Board of Zoning Appeal & Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

session agenda. Next item is the chairman. So everything now county planning commission order package changes or additions being none a motion to approve. So move, Mr. Chairman. Have proper motion. We have a second. Have a second. All those in favor say I.

I. All those opposed. Motion passed.

And we didn't have any citizens input for planning commission either. So we'll move on down to item A under new business. Variance of the Jefferson County, Tennessee subdivision regulation for lot with and set back for two lots of 1674 till road tablet by Timothy and Angela Lowry. Someone here speak that you would step to the podium. State your name and your address. Tim Lowry and that's 1674 Tilly Road and you're asking for a variance of roughly 25 ft on that.

Correct. Yep. Kathine, you had a chance to look at that. I'm not saying I did um um as a variance from the subdivision regulations, you need to state the hardship that you can't meet and therefore you're asking for a variance from that regulation going across a a almost a ravine type and not enough property on the back side of it to really uh have good uh septic mature. um that if that's um his stated reasons

um then that needs to be included in your motion for approval or grand.

Can we amend that now? Miss Bow said you can just add it your motion. Okay, we'll do that. Does anyone else have any questions about this? Do we have a map for this one? Yes, the front one. It's got the in your

So, you're needing it for septic. Yeah, they got more room up front than you do have in the back. Time you get a house on it in the back, it'd be you'd have to pump it back up the hill. I thought we and there's there's one existing there want to add another the side of it. Correct. We 150 foot is what it's supposed to be. We're cut that down 25 foot on these. I make a motion to approve due to the hardship of the septic system. The bar. Okay. We have a proper motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second discussion. I I have a question. Is it okay to ask?

Yes, ma'am. We will have to move on this. This will be part of the discussion though. Okay. Um, is your variance the width of building set back? Cuz your width is there's no water on this property. So on our you have to be 150t wide. It's set back without water. Okay. So that's why So that's the issue. Okay. Yeah. And he said 124 and change and I think 127. Yeah. Does that satisfy you? Okay. Discussion. All those in favor approve the motion by saying I. I. All those opposed. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Moving down to item B. Final PL final plat approval for three lots off Muddy Creek Road by Sharon Chester. Okay, Stephanie, she she's not contacted you. Okay, I'll share this and open up do. She touched base with me about six days ago. I guess that's where they last week when she said she still have to go get some more stuff done. If she didn't show up tonight, she hadn't. So, yeah, I just want to postpone this one. I think it'll be her motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone item B to the November meeting. Motion we have a second. I have a second. Any discussion on this? All those in favor of postponement of item B say I.

I. All post. Thank you. And I'm going to I'm going to pause for just a second and uh I'm going to just in case something were to come up and I might have to to leave a little early that if the reason arises and we have new board members and this is the new year and I meant to do this to start a meeting. We got carried away about going on business. But we need to elect officers and stuff for this new year that we have. So we'll need to elect the chair, vice chair, and secretary. So I'm going to pause here and I'm going open it up for nominations for chair. Thank

I nominate Brian Morgan for chair. I think he does a fine job. I appreciate that. Any more nomination? Mr. Chairman, I move nomination cease. Nomination cease. All those in favor say I. I. Oppos. Motion passes. We'll open for the nomination for vice chair. Mr. Chairman, I nominate David Nelson for the position of vice chairman. We have a nomination. Do we have any more nominations? Vice chair. Make a make a motion that nomination cease.

All those in favor of David Del, vice chair say I. I. Now nomination for secretary. Mr. Chairman, I nominate Miss Sue for the position of secretary. Mr. Springfield, do you accept nominations? David, I should have asked you that as well, but that um if I am not able to no longer be on the committee, y'all would have to reelect another secretary. Right,

ma'am? At the time you decided you need to do something different, we would uh in that next meeting we would vote nominate votes on as secretary. Um what if I decline? You can she can withdraw her name from draw her name from consideration and we can withdraw my name. Any more nomination for secretary? Mr. Chairman, I'll nominate Mark Chambers for position of secretary. You accept? Yeah, I'll accept it. Any more nominations? I think I've used all of mine up. Okay. And we nominate seats over here. All those in favor Mark Chambers for secretary elect saying I

I post. Okay. We can get back on business. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Question. What about parliamentarian? Does this body ever elected parliamentarian? Uh John Neil was the standing. I don't know if he had that title by name, but uh he well he was of course the county commission. He was the county commission and he just filled those shoes with these this board. So if it's a pleasure board to elect parliament there, we can do that like

Okay. Okay. We'll open it as back up nominations for parliamentarian volunteers. [laughter] I I I'll do it. I'm still learning it, but I'm I'm willing to make a try at it. Yeah. Fair enough. Austin willing to to fill those shoes. Will will somebody nominate Austin? I will nominate Austin Brooks for parliamentary. Okay. Are there any more nominations?

Okay. Being none, all those in favor of Alen Brooks serving as parliamentarian saying I. I post. Thank you for taking Okay, moving on down the agenda with it C now. Final plan approval for Woody estate phase three lock 17 uh 17 lots, pardon me, of Laura Bowling Loop, Strawberry Plains by Daniel Stacy. Is anyone here speaking on her behalf? He was in office today. He was supposed to be here. Okay.

