Board of Zoning Appeal & Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're sitting at 603. We're a little bit late getting started tonight. I do apologize for that. We have no business tonight for the BZA, so we'll move straight on in to the Planning Commission. I'll now call this meeting to order. If you all would, please join me in prayer. Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you just thanking you. Again, for another day of life, dear God, and for the health and the ability that you give each and every one of us to get up and go and do. And I pray, Lord, that you're pleased with how we've been about things until now. And I ask, Lord, as we come together tonight to conduct the business of the planning commission, that you would be with us and guide our thoughts, our minds, our words, dear God, our actions. And may each and everything that's done here tonight be pleasing to you, Lord. Dear God, I lift up our country to you, our state, our county, dear God, and the officials that are in each one of those capacities. I just pray that you would guide them, dear God. There's a lot of folks hurting, a lot of folks needing help, and a lot of decisions that need to be made. We know you're aware of them, dear God. I just pray that you would guide in the process. Dear God, we thank you for everything. But most of all, we thank you for your Son, Jesus, and what he did upon the cross. And I hope we have an eternity through him. It's in His name we do pray. Amen. We're going to pledge attention. Salute. Pledge.

I pledge allegiance 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.

Thank you all very much. And we're on to the minutes. Everyone should have a packet in front of them. I know emails went out. We had a little bit of a deal getting the packets to you in physical copies earlier. But I trust if you had a chance to see those and look over them. If anyone has not, I'll give you a moment now to flip through it. is everyone good on those had a chance to review so moved mr chairman okay i have a proper motion to approve the minutes have a second for randy bales the officer made the motion any discussion on that being none all those in favor of approving the agenda or pardon me approving the minutes from the april meeting let me know by saying aye aye all those opposed motion passes citizens input we checked the basket and there is none Did I see you, Stephanie? You didn't have anything turned into you? Okay. We'll move on down to new business. And the first item under new business tonight is item A, final plan approval for three lots off Ponderosa Drive in Dandridge, Ponderosa Ranch Farm, lot one by Jared and Alicia Waite. Do we have someone here to represent that?

I do, don't I?

okay okay So he did not approve it today.

So he did not approve it. So they're not coming? No. Okay.

So do we want to table until June?

I'd say we table until June or until, instead of doing it until the June meeting, let's postpone it until they have their stuff together. Someone will make that motion. Okay.

Chairman, I move item A be postponed until they can produce the proper documentation to present to this body.

okay thank you we have proper motion made by austin do we have a second yes chad dixon seconds any discussion on that being none all those in favor of proponing item a until they have their proper documents in line and everything approved let me know i'm saying aye aye all those opposed Or to item B, revise site plan for a new pole barn to be constructed at 329 Landfield Road in Jefferson City by Ronnie and Karen Trent. We have someone here. If you would, step to the podium and state your name.

Ronnie Trent, 329 Landfield Road.

Okay. Ronnie, talk to us a little bit about what you want to do.

Well, we've got a shop that's already there. I just need more room to place some more toys. More implements, you know how it is. The next time you build one, you think you're big enough, but you're not. So anyway, we're just going to construct another building there. On the print, I mean on the drawing, it shows a 50 by, I think, what, 108? I would like to change that dimension if we could, but it's going to be a big problem. It won't matter. You guys want to go maybe 60 by 100 instead of 50 by 108 because we found that was a little bit odd size. So if that matters or it doesn't matter.

You want to go 60 by 100? Yeah. So we're moving eight feet and adding two.

Yeah. And it's just going to set directly, you know, in place of pulling my shots over there. It's just the parts we've got trucks under and trailers under and tractors and mowers, you know, stuff like that.

You're putting a packet of coffee in the survey showing where his house is located because the only reason he's having to leave is because it's on the commercial portion of his property, North Bay Agriculture.

I think the house is on like 2.02. We cut that off a few years ago. Yeah, 2.13. Yeah, there you go. And that way we could have a residence on that commercial property. So we cut that off a few years ago. And I actually own the property. It used to be the old beddest place, the old beddest farm down there, the old barn and stuff that's been renovated. Yeah, that's me. We bought that, and so then. kind of trying to fix that corner up. Ain't made me mayor at first since I'm on the house.

You have the dogs, of course.

Would we need an updated drawing for the 60 by 100s?

We would to get that, but Catherine, I think you've got a foul. No. No foul. We would need the updated drawing, and I know that wouldn't be an issue to get that. On this drawing, and you want to see the property line that differentiated from the agricultural to the industrial.

Yeah, I think one of the concerns I had... is that you just have site plan approval. You don't have site plans for additions to existing sites. That's one of the things that we can work on. You really should, if it's an addition to an existing site like this, the requirement should be pulled back somewhat. And you don't make it that distinction. So if you're just looking at it from a black letter issue, it's a site plan, should have engineer seal on it, etc., etc., etc. I don't think that that adds anything. He's obviously got a big site. It's not that big of a building. It's... It's not like you're digging footings or any of those kind of things. You don't have, you're not sending utilities to it. I'd send electricity, but not like sewer water or anything like that. I don't like that.

Okay, thank you.

That's what I think.

Okay, does anyone... Just if they would, if you could get that drawing redone, could you throw that line in there somewhere where it is just so we all have it?

Yeah, as long as it makes a setback off of that existing line between the A1 and the C2.

The line actually is where you see that crook in the western lot line. That's basically where it is and goes back around the house. This is not encroaching at all. Any more crooks. So, okay.

yeah yeah mr. chairman yes sir Austin I think I think we're good so with that said I'll move to approve item B okay we have a motion do we have a second okay we have a second on it to after make a motion chair seconded

And now we're up for discussion.

Just to make sure he turns in the updated picture. That's the only thing I agree with. I don't see a problem with it. I'll accept the amendment if you're good with it.

And then that's a little cleaner on the amendments.

That sounds good.

Yes, we want to get a second. So we're good with the amendment as stated. Second? Second. Any further discussion on this? Being none, all those in favor of the poll bond, let me know by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed? Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to get you that drawing. One thing on that drawing, one guy that was pricing the building for me, his best way was to come out at 108. And the other guy, that president, he said, well, no, it'll be better to go. So we'll get that decision. But if it don't change, if it changes, I'll get you gone. Okay. Just drop it off. How many copies do you need?

Just for her. Just for you. I don't think you have to come back to this committee. No. You're good.

And do I need to get permits from you or is it since it's commercial?

It'll be in the building. Well, in the office with the building partner, Will.

Got you. Thank you, folks.

Thank you, Ronnie. See you next time. Okay, we're to item C, resolution 2026-03, amending the zoning resolution to Jefferson County, Tennessee to reflect certain prohibited uses in all zoning districts and permitted uses in the I-2 zoning district, solar, energy, and wind systems out in Brooklyn. Hostin, you have the floor.

Yeah, I believe at our last meeting there was discussion about potential about what we already had in our zoning regulations. Yes. Was there anything?

There is no decommissioning. Jefferson County zoning regulations for a solar farm now there is at the state level state put that back in Catherine and I write it in about 22 23 somewhere that's I did go on and print a little bit off if you will humor me just a second on that Tennessee solar and farm decommissioning is governed by Tennessee state decommissioning law it mandates that commercial solar facilities over five megawatts submit comprehensive decommissioning plans and provides financial assurance i.e. surety bonds or letters of credit to landowners for equipment removal and land restoration. Local planning commissions in the regions enforce these rules and periodically update setback or permitting ordinances. Now, state requirements, and there's a ton of stuff on the internet that you can go to look at, and I'm sure Catherine can give some clarity if we have some questions about this, but it requires that the solar power agreement to outline a safe removal plan for panels, wiring posts, ensuring the property is restored as close to its pre-condition, pre-construction condition as reasonably possible. It goes on about financial assurances, local authorities, recent updates is there. washington county green county sullivan county have taken this and they've made it a little bit more stringent from what and i'm not winning in depth on each one of those but they have added to the decommissioning of those and that's something that we can definitely do but the state already has a decommissioning in place right now it's just we want to make it more stringent than what the state has or not and we can look at each one of those i'm sure that's something you can get information on for us couldn't you

Go ahead. So I have a question. Whenever you hold a bond, make sure that you have the tools in place to administer that bond. Let's say somebody just walks and leaves it there. I'm not sure that you have staff personnel that you want to ascribe that responsibility to and hold that bond for the life of solar facility. Monitoring bonds is one of the things that we've done. I think the only bonds that the Planning Commission holds that is a bond for outstanding infrastructure for roadway improvements. And it's charged in Tennessee code that the Planning Commission is the only entity that has authority for that. you could just simply add to the solar draft an additional item that says you shall meet that section of the law and make sure that the state of Tennessee has the bond.

