Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

let you know that uh last night commissioners meeting everything that was recommended this board was approved. Uh the last one that we postponed was not on the agenda but I did make them aware that we had postponed it and it was rescheduled for our next uh meeting public hearing meeting. Okay. At this point, uh, I think all of you have the minutes for February 2nd, February the 3 regular business meeting and February 17th public hearing meeting. Uh, this point I'll send a motion to approve.

I make a motion to approve a motion to approve. Second, second by Lee. Any objections, any comments? If not, send it. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And these minutes do stand approved. Uh we'll now go into our business meeting and I will business new business and I'll turn it over to Mr. Treasure.

Okay. First up, we have got Barry Sartin, who is the applicant for re redeemed rental properties, and he is requesting to resone a 4acre portion of the 55.97 acres from A1 to AR to allow it to be split out for a family member's home site. The remaining 51.97 acres will remain in the A1 zone. Property is located at zero jot down road in Danielsville on map 11 parcel 102-02 in district one. And what that is is Mr. Spartan has a disabled grandchild and um and they are wanting to get the get him closer to them um so that him and his wife can help the parents look after him. So the 4acre portion is going to be a a house for for the his parents to live in just so they can all help look after the the grandchild. So as you know since it's a 4 acre portion it has to be reszone to AR um because the A1 requires a 25 acre split minimum. Um both tracks will have ample road frontage. Uh it is in rural conservation and AR is consistent and believe it or not it's not in Cleveland.

That is kind of unbelievable. Any questions or comments on this one?

All right. Cameron Barry, applicant for Quick Start Properties, is requesting to resone a 12 acre portion of the 33.32 acres from A1 to AR to allow it to be split into three 4 acre tracks and to rezone the remaining 21.32 acres from A1 to A2 to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. property is located at 0 John Down Road in Danielsville on map 11, parcel 101-03 in district 1. So, this property uh is vacant and they're not planning on selling these tracks, but uh they are wanting to place a rental home on the 34 acre track. And then the remaining 21.32 acre track will remain vacant and they have no plans for that at this time. So, this request does take a dual resone. Of course, the 12 acre portion um would need to be reszoned to to AR to allow those 34 acre split and the remaining 21.32 acres must go to A2 because there's a 25 acre minimum for A1 in its current zone. Um so there the all proposed tracks will have ample road frontage. site plan shows one track is having 150 feet 160 feet and 100 176 feet and that's for the 34 acre track and then the remaining track will have 785t the um if the property is in the rural

conservation character area and the AR and A2 zones are consistent and this property is not in Cooper. Any questions for traffic on those? I'm assuming everything that has no houses or anything on it is is considered zero. Yeah, that's it. That's right.

Yeah. I'll give you a little history on something here that I noticed and I asked Melissa. you would verify this. Um, what came to mind when I saw this when being split in those long slender lots was one not too long ago when Mr. Borsa did the same thing over on McGee Fitzpatrick and I think I think we approved it but when it got to the BOC they denied it. Um because they could see from what I remember they the concern there was that this was probably all that they could split it and keep it under under major subdivision rules. But the intent down the road was to that it was looking like a subdivision if they continue to split it off and the BRC denied that one. This one looks to me like almost exactly the same thing. So

now Mr. boards that have a lot more acreage though is that's true and this one you know that's true 33 say they actually put three three more houses on it for that other you know and I also think there was some concern by one of the commissioners that Mr. Bora didn't live in the c didn't live on the property nor in the county for that matter same thing happens here um Mr. U Zer, is that his name? His wife, his wife grew up on this property, so it's her it's her family property, but they don't live in the county.