Him not being here and to be considered of our time and his interest. A motion post motion to postp discussion on that. We're on item C. Ce those in favor of postponing item C to the November meeting saying I I. All opposed passes. Item D was pulled.

D was pulled. Just going to move on to item E. Final P approval. Four lots off Nes Fair Road, New Market. Okay. My my name's Billy Crane. I live at 4548 Cherokee Drive. Alex,

I have two extra maps here if you just want to look at them. And I got one with all my signatures on it, too.

I did have a couple comments. Uh, one is there's a overhead power line that starts to modify the property. Um, depending on the voltage of that overhead electric, it needs to have an easement associated with it and it is dependent on the voltage of the line, especially since that's your going to be your front yard setbacks. Um, I think that that needs to be addressed. And then the the signature block for the county road superintendent was omitted. to certify that the roads are appropriately represented. So, those were my only two comments. Well, I know there's a power pole in the in the middle of one of these.

Yeah, one of these lots, but it's kind of I mean, it's way away from the road. Uh it's nowhere near the the road. Well, that's just it. It could be close. Uh, we want to make sure that no one builds a structure within a safe distance from Oh, no, no, no. The the house sites that's drawn on my map here or way away from the power pole. Um, it's it still should be within an ease, but are you going to build the houses? You going to construct the houses? I'm going to be these three oneacre lots off to my kids. Okay. And we're all going to have houses on it. There is an easement on the property already to access the back acre lot here on this map. Uh

25T power. Yeah. And I'll go ahead and feed the power. That is a 76 foot line going through there and it's 15t off fire line. Kind of common knowledge. Oh, okay. Yeah, I don't see any issues with any of that type of stuff. Trans. Oh, it's going to they're going to be probably well over 100t away from that power line. [laughter] as Appalachin or Appalachin way to get to their stuff, but doesn't just have to be 15 foot. And you would like that stated on here?

It should be stated. I I never look at ownership or they're creating legal lots of record. You can any subsequent title holder could decide to move the house elsewhere and it's a safety issue. Okay. And we need to get Joe block on you just so yes Mr. I have a question. Remember I knew I thought we had to have house shown on the plane. We don't have it's not on the spot on the chair. He does have those on there where he has his signature block. Okay. Thank you.

That's your that topic come along before we got good question. Anyone else have questions? house. I got one. Yes, sir.

I think that's ridiculous because I do this and not apply for a second. So where that house is might not work. So I don't know whether to put a house. The the the reason for that and you other members correct me if I'm wrong is just so that there is ample space to build a house on that lot. That was to protect the property owner from people who purchased lots and there was no building side on it. Well, there again, building side don't mean nothing. You don't have that place building side to me is where the se is. So, you know, when you put a house out there, somebody buys that say that's where house is going to go and I have to come back and tell them say, "No, your house isn't going back. come closer.

I appreciate your time speaking to it. Okay. And I think we've got several comments here. So, um I know you have an amendment. This was the only thing I was considering. I agree with you, but you do have a requirement that you adopted in the subreg amendment. We did that requires you to certify certain square footage that has the appropriate grade for a house combination and there may be multiple spaces on that lot that it could accommodate that house. They just have to show that there is one, right? But um is is that what was done or was the actual house location? No, it was just to show that there was a building on. So that is okay. Yes,

correct me if I'm wrong, but that's okay. That's where we're at. So yeah, that was my understanding was that you're showing that you do have an available house building site. But to Tom's point, if you have a house site and then you don't have the space for proper sewer and se uh uh lines, drain field, then you actually don't really have a building site unless you have the ability to hook to sewer. So exactly. That may be something for us to consider. That's something to consider moving forward with. We can't really do anything about that now, but it is good discussion. David, did you have something? No.

Okay. So, you can get the block from Joe on the roads and you can go back and add showing 15T off. So, who who I need to uh probably Marty Mills just talked with Marty. Is that the guy that's already signed mine? He's done them. He's done already signed it. He signed it. Yeah. And again, I hadn't seen the one you have. Yeah, he's all my signature done signed mine. Marty signed it. She was just wanting to show 15 foot that line off that power line [snorts]

and it could be stated in the note section. So there they don't have to delineate it, but they need to do one or the other. So I need to take it back to Marty and have him put Actually, I thought Mr. Garrett seal your PL Garrett Garrett. So you actually can't only Mr. Garrett if he has sealed it can make up any changes to the plan itself. Right. take it to Eddie and have him make a notation on the side that there's a 15 foot utility using it for existing power lines. That's all you got to do. Eddie can type it right in on there and then you record it. Just type it in on here anywhere on the cover in your notes. Oh, okay. Just on the note side. You got to have the text in there.

You can have her type it right in and then you can take it and record it. You'll have to go by and see Joe and get that put on. Who's Joe? I don't know who Joe passes for the county. His office is right under Oh, he's under here. Yeah. Oh, okay. So, it's all done right here once I get Garrett to put that in the notes. Yeah. Okay. But we'll approve if we decide to approve contingency of those two things being done and then you can show the staff and come back in those things taken care of. Any other questions? I'm just going to make a motion to approve with those two

additions. We got you proper motion. We have a second. Yeah, we have a second. Have any further discussion? Being none, all those in favor of approving contingent upon the rightway on the fire line and the signature block. No, superintendent say I. All oppos. Thank you.

