we're seeing, it seems like a property that has two buildings on it with no use. So at the point in time that you bought the property and someone had decided to put gravel down so that it could be used, it looks like it had been abandoned up until that point. And again, like I thought, unfortunately for you to make that purchase, still legally there had to be a process done that you weren't privy to. And so now you are privy to. It sounds like y'all have been going back and forth for maybe a year or more to get it done. to some resolution, and it did not get to the resolution, which is why they fined you or filed a violation against you, and you're here appealing that violation. And all we're saying is, again, for me, legally, you're going to have to do with the planning commission, not the planning, but the department is asking you to do so that you can legally run your business or whoever you're leasing the business to can legally run their business.

Okay. For clarity, I would just like to say this building, I mean, the previous owners could have been storing I don't know what in there. But we can clearly see that the use of automotive parking and vehicle parking was not in effect. And that is the primary use of the site now.

Brad, when you talk about primary use, is there like different categories of storage for CG properties?

Yeah, automotive parking is one of them. You could do also limited warehouse and transport, I believe. Transport and warehousing.

So what would the previous, if the previous owner came in here today and said they were storing something in those two buildings, what would that use be titled under the code?

If they were doing it just for personal items, that's not a commercial enterprise in a commercial district. So that would be an issue. But if they were running a little cottage industry and were storing their stock there, then... limited warehousing, most likely. It would still be a different use. Transport and warehousing, yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Ed, do you know exactly when they're going to start this project on Bligh Street?

I had a discussion the day after the applicant spoke to engineering, and I could not nail them down. I said, would it be three years? And they said, it will be started within three years.

Engineering is currently working on the acquisition portion of the project, so they have to acquire those pieces of right-of-way across each of the properties that are along Bly Street. I know they've approached this property owner already about that same thing, but they have to go through a formal purchase process essentially to acquire that land where they're going to widen the road. They're going through that process. They've made it a certain way through, probably halfway maybe at this point. They're not all the way through that process of acquiring all that right-of-way. Once they can acquire it all, and that process can take some amount of time, and it's going to vary depending on how willing property owners are to go through the process with them. But once they get all the way through that, then they can begin to do their final construction plans and their construction on it. it's up in the air as to how long it might take for that project to start.

The property owners reject it and sue. I mean, this thing could last years, right? Well, and we don't want the property.

I can speak to that.

So for the acquisition of Ben Allen, assistant city attorney, for the acquisition process, you know, property owners, you know, we always try to negotiate and get a willing buyer and willing seller. However, we're always able to use condemnation or eminent domain to get property. And while the court case can be extended as far as figuring out what the fair market value is to pay the property owner, We still have access within about 30 days of filing to the property to go ahead and start doing the work with just the understanding that the court will determine how much we actually have to pay them in the end unless we settle with the property owner before then. So it can't be dragged on forever as long as the city is willing to prepare to go through that process.

You're saying that even though it's in court, you can go ahead and start the roadway. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, because as long as it's for a public purpose, which this fits just every definition for doing a road widening, we are able to take the property through condemnation. What we'd be going through court is what is the fair market value that we'd be required to pay the current property owner. So the court would give us permission to go ahead and start doing the construction and then we'd be finding out, you know, do we have to pay them $20,000 versus $30,000 versus $40,000, that kind of thing. But that can be resolved after we've already gotten access to the site and able to start building the public improvement.

But in the meantime, we do not want to wait another few years before this site actually becomes legal. We want it to have that status right away and be in conformance with what our regulations require.

The gentleman in the audience, is the board okay with suspending the rules to allow the adjacent property owner to speak?

We'll call the vote.

Yes.

All in favor of suspending the rules so we can reopen public forum, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? So we're going to reopen public comment. Station name, please.

