Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

I give you all the praise, the glory, and the honor. Jesus Christ's name we pray. Amen. Amen.

All right. Uh we have one guest tonight. So, if you would uh introduce yourself and let him know, I can't introduce myself. And I had to meet Cynthia. I've got Spencer and these ladies Tracy and Melissa. Melissa. I'm I'm hoping to take um a seat where chair come. Okay.

Yeah. Guy has guy has guy has they were having trouble finding somebody. So commissioner in district three asked me to help him. So I asked guy would he be interested explain to him what was going on and the guy does a lot of volunteer work but a lot of things they really concerned about the county. So uh he has talked to commissioner May and just a matter of what commissioner May decides to do. I can't appoint him but I can recommend. So I I did recommend recommend him too. So he just he wanted to come tonight and just listen to kind of see what we did. And he came to the BC meeting last night to get really

great. Oh, that was a good that you know what you're in for now. What a shock. But anyway, so you you already know everybody. So it won't be any any use for all of us there. Introduce ourselves. Okay. First of all, let's uh all of you have the minutes of uh March the 3rd and March 17th. I will ask for approval of those minutes. I'll make a motion to approve. Second. A motion to approve the minutes of March 3rd and March 17th. And any questions or comments? All right. See?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Minister approved. All right. I want to update you a little bit on about what's been going on the commissioner meeting and I'll start with the tax amendment of the HUD uh that we recommended to the board of commissioners to not approve. I showed up. Uh, Mike thought I was coming to make a announcement as to what the public hearing, what the PNZ had decided, but I just actually showed up and when I picked up the agenda, I saw that was on there and I was confused and uh but anyway, uh I did present to them that we had recommended not to approve it. The public hearing was held. Uh I spoke and there was another gentleman that spoke uh in opposition too and they decided not to vote on it until the end of April simply because they wanted Mike to make some changes to

well explain to um they had questions about the implementation. Okay. I told them those were planner questions.

Their their theirory of planning and what we want to do questions. They're not legal questions. I'm not doing anything. I think maybe they're going to let CPL look it over and maybe get opinions from them. Not sure of that, but that that was discussed. But anyway, anyway, my objection was that I thought all public hearings were held on the same night and I was wrong about that that text amendments are held differently sometimes. So what I as far as I'm concerned the planning and zoning is through with you know we have made our recommendation but if you are like me that don't particularly like it I suggest that you call your own commissioner and talk to them about talk to them about it and then it's in their hands and they they will make the appropriate uh decision. As of last night, there were two.

Yes. Yes. You might need to make clear what it is. Mike, you want to take that one? What is changing the wording of the zoning ordinance as opposed to taking action on the zoning of a particular piece of land? I know when I first started, you always been, you know, things and I didn't know. So, that's

Thank you. As of as of last night's meeting, there were two items that were that we had recommended approval that were denied. All the rest of them, they took our recommendation. One of them was the property on Jam Road. The guy wanted to build some houses and he said in three years he was going to come back and do it again. commissioners didn't particularly like that and they voted to deny that particular request. The other one was uh the one on uh on 98 down there ghost stand. Uh I can't really tell you exactly why they denied it. I can tell you that they did not uh they thought it ought to be AR instead of R1, but according to the comprehensive plan, it did fit in R1. But anyway, they did deny it. So, guess that's just for your information. Those two things that we approve, we recommended approval. They denied. So that's kind of what it

and then the the big um today with Kevin Gordon Done. Oh the other one that was withdrawal. That was uh the lady that was the lady that had it. Uh no uh Gary Har, Kevin Gordon. They wanted to have a variance. So, it was approved continually on and coming back through with the variance for the the ratio of the lot of the length to width of the lot. I'm preparing that for our Beijing hearings. Okay. That'll come back before y'all as a bearing. Okay. I thought they wanted to push that up, too.

That's the earliest one. We've already met our April deadline. Okay. The one that was withdrawn was uh Tony Gun. Yeah. Uh they were having some family issues, some family problems, and they did not want to go through with it at this point. So she came last night and went through that one. That's one that had the the road that had to get. Oh yeah.

Yeah. So she the family themselves chose to withdraw. So they they would do that. Okay, that's all that I have unless y'all have some questions for me. I made a mess of that. So, we're going into new business, discussion of zoning applications for April 21st, 2026 public hearing. And I'll turn it over to Miss Patrick her. Michael Waters, applicant for Legacy Baptist Church, is requesting to resone the 2.167 acre portion of the church's 6.62 acres from A1 to R1 to allow it to be split out and sold and to refund the remaining 4.453 acres from A1 to AR to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. Property is located at 1850 Pelican Springs Road in Hall on route 18 parcel 17-02 in district 1. So Michael Waters is the applicant for the request and he is actually the pastor of the church. Um the church feels that they have more acreage than they feel that they need and find it difficult to maintain. So, they're just wanting to split off that 2 acre track to sell it and then keep the remaining 4 acre track for the church. Um, this is requiring a dual resone. Um, so of course due to the two acre size tracks that would have to go to R1 and with the other track being over a

little over four acres that would have to go to AR as the current A1 zone has a minimum lot size of 25 acres. There is ample road frontage for both tracks. Um R1 and AR are both consistent with the comp plan as it falls in the South Madison character area. Anybody have any questions on this one or any comments? Hearing none. Move on.

