Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

This is a word of prayer if it would please. Oh, gracious father, thank you God blessing you stoing us and kept us safe this week during this this winter weather we've had. Just keep us safe tonight. Let's let us do your county business and we honor you in every which way. In y's name I pray. Amen. Amen. All right, we do have one person in our attendance tonight is our new reporter from the Mass County Journal. Would you like to introduce yourself to us and let you know a little bit about you?

Um, I'm Anna. I've worked part time with the journal since September and I recently just stepped into stepped into a fulltime position. So, I'm excited to be here and you'll be seeing a lot of me. So, it's good to be here. We tried to recruit you to fill that open spot down.

Well, we're proud to have you and uh please come and join us at any time. Uh, can I get an approval for the minutes of our regular meeting on January 6 and our public hearing meeting on January the 20th? I think all of you receive them in your packet or either by email or whatever. At this point, I entertain a motion to chairman. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Have a motion to approve minutes. Second.

Have a second. Any questions or comments or changes? If not, I'm clear. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes. Messed up on the other way a different direction here tonight. Okay. All right. This since this is our business meeting discussion of zoning applications for February 17th public hearing at this point I'll turn over as president

and if I may chairman um did you want to give an update from last night?

I did. Okay. So I did uh everything that the planning and zoning uh voted to approve uh was accepted by the board of commission. The second thing that happened last night was that uh Commissioner Doster appointed Cynthia who is now standing in for district three as the new appointee for district five. Now my understanding is that he appointed her for a full term in district five. So therefore, uh, Mr. May will have to find somebody to recommend for district three. Uh, the full board did approve that last night. So, as my understanding, that's the way that st is a full term, not filling the expired term of Mr. But he appointed her at a full term for

effective today. Effective today. Okay. And with that, I'll turn it over.

Okay. Um, first up, you'll all remember Miss Linda Forson. She is the applicant for her husband Lamar Forson and they are requesting to rebone a 2.10 acre track from AR to A2 to combine with his A2 adjoining property for a total of 13.19 acres for tax purposes. Property is located at zero Miller Meredith Road in Danielsville on 52, parcel 10-02 in district 2. So, as again, uh they just have that 2.10 acre track, no structures on it, and it was just sitting there with its own tax bill. They're wanting to put it together to eliminate that and just have, you know, for a tax break on it. And the both tracks are landlocked but accessed by an existing 30ft easement. Um, it is in the rural conservation character area. So that is consistent with that plan and the property is not in conservation. All right. Any questions or comments about this particular reason request? I have a question about the easement. Um, I see that there's a private drive and then there's an easement around the perimeter to that 2.01 acres. If that's going to be combined to make it all one, will that easement be eliminated or

Well, this is the actual site plan that the surveyor come up with. So, they want to still keep an Yeah. Because it's landlock, right? Right. How many tracks are served by that easement? It just sort of fades away on the northeast side. It looks like it must serve Clarence Lamar for Well, that's where it's being that's what it's being combined with.

Wonder how much further it goes. Of course, I guess however many it is, it'll be one less than this. Correct. the combined right so how many was serving I guess was legal

would you come have a few questions there there are more parcels back there. Um, how many parcels are served by the season? Well, it will be one less than served now because they're combined.

Yes. Is that go straight on back before it turns left there? Go straight on back too. I think that's the question. I don't think anybody knows. That's all of his property. I don't know, but I can look into it and send out an email prior to our next meeting. As long as we have it for

Yeah. for the public hear.

It didn't click with me. Like Mike said, this just kind of dead ends right there, but there's more parcels back here. So that big part is theirs. That's going to combine into theirs. Yeah. Here's a triangle. Yes. I have to look at the triangle.

I know this one has this one. That triangle is his as well. Wonder why it wants to combine one and not the other. You want to combine all of them? Yeah, it's just there's a lot of a lot of land tracks there.

I think they're wanting to make it over 10 acres so they can put it in Koopa these two tracks together. I believe a couple of the tracks don't have both or one of them had both their names and one of them has uh just his name.

Okay. You going to get that information? Any other any further questions? All right. Let's move on to number two.