Right. And it's the Tennessee decommissioning law. But it goes on to say here about the assurances. It tells us that these bonds assurities are scheduled to scale up, typically requiring at least 50% of the total decommissioning cost to be secured by the 10th year of the commercial operation and 100% by the 15th year.

Does it say that they are willing to administer those bonds?

It did not say who would administer.

It did not say.

No. But, you know, this was to bring the topic kind of to the table and get the conversation started about it. But these are some things we can do, and I'm sure we can look at that moving forward with this. You know, and back to part of our original conversation, I'm – pro-landowner being able to do things with this property. If there's somewhere on this solar thing that I want to be really strict about, it would be with the cleanup of it when somebody's done. And I think it's something we definitely need to give some time to and look at and get something drafted and adopted that'll protect us as a county and the joint landowners to the property. That's just my thoughts on adoption.

I've got a couple of questions. You've probably answered this one. How big does a solar field need to be to produce five megawatts?

decent size to do 5 megawatts and that's something else that I think we can look at is size limits inside our county when we address this and go to drafting this I know there's one in Newmarket and it's about 6 acres and it will not meet 5 megawatts 5 megawatts is a lot of load who owns that

so we're correct Appalachian so it is a public entity yeah your other alternative is to state that this provision is only allowed for public utility companies public utilities state that you know that I was just back and see that on the back of it You know, and we just had this discussion this morning in the working group of the difference between public schools and private schools. Private schools are for profit. I don't care what they are. If it's not, you know, Jefferson County. So there are language we put in today that says it has to be a public entity. public utility, public utility district, and or a TVA. And that if it's a private for-profit entity, they're not allowed. Because the scary thing is, a public entity is dependent on public input, public support, taxpayer money. You have a way of controlling that, and they hold themselves to a higher standard. When you get a for-profit entity, those are the ones that I would think would have a higher tendency to

walk away it's not profitable we're walking okay and i'm speaking hypothetically and don't let me control the conversation by all means jump in if i've got this fella and again hypothetically who has a couple hundred acres in the county it's a1 and he has had an accident he's no longer able to farm he's no longer able to do what he is that he's done for living for so many years Doesn't have a great retirement, because most farmers don't, other than the lands they hold. I don't want to limit the marketability of his piece of property to take that potential off the table if it's the best situation for him. I want to protect his rights as a property owner, because he's paid taxes, he's bought the land, it's been handed down through families. And for us to come in and say, no, that private company can't come in and work a deal out with you because we're not willing to do what we need to do on our end to see that it's decommissioned in the proper way. I'm just saying.

I mean, it's a two-edged sword, but those are the guys that are wrong. If we were further along in the technology and the knowledge of how these things will operate in the long term. I feel better about that.

That's just my stance. I don't know if I heard the property owner.

Let's say TVA came in and leased this property.

Absolutely. But, you know, we've had, there's been conversation for the last three or four years here in the county about outside firms coming in. There was actually one in place and it fell through. There's another one looked and stuff and it's fell through. And We may be... That's a good indication right there, though. But we're talking about hypotheticals, and we don't have a crystal ball, and we can't read the future saying that this private company is going to walk or they're going to do the right thing. It's like me looking at David and saying, I know what he'll do in this situation. That's unfair to David and it's unfair to me. We have the ability to put the regulations in place to govern that. Well, then it's our duty to do that to protect the community and the property owner. And the state has done that to a degree with what they've already got in place.

Just administration of bonds and having a 10-year, 50%, 15-year, 100%, that tells me the state's worried about it.

That's the only reason you do bonds. Yeah, but there's no reason or nothing saying in what I've said that we can't be worried about it. We're just still protecting that property owner's rights to do one of those deals.

Yeah, they've collected 100% of the decommissioning cost by the time in bonds, by the time it runs out, by the time the solar panels run out, the life of them.

Yeah. On a five megawatt.

On a five megawatt. So do we amend that? So anything smaller does not have to do that. That's right. That's right. And that's per state, but again, we can look at those neighboring counties who have took what the state had as a foundation, and they've built upon that. That's what we can do as a planning commission in Jackson County and still protect the right of the property owner. Yeah, it don't have to be a $5 million. We can change those things. And whoever handles the bond, to say, well, I don't want to fool with it, you just kind of don't want to... I'm getting where you're at. I'm just saying, whoever needs to handle that, we just make sure it gets handled. So, administration bonds is a really... I think I read somewhere that the planner does that.

I'll look into it.

I mean, like right now, I'll give you an example. Cleverham County has bonds coming due in August. It's a set amount. It's for a top coat on a road. You know what just went up? The cost of asphalt. They're underwater. Five months ahead of time of that bond expiration. they're going back to the developer and saying, we will call this and ruin your credit unless you give us new estimates for the cost based on asphalt today. And that's what I mean. You can't. Yeah.

Just the nature of that conversation doesn't settle well with me because you're threatening from the leadings to have a conversation with them. No.

All they're doing is saying, come out August, a month ahead of time, which is in their sub regs, that a month ahead of time, we're going to go back and look at this bond. And they have the authority to ask for an increase because... They know they're underwater. And the thing of it is, you're talking about economics and fluctuations and 10 years, 15 years. Stephanie, are you going to be here? I mean, that's the kind of stuff. Or is the county mayor's office going to do that? And we put that in the regs if we craft this. And that's, if you want to belly up to that bar, that's an administrative issue that you need to make sure on the front end, the administration of that section of that provision, you know how it's going to happen. You know, and the other thing is, okay, you put solar panels and then five years from now, you're looking for a place to take it. That's what decommissioning is. Absolutely. You've got to pay for transportation, disposal. I mean, I don't even know how you'd estimate that cost. Much less over the time of the life of the bond. That's why I said if the state of Tennessee is doing that, then you ask for proof that they've complied with it. And that way, her office is monitoring a license that should be renewed you know every year five years or ten years fifteen years on that I don't know when you're looking at Johnson City are they administering it or are they saying I don't know anything about Johnson City or Washington County Washington County I think before you would let's ask them how they Are they looking for proof that those things have been met?

I don't know if they've lowered the megawatt at the site. I have no idea. That was before I said we'd ask you to get information about what each of those did and stuff. That way we can look at it. This was to start the conversation. At the end of the day, what I'm saying about this, we've got to protect the property owner. I'm not going to limit who he can sell or do a deal with on his land. I'm not going to be a part of that.

Okay.

Yes, sir. Let me add to that. As long as the people who are willing to purchase or lease or do whatever the land is willing to meet what's put in place to protect it. Yeah. I want to follow up on that.

Does it stipulate who would determine the bond? So my concern is when a deal like this is struck, unlike building a roadway where it's like I need this bond and within a year I'm going to have my road built and I don't need this bond. With this you're saying I'm going to build this facility out and then in 20 to 30 years... 10 to 15 is what he did. Okay, so in 15 years we're going to take it all down. What's that cost in 15 years? So whatever it costs today, if we were to just go with simple inflation at 3%, it's a 45% increase from now until then, assuming we don't have periods of rapid inflation, which recent history shows that that can happen. So I would want to know more information about who determines the bond amount, because in my opinion, whatever you come up with, you've got to tack on another 50% for inflation. The other thing is I'd like to determine maybe instead of us defining by megawatt, we can stipulate by acreage.

I think that would be a better approach because the megawatts that's being produced, I guess you would look at potential megawatts for the site if everything was running full throttle. You're not going to get that every day. So I think a better way to approach it, and I agree 100% with you, would to be looking at a acreage that could be put to use full throttle.

Another thing, I understand protecting water. sorry I understand protecting land that's what I'm trying to do in this as well I think the argument could be made when you're protecting somebody's right to put a solar facility on their property the neighboring property could say well now you're affecting my property you're affecting my property rights, affecting my property value. Whether you agree with it or not, I think that's certainly an argument that we would hear. We see it every day in here. Yeah.

That's a common argument.