So, a lot of similarities there with this case that came up before. So, it's for what it's worth. Are they saying where they want to put the rental propert? They don't have it specified, but just the three four acre tracks will each have a rental home on it. Oh, each of the three Uhhuh. will have a home on each one for rental purposes. Well, you know,

well, I guess my question is, does it matter if they live here or not as long as they own the property? Well, there was there was some concern by one of the I'm just saying yeah, that made me feel concerned, but really and truly it didn't really matter. He had a house on it already. A house on it if he intended to live there or had proposed one time before that he was going to live there but he never but that's

and one thing I did bring up in that case back then I don't know that it ever I guess since it got denied it could not have been enforced but um ordinance 5.3.2 two says that greater than three lots if if more than three lots are split and they're 10 acres or less the length can be no no greater than four times the width. This one is um so this so this one does not fit with those guidelines. Is it 10 acres or less or is it 10 acres or more?

I think it's 10 acres or less. Look it up. It says greater than greater than three lots. 10 acres or less that the length can be no greater than four times. I remember that being brought up. I just didn't know if it was less or more from the staff standpoint. Is that a reason not to to bring it at this point or to get back to them? I guess I need to make sure when it actually

Yeah. When three or more lots of 10 acres or less in size are divided from a parent parcel, the length of any subdivided lot should be no greater than four * 3. My brain kept saying larger like 10 acres or more. Where' you find it?

That section 5.3.2 12.3.2. So that is an issue I guess that needs to be looked into before the public hearing. Well, but I mean we don't actually require a site plan or anything like that. So I mean that obviously they have provided I mean they just did that on Q public I think as far that out. It there hasn't been survey done, but I will contact them tomorrow. Absolutely. Okay. Any further questions or comments on that one?

All right. Number three.

Okay. David Russell, applicant for Russell and Sun Farm Holdings, is requesting to resone a 12 acre portion of the 214.75 acres from A1 to A2 to allow the portion to be split out and gifted to a child for a home site and the remaining 22.75 acres will remain in the A1 zone to be retained. Property is located at 875 Wagner's Grove Church Road in Calbertt on map 72, parcel 23 in district 5. So, as I've stated, it's, you know, 12 acres for his fund. Um, it does require a reszone to A2. Um, because the current zone is A1 and it requires a 25 acre minimum. Um both proposed tracks will have ample road frontage as the property uh borders two roads with significant frontage. Um and then it is in the rural conservation character area and the A2 zone is consistent with that. Um it is in Kuba but no breach will be uh deemed because it's for family members.

All right. questions or comments on this particular request?

Not, we'll move on.

Okay. Melody and Sarah Warington are requesting to resone their 5.79 acres from A1 to R1 to allow the property to be split into two tracks containing one 3.397 and 1 2 386 acre tracks. Property is located at 5654 highway 98 East in Commer on 83, parcel 36-01 in district 5. So as right now the track contains one home and Melody and Sarah are aunt and niece and they currently live in the home together. Uh Sarah, the niece, just got married and she is wanting her own home on the land. So um as the site plan shows, uh see she will be having the larger track, the 3.397 acre, and then the aunt will reside in the existing home on the smaller track, the 2.386 acre. And um so we're having to reszone the entire property due to uh to R1 due to the track sizes. And um on paper, the property has ample road frontage, but they use an existing easement located through an adjoining property that no one else uses. And since it only serves those two tracks, um it will not have to be paid their family. Um, it's in the Goldston Sand character area and Arwin is consistent.

Is that where the house is located? Is it It looks kind of close to the other line. Yes, it it'll be the Yes, ma'am. Those is dopan is in the R1 territory. Mhm. So that's already that's already been there

and they from your conversation they plan on using the ement rather than additional. Okay. All right. Any more questions on this one? Moving on. Number five.