Okay. Art and Wendy McMillan Melikin, I'm sorry, are requesting to resone their 1.34 acres from, excuse me, from R2 to A2 to combine with their adjoining A2 property that's on 46 parcel 1 for a total of 11.95 acres for tax purposes. Property is located at Zero Spratland Mill Road and Hull on map 45, parcel 14-05 in district three. And um again, this is for tax purposes only. Um there will be ample road frontage and it the um A2 zone is consistent with the South Madison character area that the property falls in. Um they're currently not in Kuba, but they're doing this to become eligible.

All right, questions or comments on this one? Hearing none, move on. Okay.

Logan Bllelock, applicant for her grandparents, James and Carol Wheeler, is requesting to resone a 4 acre portion of their 154.93 acres from A1 to AR to allow the 4 acre portion to be split out and gifted to their grandchild for a home fight. The remaining acreage will remain in the A1 zone to be retained. The property is located at Zero South Railroad Avenue in Carlton on map 111, parcel 86 in district 4. So this property um contains the 154.93 acres with 11 of the acres um fallen into the Carlton city limit and the remaining 143 acres is in the county. Um so again the whalers are just wanting to give their grandchild 4 acres for a home site. Um the remaining 150.93 acres will remain in the A1 zone if that's what it's suitable for. Um, the property has 252.55 ft of road frontage, but due to the desired location of the 4acre track, it will be needed to be act. in the county.

County and say that again about the road frontage. Um it has 252.55 ft of road frontage, but due to where she's want to split those four acres out, it will have to be accessed through the easement because that part of it is landlocked. Actually, it looks like it's 252 plus 370. That's 252. That's 370.

So, on that one, there's actually, let me see. It's another weird thing. So, everything in the top is in Carlton city limits. So if you look at the plat, the reported plat that's in your packet, it shows where some of that up top's been cut out. So only the parts the left is what's attached to that tract. So it's a standalone rectangular track. It's not on the right side. Yes. That's where the Wheeler's home is.

The one labeled. Excuse me. So number two to your right there, that road frontage goes with the square that's been cut out for the Wheeler's home site. And then to the left is one available for the 154 acre track. So Tommy would need to update that plan to show that. So the road range and the easement since that's in the city, that's for them to take up with the city. Yes. So they'll have to have the city stamps on that when we approve it. And then the county approval for the

Oh, okay. Further questions that I guess the only thing that bothers me is the I guess that's allowable. Well, I guess it's having to have the easement to uh access the propert.

All right. Questions or comments? All right, moving on.

Okay, next up is Mason Por and he is requesting to refund his 19.87 87 acres from A1 to A2 to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. Property is located at 169 Healey Road in Danielsville on map 67 parcel 5A in district 2. So the property is lawfully not performing A1 zone. um and he just wants to move it to its appropriate zone of A2 to bring it into compliance. Um and that's simply the request for that because the A1 minimum acreage is 25 and A2 is 10. Um there this is actually also being done for a future transaction that's going to be um done for in after a contract runs out and I'll explain a little bit. He was advised to do it this way. Um, so the road frontage, the the property is landlocked and is accessed by an existing easement through the property in front of his track, but due to no clicks being made, that's not even relevant here. So, um, and then the A2 zone is consistent with the rural conservation, uh, character area and the property is in Kuba. So it it also stems into this following. These are going to be contingent upon each other.

Okay. Questions about this one? That's another one. I couldn't figure out how many tracks were served by easement. I was just about to ask that. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but where where is the easement that serves this property? It is plan following application packet page 51 and 68 on PDF if you're looking at it.

Oh, that's a actually that's a recorded survey. Yeah. So, no, no, no. You're okay. Let me turn it around. So, it's kind of weird. So, Colen and Nicole Bryant have an access easement on the outside here, like separate drive, and then Mason and this parcel go up this side here and go that way. So, I believe it's just this one and then Mason that use those off that same ement. Okay. So this one over here uses the outside because I think this was pave maybe and this was dirt. So

but we're not sweating anything. So So that tract one is the 16.1 acres that's on the next application. Is that right? Yes sir. Okay. And there's nothing on it but they access it here. And then this um homeowner uses that same ement on the opposite property line. Okay. And is that the one the the the one with the house on it there? The Yes. Is that the That's Is that the one that's the subject of number four? No, sir. Where's the one that's the subject? It's like over here. Okay. So, number four is here. And they use an ement that comes down like this side right here.

Oh, so there's a So there's another 30 side by side but then go off differently. So there's 30 feet on each side of that property line. Yes, sir. Okay. Gotcha. Because there's not an existing flat, so he used a D instead. And that's related. Okay. So, the deed says there's a 3ft ement.