Uh Chad second. Jix second. And then with item F on the agenda, site plan review for Love Travel Stop expansion 1058 deep springs road, Dandridge by Love Travel Stops. We have someone there.

Good evening, Commission. Um Brad Peek with Lov's Travel Stops uh 10601 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City. And then I have uh Sarah Harville with CSO 175 Montro West Avenue is our civil engineer.

Miss Bowen, you had to look this up to some degree. I have um um the site plan itself was not sealed by a licensed professional. Um that's an engineer. I'm sure you've got a professional engineer uh approved the doc I mean prepared the document. I just didn't see his seal a fixed to it on any of the do any of the pages that I looked at. Um uh I think there were subsequent pages that the um size of the document didn't email well. Um so I think the egress egress ingress egress points were identified on subsequent pages and um I did look earlier and my last item was provide dimensions of travel lanes and those are all on there. Okay. So the only one I had was uh prior to issuance of a building permit and uh professional engineer seal should be a fixed in the document.

Okay. Well, she's our engineer, so we'll we'll get her seal on it. Um like to see women engineers. Do we have any other questions that I'm asking the board on this plan? if I had a chance to look it over. And

well, I had a question about the ingress and egress there coming off of the ramp off of either ramp. It really don't matter, but but if you're coming if you're headed west at the end of the ramp, it may be approaching T DOT about a dail lane from there to the ingress and egress if there's enough room. And the reason I say that, we anybody that travels that road a lot knows that as the trucks back up in the evening, there's always a tail of the truck sticking out and we're sitting in traffic. We're waiting and there there's the gas pumps and it's like then you got somebody 20 cars back that kind of gets antsy and then they're getting on the wrong side of the road and we're coming up through there and it's just a safety issue. I just kind of had in my mind I looked at it today just sort of glanced as I went through there. Is there enough room on the state rideway from the end of the off-ramp to like basically have a del lane to be able to turn and make it to the ingress and egress without actually getting over in the county roads? I mean,

sure. I don't know. Just that's just a just a thought for discussion.

Sure. And we can we can definitely speak to them on that. I would say that with the the change in design here um that we have created um an entry lane that almost can immediately separate the trucks from the cars. And so, you know, currently as you come into the site, it's everybody just comes in together, right? And it's it's that real wide opening. And so we've kind of created uh a separation here now where the trucks will be able to come in, continue to to pass over and and the cars will take that left and get out of the way. And then if a truck doesn't need fuel, there's an additional access further north that they can, you know, pull into the property, they can also circle back and get fuel in that lane as well. So hopefully those uh those new uh changes to access will alleviate that problem, but we can definitely reach out to uh to T DOT as well.

Just a thought. I don't know. There might not be enough room. There may be utility poles, but it just looked like there might be enough room for a Okay, we will make that note and we will approach them. There too all these extra parking places [laughter] are. Yeah. Well, we we we try to keep them from parking on those on the ramps or any anywhere to say and and with the additional property that we've acquired and um you know, we are taking this site up to 152 truck parking spots. So, hopefully that will help alleviate uh the trucks wanting to park on ramps and and side roads. Mr. Chairman,

yes, sir. I move to appro uh move to approve item F contingent upon the uh sealed from the licensed professional being fixed upon the document. Okay, we have proper motion. Do we have a second? Second. Have a second. Any further discussion on this? All those in favor of approving item map contingent upon this engineer seal that no saying I. I. All opposed. Thank you. G has been pulled, Stephanie. Correct. Yes, that's correct.

Okay. So, item G has been pulled from the agenda. down to H. And you should have in front of you a copy of the resolution amending the zoning resolution of Jefferson County, Tennessee to reflect and clarify jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the Jefferson County Board of Zoning Fields and the powers and duties of the zoning office.

Mr. Chairman, uh members of the planning commission, um uh and I'm I'll apologize to your your planner. She she just got this this evening. Uh but I want to go ahead and while she's looking at it and kind of take you through why that's in front of you. The [clears throat] county uh Board of Zoning Appeals was involved in an appeal by East Tennessee Land Development uh regarding a uh use determination uh made by uh Tim Seals. Um the a motion was filed. The case has been set for trial for November the 13th. We've done depositions, etc. A motion was filed called for judgment on the pleadings. I won't get into the specifics or weeds on that, but basically it says, "Hey, the pleadings are closed. X we win." So, uh, the claim of East Tennessee Land Development was that the board of zoning appeals in, uh, the resolution which was drafted in 1998, uh, did not specifically provide the board of zoning appeals with the authority to um, decide that appeal or consider the appeal of Mr. Asbury of Tim Seal's decision. It's a very narrow ruling. They did not on the merits. The court did not say the use is permitted. The court did not say it was not. The court said, "Hey, Board of Zoning Appeals, you didn't have regardless." And I I obviously I mean I disagree with what the chancellor said. There's arguments for and against that particular uh decision, but based [clears throat] on that decision and based on his holding that uh the uh BZA did not have that authority under the current zoning resolution which would have been drafted in 1998. um regardless of what occurs after, whether it's an appeal or subsequent motions or whatever, I thought it