Kenneth Weaver, applicant for Weaver Family Trust, is requesting a resound of 2.09 acre portion of the 16.61 acres from A1 to AR to combine with the joining property on map 31, partial 138. and to resone the remaining 14.52 acres from A1 to A2 to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. Property is located at 333 Joe Graham Road and Hall on map 31 parcel 137 in district 1. The property is in a trust, but James Weaver is over the trust and Smith own the property and he is also the applicant Kenneth Weaver's father. So James the father is wanting to sell his fund the 2.09 acres to combine into Kenneth's 2.04 acre adjoining track for a total of 4.13 acres. Um, Kenneth's property is currently zoned R1, but the added acreage will increase the acreage to 4.13. It will need to be reszoned to AR to better comply with the ordinance and to ensure it won't be split uh further. Um now James Weaver will have have the remaining 14.52 acres and it will need to be reszone to A2. Again it's the A1 zone requires 25 acre minimum and the A2 zone only requires 10. So um Mr. Kenneth Weaver the sons is also

having to resone this property. So both reszones are contingent upon each other. Four five and six. Yes. Um and then so both proposed tracks will have ample road frontage off Joe Graham Road. The property is in the South Madison character area and AR and A2 zones are consistent and the property is not in Koopa. And then number six is if you want to read that, but it's it's a price within summary to what that one is.

So we probably both questions on these concerns. All right. Number seven.

Okay. Mark Jackson and Lynn Boyd are requesting a conditional use for their 19.6 acre property to allow an event venue to be operated on the property. Property is located at 1082 Mill Road in Commer on Mount 104 parcel 38 in district 4. So, the A2 zone allows for event halls with an approved conditional use application and the accessory structure must meet all requirements found in section 9.5.2 for rural home occupations for the A1, A2, and AR zones. So, the couple lives on the property um in a home that is 2,636 square ft. And one of the requirements is the event hall must be smaller than the existing home. So, they planning to build a 1600 square foot barn type structure that will hold a capacity of 50 and they want to operate it on the property as a home occupation. So the size requirement will be met. There are other requirements deemed by the ordinance that must be met for this property and they are the event hall must be 50 ft from all property lines. Um the home and event hall must use the same driveway as separate driveways are prohibited. The property contains a small portion of flood plane area and structures cannot be built in those areas. There is an intermittent stream on the

property and the event hall must be a minimum of 25 ft from the bank. We looked at the parking requirements and the venue must have a minimum of eight parking spaces with wheel stops and must include one handicap space. Usually a driveway entrance apron would be required to be paved but Osley Mill Road is a dirt road. And as far as landscaping requirements, the perimeter of the property is surrounded with a natural woodland buffer. So no additional landscaping is required. No storm water plan is required because the structure is not over 5,000 square feet and the the site plan shows compliance with all requirements. I do need to mention the road frontage. There is no road frontage requirement for this. However, it is on Osley Mill Road, but the county abandon a portion of the road at their property, and there's gates placed on both sides to prevent public access. So, this will require the the couple to manually open the gates to be, you know, for their event.

Where's it? uh home that you got on where is it located at on it's there and then it has to sit to the rear of it. So there's the barn there. So that line is only at the top because it looks like that parking is also closed or is it just parking can be in it but not the structure. Oh,

parking could be in the flood plane but not the structure itself. Any further questions on this one? The U got what? 60 foot clearance from the where it goes through 50. Well, it's a intermittent stream, so it's just 25. But he's got 60 there. Yeah. So, it beats it.

I'm glad to see him wanting to do this. I can remember when he was here trying to get the road closed with the county, but this is a historic area. Yeah, it's real pretty. Okay, no further questions. We'll move on to number eight.

Okay. James Sellers is requesting to reszone an 8 acre portion of his 29.99 acres from A2 to AR to allow a two 4 acre to allow two 4 acre tracks to be split out and gifted to his children for home site. The remaining 21.99 acres will remain in the A2 zone to be retained. Property is located at zero Macedonia Church Road in Danielsville on Mount 51, parcel 91 in district 4. So this property is vacant, no structures on it. And as I said, he's given his two funds a 4 acre track a piece and then he's going to retain the rest of it. So um the 8acre portion will need to be reszoneed to AR due to the lot size and the remaining 21.98 acres can stay in the A2 zone um as it meets that uh 10 10 acre minimum lot requirements. So, um, as far as road frontage, there is approximately 255 ft of road frontage for the entire track, which is not enough to serve both new tracks and the remaining track because you have to know the 150 ft is required per track. So the first 4 acre track will have all the road frontage and the other 4 acre track and remaining easement will be excuse me remaining track will be served by an easement. They're immediate family so it will not have to be paved and this property is in the rural conservation character area and AR zone

is consistent. The property is in Kuba, but due to it being family, there's no bridge. Okay. Since there was 29.99, it was never A1. It was always A2.