And we already stipulate a lot of different things that people can and cannot do on their property, most often stipulating the zone that that activity has to occur in. Right, yeah. Unfortunately, as much as we want to be pro-property rights, everything we do is infringing on that.

Absolutely, on some basis. So my goal is to do the best job we can to protect everybody. And there's not a happy medium. I just don't want to overburden the citizens with restrictions. And the more restrictions we add, it's only allowed to be sold to a public...

utility you know we're adding restrictions every time we do something like that and I don't think that ought to be a go so not wanting to restrict property owners definitely wanting to restrict these companies that pop up absolutely every time the federal government decides to open the checkbook and pour out a bunch of subsidies for these projects where they get their cash then administrations change out in four to eight years, all the money dries up, and then this company based out of who cares Delaware closes because they've gotten their money on the front end. I just wonder at what point is Jefferson County stuck with an absolute disaster? Because you're talking with no stipulation, and I understand you seem to be in favor of some decommissioning stipulations. I've stated it several times. Yeah. And I appreciate that. We could end up sitting on a several hundred acre disaster in our county. So I'm just not really in favor of the solar fields. Mainly because there's not a positive ROI. They seem to be subsidized by the federal government. That seems to be the only way that they...

There are situations where there is positive return on investment.

In this area?

Yes.

Okay. I don't see that. All the numbers I've ran on it, there is not a positive ROI. I don't think it's a good use of our land, which is certainly... We have as much as we have and we're not getting any more.

Okay.

So... I... I think the fact that the state has put what they've put in place shows that there's concern at the state level. I think there certainly needs to be concern at our county level. And I think I'm hearing that we're all in some agreement, maybe not 100%.

I'm in 100% agreement of us having protection in place. I'm also for protecting the property owner. And it may be that we craft this in a way that's a deterrent from anybody ever wanting to. But yet we still leave that possibility for that property owner to market or to lease his property in that way. And if that company is willing to do ever how stringent regulations we put in place, and there's somebody somewhere that can do what needs to be done with the bonds and the assurity, let them do it.

So you would prefer stringent stipulations on cleanup, on decommissioning, as well as, like I said, the bond. To me, the only way that this bond is worth anything is if you account for the inflation. Because typically all the bonding that we deal with.

So when we write this, be sure and put that in there, what you come up with.

Well, I mean, yeah, 15 years, I would put 50% for inflation. I'm still hung up a little bit on the zone. So you'd be okay with it in any zone? I mean, is there any zones? So basically the document that we have, are there any zones?

I would be okay with it now with A1.

Okay.

And that's those property owners. Go ahead, Randy. Sorry.

I would be too, but the thing is we need to put a percentage and up to a maximum amount. If you or me, we've got a 100-acre farm and we want to take five acres, that should be the limit. Okay. The utilities down there have, what did you say, five to six acres?

I think it's six acres.

For an individual to do that, then they need to keep the whole thing as one section, not divided off. And in the event that they want to cut it back, I think if we go over five acres on anything, we're doing as much as the utility company is. So if we're going to leave it in A1, let's do a percentage of the property up to five acres, no more. 5% or 5 acres at the most. No more than that. So if you've got 50 acres, 2 1⁄2. Yeah, and make it smaller. And then we need to look at where it's located on the property as opposed to be right here on the property line, right in this Mr. Nelson's place. Let's make it be more centrally located on their farm so that everybody right there on the road and everybody and their neighbors aren't affected about as much as they are.

With setbacks and buffers in place, absolutely.

I love the idea of the decommissioning stuff. Because if we don't have that in place, I mean, just like you said, they can walk away. And then what is it, the county's responsibility to get rid of it? I don't think so. I like what you're saying. I agree 100% with that.

One of the other things, we keep talking about the property owner, but realistically, no property owner is going to go into this endeavor. They're simply going to lease to a company. And these companies usually pop up, like I said, whenever the federal money starts flowing. And that could happen maybe sooner than we want it to. Whenever those dollars start flowing, all of these little companies pop up. They get involved in all this stuff. Quite frankly, I feel that's what was going on with the best, if you all recall the best that was trying to go into Piedmont. It was some company that was located over here that was owned by a company located over here. The whole thing was very, very fishy. And to me, they already had their exit lined up. And they come in and do all the dirty work, and then they turn it over to a more reputable company. That right there just stands a hair up on the back of my neck.

Like some of the housing developments we've seen go in the last little bit? Yeah. Same scheme.

Same scheme. But to me, these are more frightening than that because of the mess that it could leave behind. So... Are we in agreement on any others, I mean, R1, R2, RR, C1, C2? Most of those are not even going to have a parcel size large enough to...

Which eliminates them all, yeah. Because nobody's going to take a two-acre lot and say, oh, I want to put... No, it's not lucrative enough for anybody. 0.1 acres, I don't know, where would it be that much? as a solar farm, because then they'd have one solar panel out there. That would be my thing, is to protect the most land around it if we're going to do it. The five acres, like I said, on a 100-acre farm, well, if they sell it off, they've got to decommission half of it. And most people aren't going to do it. But what it does allow is, it's just like a cell phone tower. I was talking to somebody earlier today. It allows them to have a source of income bar, like you said, it's going to be a pain in the butt for any individual to do this. It's just a phenomenal expense. I don't see the return on investment, but I think in the future it may be easier with the technology to do that, and it may be more return on investment. It probably won't be in our lifetime, but I want to leave that option open for the future.

So the recommendation – so I think we could take this document that we have and then the recommendation would be allow it in A1, which we're working on in our working group, but it would be limited to 5% of the parcel size.

percent of the parcel size up to five acres up to five acres so if you have i don't think if you have 200 acres i still don't think you're limited to five or you max out at five and if they divide the property in half and they want to do it on the other half but no more than five acres at one spot okay does that i mean does that make sense because then i look at our 100 acres that uh we have one of the 40 acres of hay we rent and my mom's property it would still be hard with the road running right through the middle, it would still be hard to find a good place on that property. So you're going to restrict the properties to a certain extent, but you're still leaving it out there as an option.

Yeah. Well, it would be the biggest stipulating factor. You've got to have those lines running through your property. Yeah. That's going to be one of the biggest stipulating factors.

Yeah, that's another thing.

If you put it on the edge, it's going to affect your neighbors a lot more than it's going to affect you. But if you're going to have more skin in the game, and you will with the investment and where it's located at, buffer zones, and I don't know what those buffer zones need to be off the property lines, but I think we ought to be considerate of our neighbors in anything that we do.

I could go along with that. So we could keep this document and really just adjust the A1, and it would be an allowable use, or I guess it would be a conditional use, wouldn't it, Catherine?

You could make it conditional. with the requirements like that to do an engineered site plan

we need to make sure it's done correct and whatever.

Yeah, I mean, I would suggest sending it to the working group or work on it.

They would have to do a site plan. I mean, even now, I think. Yes, and we had to send it back, and all those things are in place.

In Section 1 of the draft that you have right now, we had eliminated it as a principal use. Principal use, yeah. It was an accessory use. So your first item one is you want to make it a principal use, not accessory.

Well, it is now, isn't it? It is currently. This draft of the document took it from principal to accessory. So it's an accessory use in every single zone, which I think we're all agreeing on there.

Well, with the exception of your IND2, it was to be a principal use.

Principal, yes. So I think the proposition from Randy is... it would be, I guess that would be a principal or conditional use, or the condition would be 5% or 5 acres maximum.

I don't see any, for an individual, I don't see any reason in where it would be 1 over 5 acres.

And then it's really not a principal use at that point.

Yeah, and I don't know if we need to restrict it to that. I'm not sure.

That's me. I'm thinking. I'm throwing ideas at you. Yeah, I know.

Use conversation. I'm thinking, and this is just me, and let me state this. I'm not a solar fan. I don't think, but I can take you to places who have had a positive return on investment about three years ahead of time for what they've done. Businesses that have put the stuff in. Citizens Bank and Trust in Granger County come out about four years. Oh, yeah, as an accessory use. As an accessory use. Yeah, I can see that. there are places where it does return on investment. That would still be allowed. And if we were to, I know, but I'm just saying it is profitable in some situations. If we look at Joe James' property, I would have hated to have been the one to step up and say, Joe, you can't do what you're getting ready to do if he had chose to went through with it. And that's exactly what we'd be doing by doing what we're doing right now.