Thank you. Andy Stokely, and I appreciate you doing that. So I will say this. And understanding your role, understand what you guys do, thank you for your service. I've been there, done that in past life myself. I would ask you to think about for just a moment. So this is an appeals meeting, right? I personally, as a multi-property owner across multiple counties, multiple states, multiple uses, I've always had an issue with the dust list. What is dust list? I'm not going to open that can of worms fully, but I would just tell you that think about what blight street is going to they are tearing the entire road act they're putting in brand new utilities down half that work uh... so he is not going to be in minor project there's going to be dust everywhere so and i can tell you the gentleman's mister hillsons property I don't see dust on the street. I would point to one thing. If you look to the north side of the property, this is Cumberland Electric to the north side. If you'll notice to the back side of that property, they have about a, I don't know, two and a half acre lot back there where they store poles and transformers and miscellaneous. And guess what? Those trucks come in and out, off that gravel, onto the road a lot more than I see traffic coming in and out of his site. And so while I would, I understand that the city needs to update things. I would just ask you, you know, as a body that is here to listen to appeals, think about it in my sense, and I don't have a dog in this hunt other than it seems like a reasonable request to say, hey, let's put a pin in this. I know Chris. I know the properties he's owned. And he does what he says he's going to do. And there's a lot of people that don't. Chris does. And so he hasn't asked me to come up here at all. But I got the letter in the mail. And I called Chris, said, hey, Chris, what's going on? He said, hey, this is what's happening. So I've come up. But I would just tell you to look to the Cumberland Electric to the north side. So if dustless is the holy grail, why isn't somebody knocking on Cumberland Electric's door saying, hey, guess what? You've got to pave this. You've got to concrete this back lot. Okay. I live up, like I said, just out of the city on 31. And I don't want to, I'm not trying to throw stones or pick at people. Drive up through there. You tell me how many gravel lots are up through there that are holding cars, vehicles. And there's one that was recently put in. And I'm not going to mention any names, but I would ask the city, how many other issues are in front of the city? So it seems like this is a, we're picking a fight, and I'm not exactly sure where or why. This is not the one I would pick a fight on. There's other ones, I can tell you, right up the street that don't have dustless service, that the road's not being ripped out and replaced. They're not acquiring right away. I appreciate you letting me speak, but I think context is important here, especially in this particular case. So anyways, that's it. I appreciate you letting me speak. Thank you.

I'll close it.

If there's nobody else to come forward, we're going to close public comment.

Okay. So I'll respond to that. The issue at hand here is we have an appeal before us on the process itself. It'd be one thing if you were here to appeal or ask for a waiver for a dustless surface, but that's not in front of me right now. What's in front of me right now is you're asking me to appeal you going through the formal process of submitting a change of use site plan to meet zoning code. I can see that there's a gravel lot to the north, but that's not what's in front of us right now. What's in front of us is you're appealing the entire process. And I think from the beginning, going through that formal process is the path of least resistance for you. Now that's obviously my opinion, but that also meets code to go through that formal process. And that's what we would ask anyone else in the city to do. And at that point, that's when you ask for your waivers. That's when you ask for your, the items that you feel like aren't necessary at this time. And you provide a reason for it right now. The reason for the appeal is just the fact that there's going to be a project along the thoroughfare out in front, and that could happen in three years. I feel very strongly about the fact that if you chose to go through the formal process, given the way the site is, given the fact that that gravel's probably been there for years and y'all just refreshed it. I mean, that's an item that you can go to engineering and say, hey, this gravel's been here for years. This has been an impervious surface forever. We don't feel like we need to provide any stormwater measures on site because of that. Engineering will come to the table and say, you got a point. We'll pick up water quality and detention and stormwater whenever someone else comes through and actually develops the entire site and puts a brand new building on it and actually formalizes curve and gutter and all that stuff. But what is in front of us right now is an appeal to the process itself. And if we support that, we're not putting the city in a very good position. I'm just being very blunt.

So your recommendation would be to appeal it, or not appeal it, but create a site plan, bring it before the Planning Commission with certain exceptions?

Yes, sir. And I think that given the circumstances and given the way the site is and was and what y'all are actively using it for, I think you've got some arguments on your side to say, hey, we're trying to make the site better. Here's what we're asking for. Here's the way it was before. Here's what it is now. Knowing that in the future at some point, if you're going to own the property for a long time and your plan is to develop it over time, state that. That goes into consideration. Okay. But like I said, I think, and I appreciate the statement from the gentleman that got up and spoke. He's correct. Yeah, I mean, the fight's not with the gravel. It's the fact that we're trying to decide to appeal a formal process that we've had in our code for years. And if we go against that, and two, I've just spent the last two and a half years trying to put a zoning code together that even more establishes and formalizes that language. So if I go against that, then I'm going against the effort that I put into the new zoning code the last two and a half years. Hopefully that makes sense. That makes sense. All right. I know it might be frustrating, but I really think the path of least resistance here is going through the process of the change of use site plan.

Understood.

Any other comments from the applicant or the city? If not, is there a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

Just a reminder, the resolution was a denial recommendation, right? So in the language of the resolution, it says that it would be denying it. So your motion would end up, if you agree with staff, then you would end up motioning to approve the resolution as drafted. If you don't agree with staff and you want to go with the applicant, then you would vote to deny the resolution.

I will make a motion to approve the denial of the appeal regarding the violations on the property in Bligh Street, if that's sufficient.

We've had a motion to approve the denial. Do we hear a second? Second. There's been a second. All in favor of approving the denial, say aye. Aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

No.

The motion carries to approve the denial.

Motion to adjourn. Or do we have other business?

Any other announcements?

Sir?

We have a motion to adjourn.

Make a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Moore has a motion to adjourn. Do I hear a second?

Second.

I've heard a second. All in favor of adjourning, say aye. Aye. Bye.