So therefore, only the split off has to be resolved. We don't have any footage on it. 30 questions comment on this one. All right. Okay. Number nine.

All right. Gary Tarvin, applicant for Kevin Gordon, is requesting to reszone his 16.55 acres from A2 to AR to allow the property to be split into three tracks containing one 6.25, 1 4.3, and one 6 acre tracks. Property is located at 2870 Crab Apple Holler Road in Nicholson on map 17, parcel 9E in district 1. So the property contains one home and a shop. Mr. Gordon is wanting to split the property into those three tracks. He is planning on selling two of the tracks and keeping one. So the 6.25 25 acre track is vacant and he plans to build a new home for himself to live in and that one will be retained. The 4.3 acre track has his existing home on it that he has already sold that and the 6 acre track is vacant and will be sold. So it requires the uh entire property to be rebowned to AR due to the lot sizes as in A2 it's a 10 acre minimum lot requirement. Um as far as road frontage goes um there is ample for all three tracks. Lot one will have 150 ft. Lot two 520 ft and lot three 625 ft. Property is in the rural conservation character area and the AR zone is consistent with the comp plan.

The property is in Kuba and these splits will breach the contract with a $19,000 penalty. He is aware of this and is willing to pay questions. It's funny that you just asked this question, but this easement that goes from crab alcohol road over to that center parcel is only 20 ft. This one here is 50 ft that goes up to this house. This one's 50. This one's 20. So if we require We require 30 for any new

that was that's in the existence. So Gary didn't have anything to do with that. That was already there. Yes sir. So but this one will have a 50 foot ement which only 30 is required. I didn't realize that was already established. Did you say this one's already established too? The 50. Oh, okay. It's just this one here. the whole lot and then a lot. Did you Did you say the 4.3 acres he had already sold? Yeah. I think it's like contingency under contract like when the reszone goes through they already have like a offer for it. Okay. It's it's not it has it hasn't transferred hands.

It's like contingent. If the reszone goes through it's already sold. He has the fire and will buy it as long as it is able to be split out. Okay. So, I know I know that was confusing. I wonder how he sold it. Yes. Without having it resolved, right, to begin with. Can you help me with this? What's that outlot? Okay. Is it unusable land or something or what is it going to be in with something some one of these parcels or line. It says out lot included 10 requests. So what?

Yeah, it was already established. That was already cut out before. So like when you look at the Q public, that little thing in the middle was already cut out a long time ago with an ement. It's not part of the request because it's not part of his sit flat down in the middle. So does it belong to somebody? Yes. Yes. Somebody else owns it. Oh, okay. So that's why you have a ement. So if that ement has to be 30 ft. Well, it was already established. So we don't have time. Yeah. It has nothing to do with these now. So just like the 50 foot that was already established when Mr. Gordon purchased the property.

So we don't even have to consider that 20 ft easel. I mean that's or the 50 foot somebody else's thing. Any more questions? M before you go into 10 and 10 is 10 and 11 continue. You just address those together.