It fell through. It took care of itself. But it was coming.

It was a shady deal.

I don't know the inner workings of it. I just, I don't want to be the man that says, David, no, you can't do that. So, but I do believe we need to have restrictions. I do believe we need to have a stringent decommissioning. On the 100 acres, I'd look at least 20%.

And I would say, you know, 20% of the pitch property, 100 acres would be 20 acres.

I say A1 is the only

thing we're talking about.

Absolutely.

R1, R2, RR, C1, C2, it ain't going to happen.

I mean, if the mice ever wanted to.

Yeah, but it'd be excessively, I mean.

No, I mean, if they ever wanted to generate power.

Yeah, and I mean, we couldn't stop them from doing that for themselves anyway.

True. And the percentage I threw out there is negotiable just like everything is.

No, I think you're the hard line on that one, Randy. Yeah.

I don't want to take it off the table for agricultural for a farmer that's got an opportunity to do it and help supplement his farm and just like we talked about in the places where we've seen agriculture and solar work hand in hand with one another where they've done the elevated solar panels and they've actually farmed with livestock underneath with vegetables and fruit production underneath let's say you wanted to do 60 acres of this farm and marry those two together We've just killed that. I want to protect as many people as we can protect, but I also don't want to infringe. And we're just talking. That's what we're talking about.

It cuts both ways. It does.

That's right. It does. It cuts both ways.

Well, I don't know. Randy with that 5%, I think, was... See, I'm at zero. I think you're going to have a problem with the percentage.

Like saying, you've got 20 acres, so...

you get 5%. But you've got 100 acres, so you get 5%. And those two numbers are different. But the zone district's the same. So there's a test called uniformity in zone district. And if you've got two people on property, same zone, you have to allow them the same You can't say you get 20 and you get 5. That doesn't pass muster. So, but now putting a maximum on it and doing, making it a conditional use in, you can make it an allowable use in the I-2. and you could make it a conditional use in A1. And we looked at conditional uses this morning for the, you don't currently have conditional uses, but they're very, it's a very common tool in other jurisdictions. So you could do, conditional use, you have to meet setbacks, you have to do buffers, et cetera, et cetera. You would want to do the bonding process, whether it's industrial or... Absolutely. So we can set up the conditions, and that way they would come before the BZA, and the BZA would basically check boxes. Yes, you've got a buffer. Yes, your setbacks are... You know, your... You know, you could set up whatever conditions you wanted to, and then the BZA would determine compliance with those conditions. Whereas if you have an I-2, which they have the authority to come in and say, I want my property zoned I-2. And at that point, that is a discretionary thing that's ultimately approved by the county commission. And I, too, would automatically, you would be looking at areas that there are other industrial uses. I don't know if you even have, do you have any I, too? I see.

I just want to, I'm going to circle this back around real quick. Okay. We've got three neighboring counties who have sat at the table having the same discussion we've had, or having, and probably already have a lot of these things worked out. Let's get that information, see what's there. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. Let's just see what kind of cars are running and see if that'll work for us.

It sounds like we're close to some agreement, or at least all of us but you. We're down here at 5%. I think you and Chad are at 5%. I think Randy changed his mind.

You at two and a half? I'm open to discussing, but I don't want to take it off the table for a private landowner.

So on this document, we do agree. I don't think there's much. We'd go ahead and take it out of R1, R2, R, R, C1, C2.

As a principal use.

As a principal use. And could I1? I just don't think that's a good use of our industrial space, personally.

If they want to pay the money to get our industrial space...

What if they put it on top of their building? That would be an accessory use, which was allowed in all the zones.

One thing to consider is what type of infrastructure is necessary to carry the electricity generated to a transformer or however to get it into the grid. What types of infrastructure do you talk about? Well, that would be very much a limiting factor.

There are so many things that this thing is going to have to conform to.

It'll only go where those main transmission lines.

It just needs distribution lines. I mean, we've got one in White Pine in distribution lines.

That's yours?

It's not ours. It's a private loan. It is a private loan. Talking about Jody's? It's 5% each way instead of Appalachian and U.S. both. Oh, okay. But it's a private company that's doing it. And it comes out at distribution voltage. Are there some that would be at transmission voltage? Absolutely. Absolutely.

Oh, okay. Distribution vote. Okay.

That feeds straight into the grid. Yeah. The one in new market is distribution vote.

I mean, you could put one of those anywhere that has power supply. That's right. I've heard this said. Well, now you've got me upset again.

Well, I agree with you.

Let's do some homework. Yeah, absolutely. I wouldn't go that far.

So, at this point, A1, we could look at a conditional use.

With appropriate development standards. Absolutely. Right, right.

And they need to be developed. We could develop those. And then it would be allowed in I-2 as stated. And then we can do a separate section that's just for performance criteria for solar. Principal use solar. So we'll define, you have to define something and then you have to regulate it. So we'll have to define a solar installation as, get a definition for it. and then added as an allowable use in I-2 and added as a conditional use in A-1. And the A-1 will have conditions with it.

So just to clarify, so we're going to look at, as far as developmental, so you advised against a percentage, because if I've got five acres and Randy has 100, he gets to put in his full 5%, but then 5% of...

I mean, if he's got... Yeah. That's... That's...

I mean, are you advising against using a percentage?

Absolutely.

Okay. So...

but we could do a maximum.

You could do a maximum.

Okay. Absolute amount or maximum percentage?

Not percentage, maximum.

Maximum, just maximum amount.

Or there's also probably a minimum that as a principal use, it just doesn't make sense. There is. Absolutely, there is. I mean, you've got to have an economies of scale of these things. The one out at the Ford plant in West Texas, I mean, West Tennessee, I mean, that thing's massive. There's a couple in Oak Ridge, and they're huge. So, again, I think we have more questions than we do answers. So, let's do some homework and come back with...

The one in Newmarket that Appalachian owns, it supplies our lightest loaded circuit on the system we have. But it supplies that circuit. There are several houses on that thing.

And we as the county couldn't have stopped that anyway because that was through the state. The state, TVA, Appalachian.

See, if it's a public utility, they're exempt.

Well, and I'm not concerned with what happens. Did you buy any blocks of it?

I think there's still a few for sale if you want to invest in them. Okay. I'm joking.

I was a wee little man when that went out.

Me too.

So we'll look at maximums, setbacks, buffer zones. Buffering, yeah.

Assurity bonds.

You know, there's... I don't think you want trays around so far.

What's that?

You don't want a high canopy around so far.

It wouldn't bother me.

It wouldn't bother you if you invested in it.

It wouldn't bother you if you were the investor or the property owner.

Invest in oil. Right. All right. Well, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will move. to postpone item C to our June meeting.

Okay. We have a proper motion. Had a good discussion. I appreciate it very much. Do we have a second? I'll second. Is there any further discussion on this? Being none, all those in favor of postponing item C Until the June meeting, let me know what you're saying. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Development standards for mining and mineral extraction. Mr. David Nelson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to first start with just sort of the genesis of this, what prompted me to want to put this together, and then I'll walk you through kind of the process that I've been through so far. It's kind of going back to things we've bandied about several times already in this meeting about property rights for everyone. And my concern that I've seen happen over the years is that we have commercial industrial uses that take precedent over the property rights of some of our small farmers and our residents. So what I'm after is trying to marry those two together and put together some standards that protect existing property owners, but also allow commercial and industrial operations to take place. And when I started this process, my first effort was to kind of look at some other counties around us and see what they do. I looked at Washington County, Sullivan County, Knox County. were the three that I looked at quite a bit. In my initial draft on this, you may think this is a little lengthy. My initial draft on this was about 15 pages long after I took all the material from three different counties and tried to pull it all together. And I said, well, this obviously is way too much. So I went back to the drawing board immediately and and cut out a lot of that information. I consulted with the county's attorney about it and he said, yeah, and he said, you have to be aware we have a state surface mining act, which really governs a lot of what's being addressed in here. And so his initial suggestion when I started the process was to leave alone things that were covered by the surface mining act in the state and really just focus more on the things that are basic, like getting proper buffers, setbacks, screening, just to make sure that the operation is not going to destroy somebody's enjoyment of their property that's lived there for 30 or 40 years. And so that was my main goal. After putting this together first pass, and whittling it down to my second pass. Then I consulted our planning consultant, Ms. Baldwin, and said, would you look at this, please, and offer suggestions, which she did. And so the draft that was sent out to all the commissioners last Friday was a combination of Ms. Baldwin's input as well as my input. Unfortunately, since that went out, We got a little surprised. I didn't get it until Monday. I don't know when you saw it, but I didn't check my email until Monday. Our county attorney sent an email and said, oh, by the way, I do have a few concerns on this latest draft. It's not good. I wasn't expecting you to have some concerns. So he has some concerns. I will share with you what those concerns are. A lot of it's definitional. A lot of it relates to use of the term mineral. We talked about bonds a minute ago. Catherine advised me about this when she looked at an earlier draft. I had provision for bonds in the earlier draft, and she looked at it, and after we discussed it and she explained to me how difficult it is to administer bonds, I decided, well, this don't require bonds. If we want to do that later, we certainly can. So the draft you have does not have any reference to bonding requirements, so that's not in there. The one that Mr. Brennan review did happen. So he was a little bit concerned about administration of those bonds as she was.