incumbent on me to at least address the court's ruling uh by proposing uh amendments to the the uh actual zoning resolution that must be considered by this body and it's only for a recommendation which would go then to the regional planning commissions of the three cities. and then ultimately to the county commission uh with respect to whether or not they should approve that. So that is why this is on your agenda. I did not believe that I needed to wait 6 to 8 months to figure out if the court of appeals thought that the chancellor was right or the county and Mr. Asbury were right. That's why this is on your uh agenda. That's why uh these amendments are uh if I will do this however you like. I can go through each of those and uh discuss uh them with you and what that amendment does. Um you will note that these uh the resolution attempts to address the powers and the authority of the BZA as well as address uh the duties of the zoning officer. and it also talks about time written notice. Um, several of those requirements now that would be in there. The only reason I did that other than just simply addressing the powers of the board were if you're going to consider the resolution, you're going to consider amendments, then by golly, you might as well consider trying to clean the whole thing up to clarify it. For instance, now if this passes in the county commission, written notification will be required to everybody to the person appealing and to the um to the to the person whose use is being appealed. So it it provides just kind of a framework. I just wanted you

guys to know that it goes into more detail than simply the powers of the board of zoning appeals, but I thought while you were at it, you might as well consider those things. You all can amend this. uh you can change this. Uh I I I would ask if possible if it's possible to get a recommendation tonight one way or the other whether it's amended or not to at least start this process to get it in front of uh ultimately the county commission in November or December um assuming they have time to do it. So uh I will do it however you want. You will note also that several sections of the 1998 resolution have been deleted uh because candidly they no longer apply. Uh for instance, the board of zoning I'm sorry, the zoning officer has zero to do with building permits because we now unlike we did in 1998, we have a building department, we have a a building official. So anyway, those kind of things I just went ahead and addressed. Um, I'm happy to do it either either way, Mr. Chairman. Um, I know that your your your planner is is is looking at it. I can field uh any any question that you guys might have while she continues to review it. Um, and if you all have questions or changes you want to make, I'm tickled to try to address that.

We'll open it up now. Anyone has a question for Mr. Yes, sir. Um, Mr. Dren, could you help us uh sort of paint a picture right now of where we are from the standpoint of determining permitted uses irrespective of this new resolution?

Yeah, I I'll well I can tell you what my position was. Um, you know, chancellor the chancellor uh with respect to my position and and the position of Mr. Raspberry's lawyers found differently, but it was my position that under the current resolution, especially under the sections called prohibited uses, that the BCA always retain the power to determine if a use is not permitted in a particular zone to be able to determine if that use is permitted or not. The argument, my argument was, you know, if if Tim Seals had never made the determination, the board would still have the authority to determine whether or not a use was permitted. He didn't uh he he didn't uh agree with that. And primarily it was based on two state statutes. Okay, there are two state statutes. one has permissive powers that a county legislative body may give the BCA and then there's another section that says the BCA has those powers just so you know. Okay, long and the short um there is a city case called Whitimmore where with respect to cities the court found this way all of those powers are permissive only that their legislative bodies must give them the ability to do those and see what the to boil it down the chancellor found that our legislative body did not give the BCA that authority. So, as it stands right now, the BCA has all the other powers it has always had, except entertaining and considering appeals of the zoning officer regarding uses that may or may not be permitted in a zone or actions that the zoning officer

may take. That's the status. Now,

then then if you factor in this resolution that's drafted, that paradigm shifts. Is that correct? Well, what would what what it would do is again and I'm I'm I'm I'm I wanted to since I was going to my my thought was if you're going to address changes with respect to the powers and the authority of the BCA, then you might as well go ahead and address legislative changes since that time that don't have anything to do with this lawsuit. For instance, um I think in the either 2020 or 2022, there was a statute that was passed that had these three requirements. BCA had to have a chair. BCA had to um do all these three things. And so I added those which were not in the ordinance, which you all did anyway, but I added them in the ordinance, the resolution anyway. So um it it it is a clarification to to ensure that there is no question 8 months from now or 6 months from now this is appealed and the BCA wins. It doesn't matter. We're back to square one. The lawsuit basically in essence kind of starts over again because the court says they did have that authority. So you would have that hearing if he rules against us. If the court of appeals rules against us at least it's been fixed. You see what I'm saying? So moving forward you would have that power and authority regarding that. I want you to understand also I inserted a paragraph which with respect to resolutions is very unusual in the preamble and that is the second paragraph. So was a position of the Jefferson County Regional Planning Commission. The BCA presently has the power to hear and decide appeals from the decisions of administrative official pursuant to these statutes. and and the zoning resolution based on a recent decision from the Jefferson County Chancery Court out of bunch abundance of caution the planning commission recommends amendments to the zoning resolution. That is unusual language to put in a resolution. But I wanted it to

for everybody to understand why that they're going to because the county commission will have the same question. Why are we considering these uh these amendments? So that's why that paragraph is in there. But if you have any questions in specifically about this, I'm tickled to try to answer them or any any any amendments. Uh if the planner um if if uh she has uh I'll do my best to try to answer them. Uh in terms of the county adopting the actions of the board of zoning appeals. Um what adopting the BZA? Right. The the actions of BCA in in this resolution that section of the

You're talking about setting out the powers of the BCA. Go ahead.