Sure. I'll read those requests. So Gary Harmon, applicant for Shake Rack Holdings is requesting to reszone a 0.511 acre portion of their 176.511 acres from A1 to AR to absorb into their adjoining property on map 14, parcel 13-01A for an 8.048 048 acre track. The remaining 176 acres will remain in the A1 zone. Property is located at 3898 Nice Commerce Road in Hull on Mount 14 parcel 13 in district 1. And then the one under it is Gary Harvin, applicant for Shake Rag Holdings, is requesting to resone the seven their 7.54 acres from A1 to AR to allow the absorption of the 0.511 acre portion from their adjoining property on that 14 partial 13 for an 8.048 048 acre tracks and to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. This property is also located at 3898 N Commerce Road in Hull on Mount 14, parcel 13-01A in district one.

Opening the power options menu for you.

I'm sorry. I apologize to cut this phone off. So basically um this property is used for a hunting club. Um they have two adjoining properties which I just read. So the purpose the whole purpose in all of this is just to take that 511 acre portion to combine it with their adjoining property that contains the 7.537 acres for a total of 8.04 048 acres for residential purposes and then um this track see yeah this this transaction will require the adjoined property group to be resoneed to AR as well so both are contingent upon the other the road frontage um is the remaining 176 apher track will have ample road frontage. Although the property has ample road frontage, the driveway to the club clubhouse is through an existing easement through their adjoining property. The um rule, it's in the rural conservation character area and AR is consistent with that and the property is not in conservation.

Okay. comments, questions. What are you saying they want to do with that eight acres? Yeah, just want the to enlarge that portion to where it's over 8 acres for residential purposes. I don't know if they're going to sell it or just want to build a house on it. Oh, but there's nothing right now, right? But they have they have a clubhouse.

I think I don't know if it's like doies and stuff.

All right. Any further questions on this one? Not number 12.

Okay. Gary Harbon, applicant for James and Kathy McCay, is requesting to resone a 6 acre portion of their 14.97 acres from A1 to AR to be split out as a standalone 6acre track. The remaining 8.97 acres will be absorbed into their adjoining Avand property on map 68 parcel 3 for a total of 84.24 acres for tax purposes. Property is located at Zero Powers Road in Danielville on 688 on parcel 50 in district 2. So this property is vacant, has no structures and as again the purpose is to get to create a 6 acre standalone track and to combine that remaining 8.97 acres with that adjoining 75.27 acre A1 property um for tax purposes. And let's see, turn the page. So as far as the reszone requirements goes is the 6A acre portion will need to be reszoned to AR due to the track size as there is a 25 acre uh minimum lot requirement in their current A1 zone and the remaining 8.97 acres can stay in that A1 zone since it will be absorbed into that A1 property. So there is ample road frontage for both tracks. Um the property is in the rural conservation character area and the AR zone is consistent.

It was in Kuba but it expired at the end of last year so there's no breach for it. Questions on this one? They have got Apple Road 6 acres. Mhm. Ain't nothing on that road that's hold that near me. That's I don't even I don't even know how it's a road. Is it a dirt road? Yes. Is it a It's a road. It's a county road.

Mhm. It is a county road, but there's nothing there. Nothing there but a road and some land. Got to be a county road. Haven't figured out yet, but it is. So, any further questions on this one? All right, that's all of our reason request. Uh I see number two here is uh I'll let you explain this. Okay.

Especially and just before you go into that uh let me say that our audience was a little late. So welcome you all to our business meeting and uh just like to welcome everybody anybody that shows up. Okay. So thank you for coming. All right.

Okay. discuss amending section 7.10 for the PUB zoning district of the current zoning ordinance to strike the section and replace with section 4.1 of the unified developmental code draft. So, this this got originated from a single request that um the surveyor Gary Harbon was doing for a William Croer. Now, uh Mr. Croer has a 14.258 acre property and he was wanting to split that into six tracks. that he has proposed five 1.5 acre tracks for single family dwellings and the sixth lot would would contain 6.76 acres and he is wanting to build six buildings for commercial retail purposes. So that's how it all came about.

Wait on the six.7 in retail.