One thing, and I said, ask your county attorney if it's legal to administer bonds for such things.

It's legal. You just have to set it up, of course, like you said, and have it all worked out. So we have some things in the air on this resolution right now. What I wanted to do was go ahead and introduce you to it and explain to you my reasons and my background on doing it and walk through just the highlights a little bit, but I don't really want to get into the weeds today because I really need to consult with the county attorney again to make some possible changes. So just walking through it, in section one, the first part of it is really definition. A lot of times we talk about things and people say what does that mean? So I've tried to make an effort to define some of the terms that are used in the body of it as much as possible. Mr. Jordan has no problems with that except mineral and that's one of the key issues. We've got to figure out how to deal with the term mineral properly. Section two is really a housekeeping matter that is not of any direct import as far as what happens in the mining and mineral extraction operations. There's a provision in our zoning resolutions that basically says that there's a mineral exception to where you can't really regulate minerals, but that really applies to underground mining. So this was just some language to try to tie that together and distinguish between surface mining and underground mining. Section three basically is just to say we're going to move, I'm proposing we move mining from an I-1 permitted use to an I-2 permitted use. That's section three and four. It's like, okay, if we're going to have mining, let's put it in our I-2 zone, which is our heaviest industrial zone. Then section five deals with development standards. And this is what we were talking about in relation to the solar. If we're going to do things, if we have the proper development standards, then hopefully we can have solar farms, we can have surface mining, we can have things that are industrial functions, and people can generate revenue doing that, but not destroy the neighbor's use of their property. And so that, again, is the main gist of this. Catherine helped write the buffer strip in Section 5. I had an amateur's effort at writing buffer strips, and she fixed that for me. So this is things she provided. If you look after the buffer strip definition, if you go to page 3, item B, There are some standards, brief standards for underground mining. The main gist of this is not underground mining. It's really surface mining or mineral extraction. The two things that show there are minimum setbacks of 500 feet unless there's a property line that is for property zone residential or there is an adjacent residence, then the setback is 1,000 feet. That may seem horrendous, but I will tell you, Knox County, Washington County, they are even higher. Knox County is not higher. Washington County even has a higher setback if it's along a property line that's residential. Theirs is 1,500 feet. And so when I looked at this, I've looked at what other people are doing to say, okay, what's within the realm of reason? And again, what we're trying to do is make sure operations are far enough away from somebody's front porch that they can sit on their front porch and not be disturbed by mining operations. Then we dropped on down to the surface mining standards in item C. Again, it's a basic 500-foot setback anywhere. Knox County has that. Washington County has it. Sullivan County. They all have a basic minimum of 500 feet. for anything and then again it has the thousand foot step back. If it's a property line that's zoned residential or contains a residence regardless of how it's zoned. I missed this in the underground mining. I've got a minimum lot size of 100 acres there and also a minimum lot size of 100 acres for surface mining. And then the rest of those few paragraphs there are mainly dealing again with buffering strips, which is how we protect the neighbors and make sure that what happens on the mining operation is not gonna cost them the enjoyment of their own property that they've had for 20 or 30 years. And that's the main objective. So what I would like to do, is you have this to look at on if you had a chance to read it before tonight but now now for sure we walked through it a little bit I know we're going to have to tweak this a little once I can get some more input from the county attorney to clarify a few things so I would just like to keep this in your hands make a motion tonight to table this until the June meeting at which time I would expect to have a new draft that addresses the attorney's concerns.

Is there any further discussion on this?

And I'll be happy to answer questions now if anybody wants to ask any questions.

David, thank you for your work very much. Being no discussion, all those in favor of postponing this until the June meeting, let me know by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Opposed? Passes. Moving on down the agenda. I just covered the agenda up. Yes, it's the second page. That's discussion of proposed procedural rules and bylaws for the Jefferson County Regional Planning Commission. I open that up to the board. Mr. Nelson, since nobody's jumping, if you want to speak to the rules that you brought forward, and I know we've had those for a little while and we've kind of kicked things down the road. I wanted you to be here when we discussed them.

Thank you, Mr. Tarrant.

You're very, very welcome. I'll let you go ahead and speak to that.

Okay. I guess two months ago now when we talked about this first, We had a draft of bylaws that Ms. Baldwin had done, and then I was hoping to try to work with her on that, and we couldn't connect. And since I couldn't connect with her, I thought, well, I'm just going to do my own. Sorry, Ms. Baldwin, but I decided to do my own. I took everything she had and hers and put it in the draft I put together. There were a few additional things, and I will review the additional items that I added from her draft. There was a little bit of wording change in my Section 5. We've got two documents here, so I don't know. I'm going to speak from my draft.

Are we on Jefferson County Regional Planning Commission?

We're on bylaws of the Jefferson County Regional Planning Commission. On page two, section five, compensation, I suggested a little bit of a wording change there of no major significance other than maybe it's just my preference for my words versus hers. I suggested we say in sentence number two of section five, reimbursement for travel and continuing education expenses of the members shall be in accordance with the prevailing policy of Jefferson County, Tennessee. She had worded that differently, and I thought, well, things may change, so I was just suggesting the wording that it just follows their policy, whatever it might be from time to time. In Article 3, the next article down, Section 1, under Officers, I added something that she did not have. The last of that sentence I just added, and any additional officers is deemed appropriate from time to time. That's in your draft. I'm just pointing out to you the things that I put in the draft idea that she did not have.

Go over that with me, David.

Okay. Section 1 officers.

Can we just make sure we're on the – Yeah.

We have had several copies of these come out. There should have been a copy of the bylaws and a section of the meeting rules in there.

That's not what – yeah, okay.

We've actually got two. Bylaws will look like this. Okay.

Here's what I'm looking at.

I've got the bylaws and meeting rules. I really don't have that.

You don't have that?

Is that the original copy, David? Yeah, that one. I've got a few copies of the original, yes. Okay. I only have one copy.

I've got that, that, that, and that.

And I'll be more than willing to hand those out. Okay. Well, I don't need one. I have one.

So what's the purchase now?

David, you can share mine.

David.

Okay. So what? Article 1, the commission.

That's the bylaw, pardon me.

Meeting rules. Yeah, we're not talking about meeting rules. We're talking about bylaws.

So the first one is that one.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. I can't see that part.

You got it?

No, that's not it.

I'll have to share mine. Okay.

That's not what we're talking about. I'll just read on.

This is what we're talking about, though, right?

Yes. Okay. So, sir.

Is it me?

Sir. I said we'll know. Okay.

All right. Okay.

Now.

Let's have one of them.

Now we all get one of these. Okay. We all have the same thing now. Okay. We're all frantically. Okay.

That's the original meeting rules. That's the bylaws that was there.

Everybody has the right one.

That's the meeting rules. Oh, I've got four different ones.

Mm-hmm.

I think you can tell the difference by the font.

The font is different on the two.

This is the new font.

This is what we're working on.

Bylaws of the Jefferson County Regional Planning Commission. Is that where we are?

Yes. Gotcha. Okay. Yep.

That's the last few I have.

What is that? This was in the packet today.

Oh, okay. All right. I think that was Catherine's.

Somebody got knocked up. It's got notes on it.

Uh-oh.

Look at the second page and see which one's got a little bit of ink on it.

Sue is really mean. I think this is her. Oh, is it?

tell them to shut up.

That's Catherine.