Because that is set out in the enabling legislation of Tennessee code. Um it always preempts the local ordinances [clears throat] and definitely one of those uh authorities is the appeal of decisions made by the staff or interpreta and I think that's in the same section as appeals of decisions made by the staff and also interpretations of the zoning ordinance itself. Um 13 137107 and 137109 were the or were the state statutes that we argued uh provided 109 really 107 is permissive but 109 we argued the BCA has that authority. The court relying on Whitmore in another city decision said they were all permissive and they that the that that the that the legislative body had to specifically provide those powers but I I'll have further discussion but I wanted to not dominate [laughter] let others have opportunity. Uh the only other thing I had was on um uh and you basically stipulated the Tennessee cover to do uh one thing about the BA hearings. Um

where you at? I'm sorry. Uh 11-14 the next page. Uh you say 114. Yeah. 114. I got you. That's 30 days. Okay. That 14 days is now 30 days. Well, this is my question and my question I had was if if the so the appeal if I do it on the 14th day, my question is would it be 45 days because the the BCA couldn't hear it on the on you with me on the 15th day?

It would be the 30th day. And I guess my my what I wanted to make sure was that the BTA cannot hear anything without advertising a public hearing for that item. And that's here public hearing has to be advertised 30 days a year. Well, a public hearing for zoning amendments. Zoning amendments or well not zoning amendments uh is for variances. Well and the the the and also conditional uses. Yeah. the time frame appeal of the staff's decision does not require a public hearing.

I agree. Um so with respect to if you're talking about the ver the my understanding is with if if it's an appeal or contest with respect to the zoning officials determination it would be 14 days. Okay. So you see that if I'm reading read that again you're saying that a request to the BCA has to be received at least 14 calendar days ahead of time but the notice in the newspaper is 30 but is that with the appeal for the BCA? Uh yes I think so. Yeah. Uh and it was changed by the legislature like in the last the last two legislators

in 2024. There were changes to the there were changes to the statute but it had to do with action the BCA had to take I thought within like 180 days or 120 days after receiving notice of something they had to take action on it if somebody raised something. I did not I did not see or pick up on the 30-day requirement for in other words like as I understand how late is business added to the agenda. Well, this was the first time I've ever added anything 48. I'm talking about to the BCA.

I usually my deadlines the second Tuesday and I put in the paper the Thursday of that week. So my paper it would have been in the paper the I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't I'm not aware of the 30 days. I am aware of the I know it is from municipality. Yes. Um I I agree with that. Um um and um which is not the legislature increased the time frame for notification by within the newspaper quite a bit.

I I don't I don't think you have to provide notice of a meeting for sure within 30 days. I think that can be five A public hearing regarding whether the county commission adopts an amendment to zoning is 15 days or 14 days for sure. They have to have 14 days notice prior to that. That's for the county commission to do a zoning amendment unless that's been changed. I did not see that was changed in 2024. I didn't see that changed in 20 in the 2024 statute. Maybe, but I don't know.

And I I sometimes get confused between municipalities and counties. So it may may be a little bit different for counties, but yeah, they did increase the length of time. Now, that may just be for municipalities, but we'll both count.

I I think that what I would say to you is is the the legislature did change that in 2024. There's no doubt about it. Whether or not they changed that to a 30-day, I did not see that they had changed the u notice for the hearing on a zoning appeal to 30 days. I may be wrong, but I didn't see that. I'll tell you what, if you're looking that up, that's fine with me. Uh I think Mr. Nelson may have some Oh, yeah. Go ahead, please. Do I have the floor?

All right. Um, what I would like to kind of talk through with this commission is not so much the specifics of this resolution nor the legal points, but rather conceptually where we are and where I think this is linking. Uh, when I read our zoning resolution, um, a prohibited use is prohibited unless the board of zoning appeals determines its permitted. That's the way I read our zoning resolution right now. If we take this as presented, that paradigm shift I mentioned a minute ago changes that approval authority from the BCA to the zoning officer. It specifically gives the zoning officer the ability to determine if a use is a permitted use. I am not in favor of taking that position. I think if we're trying to do what's best for our community, for the residents, I would much rather see a body of five people in the board of zoning appeals make that determination on what is a permitted use rather than one individual. So conceptually irrespective of specific language in this document I think this board commission rather or not the board is zoning appeals but planning commission right now needs to make that determination how do we want this to happen in our community and what do we think is best for our community if to to Mr. Nelson's point. If you all will look at the section one, the last sentence, the zoning official is authorized to interpret the zoning resolution and determine the applicability of provisions of the zoning resolution. They do that all the time. Um, and hang on one second. I'm

going to finish. And it says what yours says that I changed today that y'all don't have. It says and the initial determination of whether particular use are permitted in the various zoning districts. Let me tell you how this typically plays out. Somebody calls and says, "Hey, can I do X on my property?" The zoning officer is the first one on the ground and says, "Hey, look, no, you can't do it." Or, "Yeah, this is one of the 16 permitted uses in the zone. You can do it." Um, so I change that to say the initial determination. If I if I understand Mr. Nelson's concern it is he would prefer that to say of a use that is not permitted in the zone rather than simply whether something is or is I mean whether something is permitted in the zone. Um I'm not married to to either of those. Okay. I just wanted it to be clear that the first person these folks are going to call to figure out if they can do or not do something is going to be the zoning officer. They're going to call the zoning officer a hundred times out of a hundred. They're going to they're going to call the zoning office and they're going to say, "Can I do this?" A lot of times, Stephanie now go to the property and say, "That is one of the 16 uses you can do in A1 or it fits into the group of the 16 uses in A1." And then she notifies that person, says, "Hey, look, you can do it." That's typically how that starts. Um, so if if there's language that this body wants to consider in that, I'm I it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. To Mr. Nelson's point further, in every zone A1 to I2, it has that prohibited use language and it says if this doesn't if this isn't listed in the approved uses, then the only folks that can determine