Yeah. Also included is 3 foot easement across and an 11.02 2 acre parcel at plat 263 page five. You think that's the one to the south of the one that's outlined in yellow? Okay, that would make sense. But anything else on this one? All right.

All right. Next is Mason Pum applicant for Stephanie Hilly is requesting to refer her 16.1 acres from A1 to A2 to bring the property into compliance with the zoning regulations. property is located at 179 Healey Road in Danielsville on map 67 parcel 5 in district 2. And I need to go back and retract it. These are not contingent upon each other. I apologize. But so the property is a lawfully non-conforming A1 property and she just wants to reszone it to A2 to bring it into compliance as again the A1 is a 25 acre minimum and A2 is only a 10 acre minimum. So that would be better. Um she too was advised to reszone to bring into compliance because um Mason is planning to purchase 2 acres of per of this property to absorb into his track but that cannot happen until his Koopa expires like in six years. So, they're just they were advised that they should uh just go ahead and have it laid out that way that they're in compliance for their their end game. So, um

So, honestly, we're not concerned about that end game. All we're concerned about is bring it into bringing. That's right. So there is um yes there's a ample road frontage on this parcel. Um it too is in the rural conservation character area which is consistent with A2 and this property is not in Cooper. Okay. comments, questions. Number six,

Michael and Hannah Gatus are requesting to ref their 5 acres from A2 to AR to allow a second home on the property as an accessory dwelling unit for a family member. The property is located at 730 Fred Michael Reese Road in Danielsville on Mount 50, parcel 13A in district 4. So the Gatuses own the property, but Mrs. Gatis's mother currently lives in the existing home on the property. So the Gatises wants to place another home on the property for them to live in. So this will qualify as a ADU but kind of in reverse. So the new home will be lived in by the property owners the Gatuses and um that will be considered the principal dwelling unit and the existing home that Mrs. Gatis's mother lives in will be known as the accessory dwelling unit. Um there is ample road frontage but again those sweats are being made so kind of irrelevant. Um, the AR zone is consistent with the rule conservation character plan that the property is located in.

What kind of time frame is the property owner looking at living on the property? And if we approve this and then it's

she's immediately Yeah, they're ready to start this approved. Since we would be approving an ADU without the owner living on the property, which is a requirement, would we need to make that a condition to give them I mean to make sure that they move to move to the property. I mean what if something happens and they don't then you've got an ADU without the property owner living on the property.

So it says to allow a second home for a family member who's living in the first home. The mother of the property owner currently lives in the home that sits there. Oh, okay. Now, the property owner wants to build to build a new home later. Uhhuh. Like, so a little backs around if it makes the relevant or not. Mom just recently signed over the property to the daughter and her son-in-law. So, now that they own it, they can use that as collateral to get home. And that's what their plan is. So mom owned it, mom lived there. Now they own it and her home there and then let mom live there until

Wait. Okay. I I got the transfer but I I got lost. So So there's a home there now. Who's living in it? Mother, she's deed the property to the kids. Correct. Kids are going to build a house. Yes. Okay. And the kids are going to live in the new house. Correct. And she'll live in the AD.

Yes. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's not a that's that's all of these things. It's almost like a use rather than a use restriction rather than an area restriction. It's it's if the use changes, then I mean the use will have to be in compliance. So, it doesn't really come into play at at this stage. I don't think it comes into play when that second house is built. And if it's if neither if the property owners not living in either house, then it's a zoning violation and it just gets prosecuted like any other zoning violation just like if they built a garage there and it's not for a garage,

right? Because zoning has to check out all the building permit and it would be flagged at that point if that's not the case. I was just trying to eliminate the requirement of the property owner on the property. Right. What's the difference between a uh is a building permit for a mobile home the same as a site built home? Just consider a but I mean you still have to pull I guess is you still have to pull a permit but I mean that's where the check and balance to like what he's talking about there that's where that

difference is registered contractor versus the mobile home dealership like have the tax of decor versus a registered contractor. So, we're approving this and then the building permit is never pulled. Yeah. Well, that second house never appears, right? Never. So, yeah. Still no violation. So, there's no violation now. Correct. The property owner if the building permit is not pulled to build any home, then the property owner would not live on the property, which is a requirement for the ADU, but there won't be an ADU unless this building permit will

right. Okay. If we're good, that's fine. I was trying to I was I didn't know the exact process myself as far as that goes. If it was different than if you were going to do a mobile home, obviously that would be a much quicker process than going through and doing a stick built house. But once they pull that permit, it won't matter whe Yeah. No, absolutely. But just coming alongside what lead was saying there and then what you approve we're approving something on the front side for the intention but what if it's never done and there's like Mike said there's not a violation there because

there's and that help yeah thanks for the question because that helped me figure it out too I was missing anything else on that one.