Yeah. So, um, so section 7.10.1 in our current ordinance requires a minimum of 100 acres for planned residential development with shopping facilities. And since the property only had just a little over 14 acres, he was unable to proceed with that request. Mr. Harvin reached out to Chairman Higgen about the matter and Chairman Hgden u said that we needed to address this now and that we needed to amend our current ordinance to lower the minimum lot size requirement because he knew of several other properties in the county where this was needed. He then reached out to our county attorney Mike Puit to draft the proposed amendment. So Mr. Puit's proposal was to strike section 7.10 completely of the current ordinance and replace it with a revised version of section 4.1 of the latest UDC draft. The minimum acreage requirement was proposed to be changed to 10 acres. So, we have advertised that um this board will vote on it at your next public hearing meeting, which is March 17th, and then the board of commissioners will be voting on it. Um I believe it's the uh March part. So, you're saying they want to change 100 acres to 10 acres. You can put residential and retail on that ten.

Yeah. So, and I included the the what the current ordinance says now and then I included what it what the section 4.1 will look like that draft. So, it's all in your supporting document. I can I can understand cutting the acreage, but cutting 90 acres to do this just to satisfy one man, I don't know if I do.

Well, I'm my concern, I guess, my question is why why now? If if the if we're waiting on this draft or waiting on to get approved, which is all part of it, it'll all change at that point. if it's adopted. I mean, what what's what's the rush? We have that's my concern. We have put other things on hold the egg business on Rogers Mill that came up a long time ago. The auction barn. Uh it was like, you know, we've got the draft coming. Let's wait, you know, unless we absolutely need to a text amendment. Let's wait on the new UDC. And I agree with you. It seems like I don't see the advantage and I'm no expert in a PUB, but

I don't see I don't see the advantage of trying to do this development as a PUD as opposed to our traditional cut out a business lot and then the rest of it can be R1's or whatever he wants those to be. And Mr. Harland was totally fine with that. Exactly. To to start with the beginning. Yeah.

It didn't I don't know where the idea of PUB came from, but it looks to me like we can accomplish what the guy wants to accomplish with our traditional methods of reszoning instead of a PE. Maybe we'll find out more at our public hearing whether they can Mr. fruits here or whatever, but I I I I personally just don't see this all these other things have come up that's in the the new we

provision. So why why why this one? So for the new one, since we're going to 10 acres, do we already have what setbacks would be and what how many units you can put on the draft, which is what is proposed to be to take the place of this, the new draft. Pretty extensive, isn't it? Yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, it really gets detail. Well, I mean, we we don't see the draft.

Well, there was there was something sent to you or it should have been last week or week before that. I don't think it went for this entire board. It did not came to me. Yeah, I think it came to you and I because we sit on the subcommittee, right? You didn't cover this this entire board. I had seen nothing about your draft. I mean, that's that's the part to me that to me I don't want to vote on something. I don't know any details. I mean, it's already scheduled.

Well, and then I heard Well, I heard last night because of what's going on at the capital, you know, until that session is over, they don't want to deal with this at all. So with the rewrite

with the rewrite they don't want to deal with it until uh the session ends at the capital because they got some things that they're asking for or this that seems to be more work to get done. Yeah. I was hoping Mike would be here so we could try to find out more about why we're why we're aiming at PUB. I just didn't know who the idea that it sounds like. It sounds like the German is asking. I mean, you know, just to be truthful, but you know, and that's his right to do that,

but we as a board need to look at it in its entirety of what we have done in the past. We delayed all this other stuff, so why not delay this one? So, but anyway, we'll find out more about it at the top here. I do have a question when you were reading that. No, you don't have retail. Define what is what is retail? Because when I looked at our existing PUB planned residential development with shopping facilities is 100 acres. Plan residential development without shopping facilities is 50 acres.