whether or not is permitted or not is the BCA. if it's like a like use. I just want you to understand and again I'm not married to the language but the first person that's going to be out there to try to figure out for these property owners what's permitted and not is going to be the zoning office. And so in my and the reason I even put that in there was to clarify that when they go out there you're supposed to tell somebody does it fit here does it not fit here so that person can take whatever action they can appeal to the BCA and they can say it it is permitted but again that's why that language is I did change that to say the initial determination I understand Mr. Nelson's point. I understand what he's trying to to do and I'm again if there's language you guys have or better than that's better than mine. I had to do this as soon as I could to get it in front of you. So, uh I'm tickled. I'll look at whatever you want.

Yeah. Mr. Dinner, one one other question relative to where we are right now. In other words, status quo is the zoning officer's um accepted procedure the way I think you said it to go out and determine if a use is permitted. Is that implied authority or actual?

No, they do. I they they in my opinion based on the current ordinance, the current resolution with a 1998 plus 2000 amendment, I think the zoning officer is the administrative official that would go out there to check on that if somebody calls in now. Yes. and that zoning officer right now you think has the ability if they see a use that's not listed as a permitted use to notify that person that they think it is permitted. I think you would have to have my personal opinion is the administrative official would have to say something even if it is I don't know it needs to go in front of the BCA to be totally blunt with you. If they said that that wouldn't bother me at all. If they went out there and they said I it's not it's not within one of the 16 categories. You're going to have to take this to the BCA. That's fine with me. I I just wanted it to be clear because it's it though I believe they have that authority under the current resolution. I wanted to clarify that they could go out and do that. But however you all want to change it does not hurt my feelings one way or the other.

As long as you were able Go ahead. Sorry. As long as they're going with what is permitted specifically. Specifically it's in the zoning guidelines. Yeah. So it's black and white. It's black and white. I agree. But you're saying I think similar to what Mr. Nelson's saying is that if it doesn't fall within that that particular group or those uses then you would prefer that the zoning officer say I don't know and to bring it to the BZ that's fair I don't I don't have a pro however you want to word that go ahead say news has come before the planning commission multiple times or has the board authority bill multiple times and they've made a decision multiple times

that that is allowed if you look at pass procedure set. But but the the clean way of doing it is if it's come up that often and it's repeatedly been approved by you guys, it should actually be amended as a permitted use. Absolutely. Sure. It is permitted then. Well, it it but but the language

to clean the language up. It should be clearly stated. Now, one thing I'm a big proponent of is that the voting is a living document. if you don't amend it at least twice a year to make corrections to get it closer to uh being authentic and the way it reads the way with a high degree of clarity then you're not you're not doing a good job of it. And so if you all wanted to change that language for instance to say the initial determination of whether it fits within those categories or of that use. Is that what you're saying? No, I don't like that language either. It doesn't matter to me however you want to do.

Right. I mean and I'm not trying to wordsmith the resolution right now. I'm trying to establish what this body wants to establish as far as procedure, proper procedure. My opinion on this is I would love to see our zoning official walk out to a piece of property that has a use going on. They look at it and say, "Oh, that doesn't look like one of our listed permitted uses. This is not permitted." I want them to have that authority. I do not want them to walk out there and see something that's not a permitted use and make a determination themselves that it is a permitted use. I want that decision to be the BZA. That's what I'm after. Now, words, you know, how we word that in the document is another step in my in the process. But I think the decision that I'm after here is what do we want the authority to be? Who does the authority to make that decision lie with? The zoning official or the board of zoning appeals? In my opinion, it needs to lie with the board of zoning appeals.

And that's the way your ordinance is written now. That's what it currently says. One thing practice Excuse me. I'm sorry. No, I I I know what you're

one thing that is important to understand is how often uses change. They're they're culturally very um um change a lot. I I use as an example a video store. Uh it used to be you never heard of a video store. Then they were on every corner uh in modern day America and now they're gone. And that's been in the span of like 15 years and you don't have video stores. So there does have to be uh latitude to understand that things do change. But again, if you use your zoning ordinance as a tool, it should be it should be a to reflect the current standard.

So if you inserted not between R and permitted, if you took your original draft and and here here I did it for you. That's all right. Go ahead and just tell me. And and put the word not right there, that would between R and permitted. Yes, I agree. I see what you're saying. All you have to say the the zoning officer has the ability to determine if it's not a permitted use. Not the uses are not permitted in the various zoning districts. Yes. I don't have a problem with that if you guys are good with that. That's up to you. Making that change.

So everybody understands section one 10.1 the last sentence. Would you just read the amended? Is that what you're about to Yeah, I'm about to The zoning official is authorized to interpret the zoning resolution, determine the applicability of the provisions of the zoning resolution and the determination of whether particular uses are not you're going to add not between are and permitted. Yes. In the various zoning districts. Yes, sir. Thank you.

That's fine, man. If y'all are good to that, y'all had that. But before we leave amendments, let's go ahead and if if anybody else has any Well, I have more. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Um, under the penalties for violations, where you at? Which section? It's 10.4 resolution, Mr. Chairman. Um, there's a provision for uh a fine and it says $50 fine per day. I don't know if that's a statutory thing. It is. Okay. So, we can't make it higher.