All right Mr. Okay, the last one is Tony Gun, applicant for her mother, Angela Hollis, is requesting to rebone her 20.88 acres from A2 to AR to allow the property to be split into four tracks consisting of three 4 acre lots and one 8.88 acre lot for family members. The property is located at 799 Lord Fleman Road in Commer on map 69 parcel 64 in district two. So the property now contains one stick built home that Miss Hollis currently lives in and one mobile home that her granddaughter lives in. So, one of the 4 acre tracks will be for the Grand Dollar's existing home, and then the larger 8.88 acre track will be for Mrs. Hollis's sight belt home on it. The other two remaining 4 acre tracks will be vacant until family members are ready to move forward with adding a home onto their tracks. There is ample road frontage for all four tracks. Property is in the rural conservation character area and it is consistent with this zone. uh is not in Kua, but I will mention I have received numerous um calls already uh objecting this um just stating there's some ongoing issues of um debris in the yard and um just kind of junk sitting everywhere. is just, you know, just eyes and things of that nature from where they've seen the signs

go up. Um, but anyway, u their their voices are just the potential to open up two more, you know, add to that because it's just coming from those two homes there now and then the potential of having two more homes being added to the property they have felt will make it worse. But, you know, that's just what I've heard so far from. And later on, what if they decided to split to 8.88 acres? Would that make it a subdivision right there? All the members on that. Would that make it?

We could put that as a con condition, I believe. Right. But I think Yeah, you can. Yeah, you can always put a condition of no further splits of any of the parcels. Um, but I think Ken's question was, uh, I'm sorry. I'm still back here trying to figure out number four or five. Um, I just emailed all of y'all that plat. I got it off the superior court clerk's website. Uh, and sent you plat book B63, page five, which is referenced on that deed that packet number four.

I'm not sure where it fits in. kind of sit down with somebody sit down with tax map figure all that out where these are what they serve. Uh let's see. So regression he say property be split into four tracks. So when you is it is it the fifth track or the sixth track that makes a major subdivision? It is I think is I believe it's five for a total of four parcels every three years right. No, I think subdivision rate still say five. I think it's five. Anything anything over five is considered a

zone was changed to three. Subdivision Rick will Okay. The major so major subdivision is any subdivision of a parent parcel where five or more lots initial plus four new are created within within a threeyear period. So what are you saying is in the zoning ordinance? Three split or three splits for a total of four parcels every three years. And where is this? Again the definitions major subdivision major subdivision definition.

Okay. Um major subdivision. No unless it's been a recent amendment. The 2023 classification I'm looking at says still says five or more within three years. But the question I was going to ask even if it is changed in the subdivision and the zoning ordinance I mean all all platting and division requirements are in subdivision regulations. Why would it be in the zoning ordinance and why does it matter if it does? But is is there a

So my question is in the subdivision regulations when it says three in three years. So after three years they can split it again. It doesn't say three. It says five. If you look under subdivision, definition of major subdivision B says any subdivision or P parcel where five or more lots are created within a three-year period. So that means if they went three years, they could split the eight point the other one. Yeah, that's right. And not fall in the major. And not fall. I mean, you can still do it. It's just that once you once you get into the major subdivision, now you got to do the preliminary and final flat process.

So basically they're legal for three years. Yeah. But uh but there again you can always condition you can put a condition on the reszone to that 8.8 value lot can't be split again and that would cause them to come have to come back here through the same rescue that condition if we're going to get I mean to cut you off no I'm done

if we're going to get opposition because of the condition of the property being messy or whatever that's a code enforcement issue rightactly Thank you, Lee. That Yeah, that was the other question I had forgotten is that I I mean,

so compliance at least with zoning radio, I'm not sure some there's something in there in the zoning ordinance about complant non-compliance with other county ordinances being a reason to deny one. But if there's not been any citations written, if it hasn't risen to the level of a of an ordinance violation, then it's irrelevant to them. That's I was going to ask you isn't there something in there about code violations like any open code violation but like you said if there's nothing been presented then I mean if it hasn't been reported or they haven't complained about it to county so that code can go out there it's not going to affect what we do

right and in fact I did um advise all of the callers that they they could file a complaint with the code enforcement And this is on Lord Road. It's off 98 between kind of between junction and that