Right. Um, Mr. Harvin did not include a letter of intent explaining it. He just said it was going to be for six buildings uh, for retail commercial purposes. So, he didn't list, you know, what in specific I probably don't even know at this point compact for six build. Is it going to be six different buildings or is it one one continuously right there? It looks like it'll be six separate buildings like six

10 acres. That portion is going to be six acres. The other five tracks will be acre and a half for the single family dwelling. Oh, okay. That's what I was asking. So the acre and which is going to have to fall under major subdivision Yeah. regulations because they're splitting it more than four times. Okay. Acre and a half for the residential and then six acres for the commercial. Okay.

If you're doing it like Lee was proposing that would have to be. But if it if you redo the new PU thing all together, maybe that won't even be in there. Well, Mike's got that um draft of how so you might want to just read through that, but the main thing that stood out was that took that acreage down to a minimum of 10 acres. So you So that means you can only get if it's 10 acres total, you can only get like two residential,

right? There's five there's five five lots residential lots eight and a half each plus then if you take the five lots you're saying that it has to be handled the major sub which we could just do the oldfashioned way and just resone the five lot to residential under the major subreg and then the other commercial like sounds like this one's going to be complicated or somebody's got to explain to us the golf course. You have to separate.

Well, we need to go through a rewrite for the golf course which is 500 acres and here we are using a lot of manpower going after 14 acres. Yeah. We spent a lot of money for a rewrite and I understand with what you said there the capital is about taxes and you know we're going to fling county business and whatnot but I mean I think kind of Lee addressed it a little bit. I mean we we did an auction barn or first it was going to be an a business in a residential area that now it's an auction barn. you know, I mean, we we kind of get some of these brought to us that

Well, one of the things that I will do is I will uh like I think this board needs to know ahead of time all these rewrites. You know, like Lee and I on we we get these communications because we're on that committee. But I think I'm I'm going to ask that this this board be uh be sent the same material so you'll have a chance to look at it. Okay, it was Miss Maxure and she can Right. I will I will I will I will

that's going to be item from her. It's on 26 Christina. I wanted to provide an update from CPL. They have con completed departmental SOPs and provided case studies utilizing the draft to UDC. During that exercise, they found some edits and have made those. They're planning to send over the final draft next Wednesday. Once we receive those, we will share them with you and schedule on our next meeting. Is that all you got? I mean that that came to all of us on 26 of 26. We just got this yesterday and with the shortterm sales.

Yeah. So CPL is that guideline for short-term rentals. Let me know if you have any questions. Well, I think the thing you and I got was Yeah. Long everything. That's right. And they're wanting to schedule a meeting like in the next two weeks to to look at that. And a lot for a new and absolutely and and you guys haven't seen any of Could y'all forward what you got as far as the information about rewrite? Well, not whatever. You said you got something this week. We got We got the entire

We got the entire UBC the what they're calling the final draft final. I got some questions about it, but they're trying to whittle this thing down to get to a final draft. What I understood is once once our committee gets it to their liking, then it would come for this board for approval and I guess a public hearing. I don't know. And then and then from there we go to this. Would you like me to forward those things to the board? William, you're asking for just this section that we will be. I mean, we got that. We need all of you need all of

I would like a little bit more information if we were supposed to discuss something. What are we here to discuss tonight? Basically, the only difference between our current ornaments and the new EDC is they changed the acreage sizes, but most of the other verbiage is the same as what we have now plus the addition to the UDC. So, it has changed in a sense. It has what we have now minus the acreage plus the new UDC mixed in. I can forward that um UDC email to you guys with the the new version tomorrow.

Well, by no means am I a developer, but I mean when I hear plan unit development, I mean I'm thinking of a large complex or something like that with some mixed applications in it. This is Yeah. very I don't know because I haven't seen it per se. Where is this located at? Um it is a parcel directly beside Bears Tree Service on Highway 29. So if you are coming from Diamond Hill and you come up on Bears Tree Service, there's the two hay fields on your right. There used to be like a little store that got demoed. It's both of those little fields.