I mean, it's $50 a day. It's $50 a day per day. You all will recall that there was a constitutional amendment several years ago to raise that and it was defeated soundly. Um and the reason is is because you're potentially entitled to a jury trial for a $51 fine. Um so um go ahead.

There there is another provision that's allowed. uh the legislature enabled uh hiring an administrative hearing officer that um appeals can go to. You do have to adopt specific codes for that, but they can find a thousand bucks a day per event. Does that cover the cost of the hire? No, that's meaningless. That's and better off like we are. Yeah. Uh, I just wanted to make sure you knew that there was a different No, no, you if you wanted to if you wanted to h create a new office. Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. Yes.

Yeah. Go ahead. Um, back back to this current um procedure where board of zoning appeals gets to determine whether a use is allowed or permitted or not. Uh should that be included in section 10 where we're deleting? If you look at I added that that's one of the sections that I added. Okay, you all don't have I don't have it will be after E. Okay, F will read as follows. Okay,

the BZA shall further have all other powers and authority as described in the provisions of the zoning resolution. So for instance the because I had the same concern um was to be sure that the any other powers including those that are in the prohibited uses remain. So if you look at my new F Mhm. which you all don't have. It will say the BZA shall further have all other powers and authority as described in the provisions of the zoning resolution. Then G will will read as F used to. Okay. All right.

Okay. So that provision who's taking notes? Sorry. It will it will read that. But it that's how F will read and I have an extra copy of that. All that that's just a catchall. If for some reason we've missed a power uh I wanted to be sure that it was inclusive that if there is another power in the zoning resolution that you all have that you maintain that power. And so I I did pick up on that. I did change it. You all just don't have it. But that's what the new F will be. And my my recommendation in and the F in your alls would become G, which would state the official actions of the BZA shall be the final decision and may be appealed only to a court of competent jurisdiction. And I have a question. Go ahead.

Um, is it possible or is this state statute controlled? Is it possible to have decisions by the board of zoning appeals regarding permitted uses to go to the county legislative body for final approval? It is not not nope not under any set of circumstances. They are not a board of zoning appeals. I want you to a little I want you to take a step back here and I want you to understand why that is. Okay. No offense to our county commissioners. I love them.

None taken. However, [laughter] they're elected by the people. Okay? Decisions of the BZA are quasi judicial. You have to act like a judge. What the legislature did when they set this up is to make sure that elected officials are not on the BCA because they don't stand for election. Judges rule on things. And to be candid, and I understand the argument to the other side, judges historically cannot look over their shoulders. Now, that sounds weird, but if you're in my business, you have to understand that there are a lot of times judges have to do unpopular things that are correct and are legal and are the law. That doesn't mean that your county commissioners can't be those people, but there are manifold case law that says that the county legislative body will not, cannot, and it will never be an appelllet body for the BCA.

Okay. Interesting. What what this tells me, of course, is it takes away from the county legislative body the ability to control our zoning resolution because when the board of zoning appeals without county legislative body approval decides a use is permitted, that's tantamount to amending our zoning resolution. Any other amendment to our zoning resolution must be approved by the CLB. I believe we so it's it's just

I disagree. I understand why you're I understand your I understand your argument but I I disagree with with for this reason is that with the busy in other words like you're saying that the county legislative body should be an appellet body over these decisions. Well, I thought I thought I thought that's what you were that you're saying that they should have that that people should be able to appeal from the BZA to CLB. I might have misunderstood that. I apologize if I did.

Yeah. No, I'm just saying that decision seems to me like should be also approved because it's determining what is a permitted use which basically is amending our zoning resolution and any by statute even any amendments to the zoning resolution are supposed to be approved by the county legislative body. So it's it's almost a contradiction or something. But again, the short answer is that that issue has been tried several times. So we have to fix that we have to change state law. State law. Okay. I'll work on it. Yeah. Yeah.

But in that [clears throat] what you're asking is for them to have authority to uh uh considering amendments and then they have you're giving them authority to make uh judgment calls on their um the written letter of the code. So you're you're giving them both uh authorities in this manner. The county commission and planning commission recommends county commission approves and adopts the zoning resolution. Planning commission. I'm talking about the board. I understand. But you're giving the BA a freestanding body to kind of make the appeals to them. Otherwise, you're having the county commission hear appeals on their own actions. Right.

Well, true, true. So that's not it's a separation of powers argument. It is and it's a and I I I don't I understand I may I may understand that a little bit surprising to those people that uh the subregs your CLB has no authority over whatsoever that rests so only with the planning commission politics out of it. It's the best engineering practice. Do we have any other questions Mr. Chairman?

Two quick ones. Uh I just wanted to reaffirm that uh when we make a recommendation and send to the county commission, it has to go to the uh city commissions within the county first. However, they only have 30 days to respond or not respond uh before it can come before the county commission. I believe that's correct. That's my understanding. That's been changed a couple times, but I think that's correct. That's my understanding of state law. They have to take action. Yeah. Um one more question. Do we need a public hearing for this? Not for the planning commission. Okay. Thank you.