Oh, no, no. I've got some ink here.

That's what I mean. Let me swap that with you. Hold on. Let's see what O'Brien has to say.

He said happy birthday to me.

Today's my birthday.

I'm 38. Reverse. Okay. Alright. So. Page two of this document is what I was reading from. Page two at the top, section five, compensation. I just changed wording there a little bit from what Catherine had to where it reads in the second sentence, reimbursement for travel and continuing education expenses of members shall be in accordance with the prevailing policy of Jefferson County, Tennessee. She had referenced a specific document, I think, and I thought, well, that could change from year to year, so maybe we just leave it open-ended. And so that's why I wanted to make that change. Next article down, Article 3, Officers and Their Duties, Section 1. The last part of that sentence in the document you have, I added to Catherine's document that just says, any additional officers it deems appropriate from time to time. So we're just saying we'll have a Chairperson, vice chairperson, secretary, and any additional officers we deem necessary or inappropriate.

If we needed to form a committee and do some of those things, absolutely.

Right.

Subcommittee, I guess.

Or a parliamentarian. We have a parliamentarian. We have a parliamentarian. Yeah, yeah. Page 3. Article 4, election of officers. There is one change here that's not a change or a difference between my document and Catherine's. It's a change in when we do officers. It says that officers shall be elected at an annual organization meeting in the month of January. Historically, we've been doing that in October. And I think Catherine put that in her drafts. I picked it up and I was fine with it, but maybe... something that we need to think about and make sure we're okay with that.

Commissioners will change on this committee in September. Is that right? Correct. How about they move it back to September meeting instead of October because you won't know who's going to be on here. Right. That's what we do on commission. Right. September meeting, you have all your election of officers and that type of stuff. That's my own hesitation on October.

Right. So do we just want to omit January and put September?

Yeah. Okay.

Now, right below that, there are two short paragraphs that I added that Catherine didn't have in her document. It's just about the election process and it just says the current presiding chairperson or chairperson selected by majority vote will serve as chairperson for the election. And then the second added little paragraph there says whoever is nominated and gets the new office, basically, will take office upon adjournment of the annual organization meeting. In other words, their term starts once that meeting adjourns. Now, let's go to page 4. Section 7, Attendance. I had a little bit of a concern about how we deal with that. I think it's a good provision that Catherine had. I love it. But I'm not sure... that there's any authority to kick somebody off the commission other than by the county mayor is it legal yeah that's the same thing well we talked we did talk about that last time um and so it's like well i don't know if it is or isn't uh we could do two or three things about this little wording i guess is and we could ask the county attorney uh or uh just leave it and if we try to do that it's not legal obviously it's not legal the county mayor does appoint the positions we know that um and i'm not really sure if once the county mayor's made an appointment if he can undo it i don't know you do you know have any idea process to that well i haven't looked into that okay i know county commission can remove one of us county commission can for cops I don't think we have the authority to kick anybody off this commission ourselves because it is a mayoral appointment. But nonetheless, I think it is a good idea that if we have people that are taking the seat and not showing up and doing the job, we would like to replace them. I want people to come and participate. So I would like to have that provision. And I don't know... How would be the best way to deal with wording on that at this point?

Could we refer to county commission in the event that somebody misses three meetings? That's a good idea. I think it needs to be addressed.

Instead of bypassing the mayor, though, I don't think we need to go straight to county commission. We should. Go to the mayor. If we just struck the last part of the last sentence, the chairperson shall notify the county mayor and request and reword that last part, the appointment of replacement. And however you want to craft a wording, I enjoy listening to you speak. You have a good way with words, and I appreciate that. To address the situation somehow, however he sees fit.

Or maybe we just stop with notify the county mayor. Yeah.

Yeah, and that's what we could strike at. I'm at peace with that.

Yeah. Why don't we just do that? That's simple.

So it doesn't have to be brought before the county commissioners? Do county commissioners have to okay when somebody's put on this? Yes.

They do, don't they? The mayor would probably have to present that to county commission upon the time he makes his decision.

The mayor appoints commission confirms. Right.

So that's it.

Okay. All right. Okay. I added down at the bottom of page 4, section 10, for two-lot subdivisions because we have delegated that responsibility to And I know it became an issue about a year or two ago. I forgot when exactly. And we spent a lot of time trying to figure out were we doing the right thing or not and do we have the authority to do it. So I thought, well, let's just put it in our bylaws. That way it's covered. So I did add that in, especially just covering that delegation of authority. And that goes on over to page five.

No, I'm just seeing how it ends. Okay.

Also on page 5, I added section 11, minutes, which we do anyway. I think the document I was working with had that, so I left it in there. And then section 12, likewise, was something I took out. I used Haywood County's bylaws as sort of my straw man to start this. And they had those two things in there, so I just threw them in too. And otherwise, everything that I... have not talked about in this document is exactly the same as it was in Catherine's document.

David, go back over the very first one you went over, because I think we had a lot of confusion going on about what you were reading from the top until you got those other copies handed down.

Right. The first thing was on page 2, section 5. I just changed wording a little bit on how the travel reimbursement is handled. Right.

Page 2, Section 5, top of the page.

Yeah. Section 5, compensation. I just reworded that a little bit about how the reimbursement for expenses takes place. I just put in that it's based on the prevailing policy of Jefferson County. That way, if the policy changes, it's still covered by their policy.

We changed, and the next thing we changed after Section 5.

It was right below it, Section 1, Officers. I added the phrase, and any additional officers it seems appropriate from time to time. That was added. Okay. Well, that's what I'm going to say.

and then the next thing we change would be just the wording in Article 4, Section 1, striking January and putting September correct.

Now that is a change to this draft. The others are already in there that we talked about. I think we have two changes to this document that have been discussed. One is to change January to September, and the other is to truncate the sentence about notifying the county mayor just to stop right there and don't put the rest of that sentence in.

I have one correction. You're assigning the two lot subdivisions. Stephanie cannot disapprove of that.

Okay.

She can either approve or send the... She either approves or sends to us or the Planning Commission. She...

Okay.

There's no disapproval. And you should have... Usually there's a statement in there that if she deems a... if she is uncomfortable at any time with a plat, she can refer it. I have authority to do that in other counties. And there are some I look at and I'm like, I'm not touching it. It's either a political issue, like the one about the sheds. I would not have touched that one. And I think I even said, you got my note afterward, don't approve that. Well, it should have been referred here. Anything that has any kind of political or... Even if it meets all... Even if it meets... No, I would...

If it's heavily contentious, I guess.

If it's a contentious... Yeah. Because it could be challenged based on the contentious aspect of it.

Yeah, but I go back if it meets all requirements. Well, she's using her discretion. I know. I know, but that's pretty much cut and dry at checkboxes. if it meets the requirements or not. I mean, there's not a hard gray area there. I'm talking about subdivisions. I'm talking about subdivisions.

I mean, it's pretty much cut and dry. It's laid out. I think it's still a good mechanism for whoever's in the staff position. Kick that to a body. Because in the scenario you're describing, it would still get approved. Legally, it would have no reason to be disapproved. But at least it's like, look, everybody has looked at this. It does meet the requirements, whether you like it or not. So, and she can use, or whoever can use their discretion.

I just, if you get the checklist and it meets it, irregardless how you feel, I feel, or he feels, it meets it. I've had to sit here and vote for some.

I didn't agree with them.

And what you're doing in that, if they come in week one of the month, you're holding whoever's doing what they're doing up another month's time for something that's already in black and white. And that's where you've got to lay political bias aside and do what's in black and white. If it meets the requirements, it meets them, whether Austin's for it and Brown's against it or not.

Yeah. Usually the other way around.

But you're not going to be building those.

Right. I mean, it's going to be. Somebody's got a farm or cutting off a section for a kid for a house.

And, again, you're making it harder on the landowner, harder on a man or woman who's trying to get something done.

But, like, in this scenario, we're talking about one instance, and in that instance, the staff did approve it. Right.

It came up about hypothetical future situations.

Yeah.

If it's in black and white, we don't need to see it.

Well, and I think maybe this is something that the staff may look at that and go, hmm.

And it's her discretion.

I don't feel that it actually means this. Absolutely. But maybe you look at it and go, actually, I think it does.

Right. And if she or whoever in the future is in that position is at that point, then by all means bring it to us.

Yeah, and that's all this says, my understanding of it.