I'm not the word violation. I I thought it was there but I may be wrong. I thought there anything. Well, I'm just word searching violation not under that. So, I feel like I have seen something that does say it's typical to say that

but it would be an article there factors you consider amendments. So Roy run splits that one track don't track splits it. Yeah. I'm not sure if I find it.

Okay. Yeah. And I guess the reason I'm looking for it is because um it doesn't necessarily have to I don't at least the way I've seen it written in other zoning ordinances. It's not necessarily it has to be a a pending citation. It just means that there's a condition that exists that is a violation. Um but I'm not sure how this was written in Madison County if it's there at all. Well, it's kind of it's kind of a mute point if there is no violation already occurred or

Well, that's what I'm saying. I don't know if this I don't know if it exists here at all. If it does exist, I don't know if it's phrased in terms of violations of just the zoning ordinance uh or of any other county ordinance because trash and stuff like that would not be a zoning ordinance violation.

No. Um, and then I guess the third thing is I don't know if it I would I would not think it's in terms of an actual written citation. be a condition but I don't know the answer. Any other comments or questions on this one? So all the all the phone calls that she got is basically because of the trash and that kind of stuff. No, no real issues with we don't

right want resone or no real reason right except for the trash. Okay. You going to look that up and see if you can find that. All right. Yeah. But well, I guess you get the point of being moot that you know, I guess you might want to get with code enforcement as the first step and just say, "Look, is there anything out there that violates any ordinance of the county, not every junkyard violates the ordinance,

but some folks think, other folks think it's all right?" Well, you know, we uh when I had been here just a few years, the county, they we're talking about something, some amendment to the zoning ordinance about junk cars. Uh and you would have thought that, you know, one person's junk car is another person's classic. I told them the only way they could make a bigger brutal haha is if they uh amended the ordinance to make people take the sofas off the front porch. Anything else?

Anything else to come? Okay. Uh before we adjourn, I I I do have a and I guess I maybe deal with the the commission about I thought the Cynthia appointment should have been to complete the unexpired term and then Well, I didn't know that. I I had forgotten that that's I I thought Bruce I thought Bruce just didn't want to be re reappointed. I thought that he had finished his term.

That was catch. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. That's why she's appointed. Now I don't know what the situation is in three. That may be an unexpired term to be or she may be on the same cycle or three may be on the same cycle. I don't know. announcing someone else's right Cynthia and Stephven. So district 3's ends at the end of 26. Yes sir. Okay. Okay.

So this appointment uh to be made now would just be to fill out the rest of this year and then hopefully that person wants to be reappointed for another four term. Yeah. That being said, anybody that knows anybody in district three that might want to serve, uh, encourage them to to speak to, uh, Mr. May. U, I did get a phone call this morning from a gentleman that said he knows somebody. Um, so I told him to call Mr. May. Yeah.

And let Mr. May talk to them and we'll make his appointment or whatever. And that particular person said, "Well, if you need anybody to fill in, I'd be willing to fill in to get somebody." I would have come across that before. Yeah, that would be up to the commission.

It' be up to the commissioners. Uh, I mean, I've had other boards, other clients that typically as you're appointing somebody that close to the expiration of the term, you're looking for somebody that wants to serve more than just those few months. They want to keep going into the next term. What's the time frame that has to elapse before the person does not have to be in that district? 60 days. 60 days. 60 days. And I mean really that's already been violated. So this already been 60 days. Um well

no I mean so so district three was just vacated last night when she was appointed to district five and Bruce hadn't been since December. So exactly. Yeah. Bruce would have been March 1st I guess. Yeah. Okay. But anyway, we need somebody. So, and I expressed that to the board last night. So, they can do whatever they want to. Commissioner Kurt didn't announce last night he was not running for commissioner again. So, if you're interested, thank you.

There's a woman in the back. Yep. I would miss y'all so immensely do it. All right. I got a motion to make that motion. I'll second. All in favor? I adjourn.

We will see y'all. tonight. We had a girl dance lesson for the 2-year-old regular