I I'm not aware of any requirement. I ask you planner that you can. In other words, zoning amendments can can actually have their genesis in one of two places. Actually, three. This body can recommend, the county legislative body can send you resolutions that they want to think about. And it's not out of the public. I mean, citizens can actually come to their planning commissioners and say, "Hey, would you all consider a change in the zone?" So, that's possible, too.

That's correct. They can recommend. So, there's there's different ways to do that. Again, I want to be sure that the the changes that have been, as I understand, I don't think they were made in formal mo a formal motion, but they need to be. Go ahead. Could could we do it as amended? Well, I think we need to state it for whoever the secretary is. Okay. Okay. Before we have any question, did you find out on the 30 days we talked about? I'm sorry. I couldn't I No, they changed it on 2024, but I didn't We need to give our time to research this right here. So, no. No, because that doesn't

It says 14 days, though. Oh, it does say 14 days. That's true. Um, I haven't found it yet where it says 14 days. Why don't we just approve it on the condition that the uh county attorney determine what the state statute is on the time frame for talking notice. Is that okay? Of of the BCA actions. So my question is either 15 or 30. I don't think it's 14. I thought it was 14 on day one. We may have a submittal deadline. So, there's a couple different time frames. There's a submit deadline to get on the agenda. Uh, and then there's a time frame for a public hearing notice.

Let's do it this way then. Whatever motion you all make, those two amendments that we talked about, add pursuant to your planner's suggestion uh that with respect to what is that and I'm looking at the time advertising a public hearing on a I'm with you. It would be section and usually what you do is do a public hearing to advertise the uh agenda. You don't section ever advertise for variance or anything just the agenda

but you don't do a public hearing notice. It's a notice but it's not called as a public hearing. I'm not aware that there is a meeting there and there may not be. I don't I don't think there is a with respect to the BCA. However, based on the concern, if y'all I apologize. What section is that on the 14 days?

Whatever motions are made to amend, if you all will simply add if there is a day requirement, whatever that day requirement may be, that be added. So, if it's if it's not 14, I don't I'm not aware. I'm just telling you guys right now. I'm not aware of a a BCA public hearing, but your planner may may know. I'm just That's okay. So, let's do this. If for some reason that date is different than 14, you all will just allow me to make that change or that change can be made. Does that make sense? Yeah. And all we're doing is recommending to the county. That's all you're doing anyway.

We're not approving anything. That's his recommendation to get this so they can get to county commission. I only had one amendment and that was not what was the second. It was F the new F will read as follows. We don't have you do not have it. Any changes that we have made? It's not the other one would be under section 10. Section 10, section 1, section 10, section 11,

section 10, 11.3 is deleted and replaced with the following. If y'all will turn to the next page, it says, "After E, the new F will read as follows. The BZA shall further have all other powers and authority as described in the provisions of the zoning resolution. The new G will be what F was, which is the official actions of the BCA shall be the final decision and may be appealed only to a court of competent jurisdiction. That's the that's the amendment. Do we have any further questions or comments?

Mr. Chairman, we have a number. I move to approve this resolution. Uh, excuse me. I move to recommend this resolution to the Jefferson County Commission with the amendments to sections one, section 10, sections 11. Do we need to state them? Um, yes, I'll do I'll do it.

Okay. Um, the the last sentence of section 110.1 would be changed to read as follows. The zoning official is authorized to interpret the zoning resolution and determine the applicability of the provisions of the zoning resolution and the determination of whether particular uses are not permitted in the various zoning districts. That's the first one. The second amendment will be section 10.

That is section 10. The new F the BZA shall further have all other powers and authority as described in the provisions of the zoning resolution and the former F will just become G. And the only other caveat was as we discussed regarding the days on whether or not a if a public hearing is required, it will comply with state statute. So move, Mr. Chairman. Okay, we have proper motion. Do we have a second? Second.

Any further discussion? Being none, all those in favor of approving item H on the agenda, let me know by saying I. I post. Thank you, Mr. and I'll I'll prepare a clean version and get it to the secretary. Thank you. Moving on down the agenda. Agenda to item H. Update from the public service committee regarding the C3 zone wholesale warehouse commercial district. Waiting to hear from the committee. We have anything,

Mr. Chairman. So, this item was tabled. So, whenever it does come back, it doesn't need to be on the agenda. we would just need whenever public service gets back to us, we would need to make a motion to bring it off the table uh for discussion. So, um those of you that heard anything from We've not met. So, this table, no need to take any action on hit. We have any other business?

Yes, sir. Uh, I apologize in advance for continuing to dominate conversation today. I have a couple of items I would like to discuss, but I'm perfectly willing to postpone those to the next meeting. Uh, and that would be these two things. I'd like to discuss the rules and procedures of this commission. And I would like to discuss updating our underlying documents. just to be added to the agenda for the next meeting specific

subdivision regulations zoning resolution and and any rules and procedures in writing that we may have that I can't find any resolution discussed with Right. It's just a general discussion about Okay. Okay. So, being so willing to wait. Is there any other business? Mr. Chairman, on the rules and procedures, it's my understanding this body doesn't have specific rules and procedures that were operating under Robert's rules of order. Is that everybody else's understanding?

It's just common Robert's rule of order. Okay. So, but I believe we do have the ability to give ourselves rules of procedure, right, as a planning commission. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I got some legal advice I may do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Anything else? Motion to We have a proper motion. Second. All those in favor can be known by sending it.