Yeah, it's just an out. Yeah. And again, she can't disprove one.

Yeah.

Right. Now, the deal is, and the state law science guy, she brings it up.

I mean, really.

Sorry.

There's just instances where a staff person may not feel comfortable approving stuff. Absolutely. And the way this is written, it's like someone could, you know, just because she doesn't feel comfortable approving stuff...

something and i wanted to have that out absolutely it needs to be there i'm just saying though if and if it's if it's cut dry you brought in the whole political aspect and who it's going to offend this that and the other stuff and that's that's off the table if it's cut and dry it's getting dry yeah no matter who's for it or who's against it if it meets what the requirements set in place If we don't go with them, what's the use in having them?

And therein lies the reason that the Planning Commission has authority for sub-region. It's not a political decision. That would be the County Commission. So it rests with the Planning Commission. Sorry.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think we're spinning our wheels on stuff that we don't need spinning on.

Well, you're not opposed to this, are you? I do have a follow-up.

I'm opposed to... Have them bring it before us if it's cut and dry. She said if it had political connotation to it, it should come here. It should come here if she's unsure.

And politics ain't got nothing to do with it. That is not in here. So ultimately it's the discretion of whoever holds that position. That was great on paper.

Thank you. So basically we need to remove the disapprove and what happens if it doesn't meet the requirements when they turn it in?

Isn't that a disapproval? She's going to disapprove it to the person presenting it because it doesn't meet our requirements and they've got to fix it.

No, she's saying it's just like I do. I'll make a list of things that they omitted. And you guys approve it on these conditions that these conditions are met. And then it's approved.

Most people would come in, Stephanie would go, hey, you didn't check this or that. And they're going to go, oh, let me go fix that. Most people are going to do that. If someone were to be forceful, she can't say, no, I'm not approving this at that point. She'd go, okay.

go before the Planning Commission and at that point you're going to get told the same thing absolutely there also is a proviso in the zoning ordinance where I mean in the sub regs and this is in the state law that for plat is presented that meets the requirements and it's not approved or disapproved within 60 days it's automatically approved yes so and that that is to ensure that nobody just gets one and sits on it it goes through the process but and it you know let's say that there was ever a challenge about something that challenges to she's uncomfortable with something that challenges of this board not a staff person. That's where... That's the reason I think if anything is... If you and them had said the word politics, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Did that trigger you, Brian? It didn't. It wasn't politics. It wasn't politics.

But she also should not be. She should not be taking grief over something that's a hot issue. And we try to have her back for the most part. Right, right. That's why if there's an issue that's... Anything that's a hot issue or combative or et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, that decision then should be made by this board and let that set first. I agree.

Can I suggest a wording change then on this? Absolutely. Can we put political in there?

No. You're pushing me.

see how you feel about this if we where there's a semicolon at the top of that page it says county subdivision regulations are met semicolon how about if we change that semicolon to a period and strike and approve or disapprove the plants the next sentence then says if approved this is what she does will that work yes okay Okay.

We're just going to go put periods. Let's try it.

That was simple enough. Less is more. I'm down. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that sounds great. It does. We've addressed this.

support up a point somebody comes in brings a plant it is woefully it had she gives the list they they just listen six things they fix three and that's right bring it to this body and have to deny it yeah you reach a point where just back and forth and back and forth with some of these surveyors you know how that works so if she does not take an action to approve or disapprove in 60 days then you run afoul of the state law that it's automatically approved so if she takes it you work with it for one month after one month the next month put it on their agenda okay

If she gives them something to correct and they don't correct it, though, then is that not... Does the time start from the time she tells them instructions? It's submittal. Okay.

It's submittal. Now, and I'll tell you this. There are people who say it's submittal. There are people who say it's the action of planning commission. That is a hotly debated... Well, submittal. It's actually not... Submittal, correct me if I'm wrong, would be when they write a check.

they've got to pay $100 to submit it. It's like when they hand it in, she says, well, I can't take this because you've got to do this, this, this, and this. Now when you get that fixed, bring it back. I'll take your check. I mean, what are my thoughts?

And most of the surveyors here that I see are doing a good job. Yeah. There are surveyors that won't put anything. And I tell you, 90% of the time they're elderly and they're still doing work. And they can't do a digital copy. There are just times that they'll, it goes back and forth, back and forth, and back and forth. If it goes back one more time, I give it to the planning commission to say, deny it without prejudice. And then they can say, when you correct this, we'll approve it. We'll approve it.

We've got... I'm going to kind of reign this in since we've talked a little bit about it. We've got the copies. We've seen some stricken language. We've seen some changed language. Does everybody have theirs marked where the changes have been made?

Well, I've got two copies, and I can't get one of them right.

Okay. Different, but they're not the one we're dealing with. No, they're not. They're not. I can tell from here they're not.

But we can get a copy made, and I'll take it with me. Yeah.

This one, and this has the stricken and the changes made. David, I think it's a good piece of work. I like what I'm seeing. Would you be willing to let us get these copies made, have them, and then take them to next meeting? Absolutely.

In fact, I'll make the changes in the original draft that we talked about tonight and give them to Stephanie to redistribute.

Okay. Everybody a piece of that?

Yep. I am, as long as everybody's got all their... It's all on the table now, right? Any concerns or anything with this? Like we just need a clean document to present and approve?

Yeah, I think this is a good piece of work. If something comes up, I'll let you know in June. I think you're a good piece of work.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we postpone final approval on the bylaws of Jefferson County Regional Planning Commission until next month, in which time I will present a new draft of the document with the three changes we discussed today. Okay. Second. Or you're going to ask for a second.

Yeah, I'll ask for a second.

You're learning often. Stick with it. We have a proper motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second. Is there any further discussion? I hope not. One more outburst. One more item. One more outburst. Thank you.

You're on the way out.

Being that, I'll open favor of postponement until June. Let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

Down to item V. Five. Any other business.

Is today really my sister's birthday? Yeah.

Happy birthday.

We don't have a cake for you.

Thank you.

I know you could sing. Not me. You want a cake? That's a bad suggestion.

We do have one thing to show the group, so if you would allow Stephanie a moment to go retrieve that.

Oh, you see. Sue, happy birthday.

Thank you.

This isn't a cake.

I love to get, you know. I love it.

I know this is a little bit out of order, but I'd like to ask a quick question. Item A being the final prior approval for Ponderosa, it was postponed last month, postponed it again this month.

If it's postponed, it's until they get their stuff together. It's not tabled. So we wait until they get everything together.

But you were talking about 60 days from the day they submitted it, no action is taken. It becomes, it's passed without action.

but they have taken action first part of it isn't actually it's it's we're good and they'll come back in June if they're ready okay yeah so the document she's bringing we struggled with

that one the one from okay let me I'll bring up again

read it if I print it because of the size they obviously are deficient in a number of that was the one that they've been submitted and will be on the agenda for the June meeting

Well, we've not determined that yet because there are unbuildable lots under the water of the lake. So what happened is, the whole acreage under the water. This was a survey that was done in 2009 that was never recorded. So when he purchased it, he purchased it from somebody that it was only done in a deed. It wasn't recorded. And now he's buying it and wants to subdivide it to all these unbuildable lots in the hopes, I guess, of selling it to the other property owners because TVA won't give them a dock if they don't own underneath the water now. I've got two of them.

This is the... I actually had a buddy that went through something. You know Todd's lacing. He had to do the same thing.

This is... That's the other one, and I can't find it. Everything outside of the purple line is underwater. And so I've talked to... I talked to an attorney with TVA and I talked to another surveyor who has worked with some of these issues. There actually is property totally in the water that there were people who owned to the center line of the river and their deeds went out there even though TVA, when they inundated it, they didn't totally go away. So if you don't have technically meet certain criteria, you can't get a dock. So the intent, at least what the two individuals I spoke with, their opinion was that this was being done in an effort to subdivide off lots totally under water and then sell them to adjacent property owners so they could get a dock. It's as far as, does it meet your subdivision regulations? There's no road frontage, there's no access, there's no sewer, there's no water. Our role is to build buildable lots. So, Sandy and I have discussed this on numerous occasions. I've made lots of phone calls.

And like I said, the last two transactions for this property were done on a deed referencing this old survey that was never recorded. So they went through a title company And the title company did the deed, the last one.

It's never been recorded.