They're trying to put it there. And I think that is in the South Madison character. It is. So R1 ones could be considered business on the highway there could be considered. Yeah. Well, is it going back to do you want to forward those that's fine if you want to do that but I want to address the entire thing because there may be other things that need to come before this board that are being withheld. not intentionally but just not being said. So I want to address send it all you know go ahead and forward that part of

and if you want to contact Miss Baxter and just have her start sending the whole board. Correct. I will do that. So we remind you plan unit development. It's more than just what there's trees there. This is right here. And then this is the track. But correct. And that's only 12 acres. Uh it's 15 and the new survey showed 14 um 14.2. take five residential probably put five over on the right side.

So I mean what kind of businesses are we talking I mean we did that on 72 for beam and associates or whatever that was kind of similar um was that that wasn't really a bug was it? Oh, no, no, no, no. It was 982. Yeah, that's true. They got on business. No, just like a little complex. Yeah, that's what they're talking about. Residential and business,

right? plans with that had an internal road system in it where this is everything's going to come off of 29 then I guess yes so the PB is an end around our current zoning it allows allows them to be able to Okay we'll find out more about that next Anything else? But at the next meeting, we're supposed to vote on it as well. Correct.

So any information that you get between now and then, please push our way to give us an opportunity to digest, you know, because this was when we're supposed to discuss it, right? And we're supposed to vote on it, but that doesn't mean that we can approve it or disapprove it. We can delay it, right? If need be, you know, we we have at least at least that power. So, we will we will discuss it again in our next meeting. I did have one other thing. Um I'm sure you all got the email I sent out regarding the Angela Hollis resone. Yes.

Um you know that we are supposed to be voting on that um next at our March 17th hearing. Now, I know we've already had the public hearing point. So, this will just be the voting section, but um I did uh talk with Alan Leinski from the road department and he did verify that that track ends right before that proposed fourth track. So, we're just going to take an easement off of track three and go access that fourth one,

which proposing to do. And then last night the question was asked about the uh condition and it was told by the county attorney that everything. So we don't Was there anybody in opposition for that last night? Because they we didn't we didn't we didn't it wasn't even on the agenda, right? But I know a lot of the ones that came that didn't come might have showed up because it was advertised for being on last night's agenda. Right. I was just wondering if anybody showed up.

I don't know. I mean, I don't know if anybody was there for that or not, but it wasn't on the agenda, but it will be after we vote next meeting, it will be on their agenda. They have to have a public hearing. We've already had ours. They they they got to have theirs. Yeah. So code enforcement's visit out there and their discussion and what they were supposed to do and then a revisit in 30 days I believe was what code enforcement was going to do. So we're saying now that regardless of what's going on out there, it has nothing to do with

that's what Mike said last night when the question was asked him has nothing to do with when when Commissioner Chandler asked him about that or or made the statement about that and he says no has nothing to do with at all. I'm sure that's going to come up again because there are some folks that don't believe that that should happen. But if it's not written, we can't control what code enforcement does. So no, we're not code for

but we understood we understood it. I mean that if the if the condition of the property affects the value of those properties around it, but Mike says it doesn't. He said it doesn't have anything around. It's that property itself itself is the way that it's interpreted. That's kind of value. It affects the property the value of it that property. Yes. But not any property. Not any surrounding property.

So how come it doesn't affect the value of that property? that really anywhere adopted there because they build a million dollar house right side of your property going up. But I would think the the way the property is looking if it it would affect the value. Well, I would think so on the market and it would not it would affect the value of that property if it was on the market. Well, the thing that Melissa looked up and she gave us, the way Mike explained it was that it affects the property that's being resold. It does not affect the surrounding property. Oh,

which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's what he that's what he says. when you say it that way. So it doesn't matter that property. Correct. Oh, now I understand. Okay. All right. Any uh anything else? Not a motion to adjourn. So we are for evening. Uh is in rehab.

Expect to be there probably the rest of this week, maybe next week. But he's gaining strength. And how are you? How about you?