So the original has it, but has this?

These have been recorded. This is where he bought it. And this is where they bought it. And it was referencing this survey with all the writing saying it's being particularly described.

We just wanted you guys to be aware of it.

Obviously, if it's not recorded, then it's not legal, is it?

Well, that's, I mean, two different surveyors, or two different attorney's offices have done it.

This one is, and this is from 2009. Those deeds have been recorded, and they're referencing this old survey. Oh, okay. That wasn't recorded. That wasn't recorded. Doesn't Cherokee just go with the high water line? It does, and so does Washington Bar.

You know, when I talked to the attorney that works with TDA, he said that all of this was moot because when TDA inundated, there were federal legislation that it was condemned. For water purposes. And so none of it was applicable. But he was going to look around TVA and talk to some people.

So TVA is giving permits for docks based on this? No.

No. But they also deny people docks.

They're denying some of these people docks because they don't want to enter the water.

Because they don't?

Because they don't? Well, hold on now. That's what he's saying.

No, they don't own it under the line.

That's what this property is.

So their property doesn't necessarily touch the lake.

Yes, that's the deal. It stops short of the water.

Yeah. Well, according to this, it owns the 1002, which is the high water mark.

Right. Again, we just wanted you to be aware of it. We don't want you to do anything. You know, from the standpoint of a plat, they don't meet any kind of your criteria based on zoning or based on zoning criteria and sub-rent criteria to approve them. They can't be approved.

It sounds political to me.

Somebody's trying to charge somebody who's done bought water property. So here would be my thoughts on this. So if this guy paid $1,000 for all his underwater property and he's dividing it in lots, he can only take that $1,000 and divide it by however many lots, and that's all he can charge.

He paid $100,000 for it.

For that?

Yeah.

And how many lots he got? But he bought more than just this.

No, he just bought what was under the water. But how far out does it go? All that shows. It's just a stone parcel.

I don't think we can stipulate what he sells it for.

And I don't think we can prove it either. It fell under water.

This one is the one that really scared me. Also, you cannot represent somebody else's property and record it without their signature. So from a number of different standpoints, these do not meet the criteria for submittal. So they're not... That's what we're basing that on, but we wanted to make you guys aware of it. See, if you had ever seen anything like this or been aware of anything like this as it occurred, I've never seen this.

I actually have. A friend of mine bought a piece of property and then found out he could not have a dock there. He had to buy a piece of property that was underwater so they could have a dock.

What was Todd at?

It was over near the sheds.

Yeah, at Money Creek.

And at least one surveyor that I spoke to said that was the reason for doing this. That there would be an attempt to go to these property owners and sell it to them and combine it with their lots. And the surveyor I spoke to said they had done it before one line at a time. Right. One line at a time. And then you have the person's signature, etc. That one's got jeans.

So that's a cove on two sides, right?

This one. Who checks the pens on that? That's stupid. But it's being done. And there's money changing hands.

How much do they pay you? A lot.

A lot under water. I would feel better.

Thank you for sharing. Could we even approve it though if it violates all of our If it was being combined with adjacent property but that's not what these are doing. Whoever it is wants it divvied up. And then they're going to go and try.

And if he wants to contact all the property owners to buy one of the joints.

Really have to do it the other way around.

So if someone who didn't own property bought one of these tracks, somebody didn't own adjacent property and they bought one of these tracks and they wanted to anchor a houseboat on top of their property. Lake City. These houseboats are all over that thing and they've got property. They run electrical lines to them. Underwater cable. In their city.

And they're not like in a marina where, what is that? That's a boat. That's a house. It's a houseboat.

A houseboat. Or boat house. Boat house. They've got docks on the house for the boat to pull into, for the jet ski to pull into. And they run an electrical cable from the utility. You can pick 100 or 200 amps. And a 200 amp is $20,000 to get a drop put to your houseboat.

And so you own the land on the lake and you're looking at somebody else you see the water This double in different places.

I'm sure us Boston State Columbia River Gorge. I'm sitting out there. There's good houses. I mean houses built on boats River goes up down houses go up down garage doors puller boats right in remote grab your boat right in the garage

Sure do. I wonder if I can buy a bunch of that lake bottom property.

What was it somebody said they gave you a price for how much they paid for it?

As I brought the deed, he paid $100,000 for that property under the water.

He paid $100,000 for all this?

For all that that's under the water.

And the deed you've got is this recorded, the whole thing?

Written out.

Okay. It's not one lot? No, it's...

Two tracks.

Two tracks. Maybe it's the only way we can afford to buy land now. I think we could. I think we need to get Catherine to draw up where she disagrees with it and just give it to them. Yeah.

I thought we had a good meeting. If you believe that, I've got a piece of property on Norris Lake I'll sell you.

Thank you all for showing this to us. I don't know how we move forward with something like this. I mean, if they've submitted...

You'd have to deny it because it wouldn't meet the regulations, and then it puts it back in their ballpark to figure out how to do it.

To figure it out, but we've got to give them guidance on how to meet whatever they need to meet.

One lot at a time. One lot at a time. Yeah, that's not even an original.

I wouldn't want to prevent anyone that ordered it. I mean, if I live there and I wanted to buy it, yeah. I don't want to prevent that, but I also don't want to violate our rules. Yeah, rules.

You know, again, if they came in, like, brought lot 25 and 25L and combined them, then the determination would be, yes, it's a two-lot subdivision. Here's a great example. Right. Stephanie can approve. Yeah. Stephanie, you can.

That might be too political. Yeah.

It sounds like it.

But that is the okay way to do it.

So that would be the guidance.

Why do they have to have that in order to be able to have a dog?

Because the government got involved.

Oh, that's why it doesn't make sense.

Yeah, money. It's political, Brian.

Some of those houses have dogs.

Some of those houses have dogs. Oh, nobody has a dog without a dog in that town.

There's nothing black and white on this one that I can see.

No, no, no, no, no. And I don't mean, I mean, has anyone asked you to approve it?

He wants it approved. That's what he wanted me to find out because I told him I couldn't sign it. It was under the water.

Yeah, and that's where we need your guidance, Madam Planner. You know, we actually toss back and forth.

Should we put them all on your agenda and have them all tonight?

Just tell them if I get flood insurance, I'll go do it. How many? All of them. How many are there?

31. 34. There's the digital one. And why they all came in the month of May.

There's 32 on this one.

I guess the water started coming up somewhere.

figured out what he had.

I mean, they surveyed it while the water was low pool.

Well, they did, and this was 2009.

Oh, well.

Well, the water leaves are every year. They can survey. Half of it is on dry land now. This one here's got 42 lots.

Yeah. But they can do it one lot at a time.

They can do it one lot at a time.

As long as the property owner knows the water, he's willing to buy it. Well, that's what they would be doing is combining it.

Yeah, it would be a two-lot subdivision. You would be eliminating the lot line. Why do they have lots under the water anyway?

Well, the water wasn't there first.

Well, the old deeds went to the center line of the river. Oh, I got you. So that is the... I got you.

So they condemned up to 1002. Then the usable land was above the 1002, so people bought those.

It hits that dormant for years. I mean, in the 80s, you couldn't give away like property. I know.

Now you can't afford to buy it.

You can't afford to buy it.

Yeah, you're just kidding.

Okay, that's a good thing to close on. So, Catherine, you're going to work with Stephanie on this. It's tough getting things ready for her on what's the best way to move forward.

With the tube on?

With this whole deal.

Again, I've been asking a lot of questions. I've called everybody I know.

You talked to Brandon Garrett, didn't you?

I called him. He never called me back.

It's only going to be on Douglas. Yeah. That's the only lake it's on because they bought the property to the high water mark everywhere else.

Yes, sir. I mean you don't have this trouble that way.

And something like Watauga Lake, there's no private property on the lake. There are no houses on Watauga Lake. Right.

Dale Hall is the same way.

Yeah, yeah. So I guess they just treated everyone different.

But Douglas is the only one that they didn't buy the property. All the rest of the lakes, you only own them down to the high water mark. Cherokee, Norris, Barlau, and Teleco, yada, yada. All the TVA chain lakes, they're owned down.

Okay, so. Okay. Catherine and Stephanie are working on this, and they're going to come back to us what they come up with. Anything else you'd like to present?

Any other fun topics?

Being no other business, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to have second. Second. All those in favor can stand.