Okay. Jim Price has requested to reszone to 6.975 acres from A2 to AR to allow a second home to be placed on the property as an accessory dwelling unit for a family member. The property is located at 575 McCarti Dodge Road in Calbertt on map 70, parcel 9B in district 5. So, we just simply want to add that second home for a family member. Mr. Price lives on the property in the principal dwelling, so it meets all the ADU requirements. It has to be resoneed from A2 to AR because the current A2 zone requires a 10 acre minimum for two homes and the AR zone requires only a 4 acre minimum. This reszone will also bring the property into compliance with zoning ordinance. Um, as far as roadage, the property is accessed by an existing easement that serves a total of three parcels. However, since no splits are being made, roadage requirements do do not apply. They plan on using a shared driveway and the AR zone is consistent with the comp plan as it's in the South Madison character area.

That's where it comes in on this side. There's easement on probably on the other side. Mark Campbell I think on the bottom side I think probably got his road front probably up there driveway up there it's on other side Tracy not that it matters with an ADU situation what are the three parcels that are accessed I see there's probably one where that says Benny Cox and then the parcel in question what's the third parcel that's being accessed by the private So the e that's coming off.

Uh yes, that one that's labeled Christopher Car. Yes, sir. Okay. So they're not getting access off. They're using the prop. Mhm. Christopher. Yeah. So, but it would be his parcel and any cop. So, there's three. You said three. Yeah. This one, this one, and this one.

Oh, I see. You can't hardly see it. All right. Any further comments or questions on this one?

Hearing none, move on.

Daniel and Diane TR are requesting to resone their 1.81 81 acres from A2 to A1 to combine with their adjoining A1 property which is tax parcel 9 041 for a total of 57.5 acres for tax purposes. Property is located at 0 Drake Road in Danielsville on mount 9 parcel 40 in district 2. So this 1.81 81 acre track is vacant and instead of getting two tax bills, they're just wanting to combine with their adjoining A1 property that has four poultry houses, a sack house, and their residence on it. Um, neither property is in Koopa, but they're wanting to have these combined and put it in there for that purpose. Um and of course it would take a refund from A2 to A1 because it's required because the adj property is A1 with poultry houses. There is ample road frontage. A1 is consistent with the comp plan as it's in the rural conservation character area.

How did that get approved? Yeah, one of those that's just been there. I I I looked in the records, could not find how that came to be. So then um once they provisionally buy it, well that one next to the stack house, they got Apple footed road distance from where it's supposed to be.

Well, as far I mean what's there is grandfathered in. So I mean it really doesn't matter. and and you're actually making the deficit, it helps the deficit matter.

Just a reminder, this is the discussion we've gone back and forth on for years. You know, normally when a a new lot is created, and that means either by splitting or combining either way is a new lot. Um, it has to be everything has to comply. It loses that grandfather status. But then there's also a lot of fallout at least on some reasons that well it's making it better so that's okay. Then other ones come up and you say well it's kind of a judgment call whether it's better or not. I guess on a dimensional issue like this it's pretty cut and dry. So anyway just reminding everybody that's sometimes a topic of discussion.

So if they ever wanted to take it out and sell it they couldn't do it because it doesn't So they'd be making another new ownership doesn't matter. Doesn't matter who owns it. What matters is the configuration of the lot. Is it?

Any other questions? We're just looking here. I mentioned to Tracy the other day, Q public shows three active chicken houses and there's four on here. Not that that has any bearing on what we're doing. Okay.

All right. Number four.

Okay. James Stockrey is requesting to reszone his 13.45 acres from A1 to A2 to allow a second home to be placed on the property as an accessory dwelling unit for a family member. Property is located at 1025 Urban Kirk Road in Danielsville on map 53 parcel 74 in district 2. So the property contains Mr. Dockery's mobile home that he currently resides in and he's wanting to build a a site built home on the property for himself and keep the mobile home for a family member to live in. So it's it's an ADU but kind of in reverse. Um the new home will will be the principal dwelling and the existing mobile home will actually be the sex dwelling unit. So, it meets the ADU requirements because he'll be living on the property in the principal dwelling. It's requiring a reszone from A1 to A2 because the A1 zone that is currently in now is the 25 acre minimum for ADUs and the A2 is only a 10 acre minimum. The reason I will bring the property into compliance with zoning ordinance. Um, road frontage. There's ample road frontage, but no splits are being made, so requirements do not apply. Um, they will have to have separate driveways. Um, the existing driveway is off Irving Kurt Road and due to the new home location, that driveway will be off Rock Corey. And uh H2 is consistent with the comp plan as it's in the rural conservation character area. Property is in Cuba, but

this transaction won't breach it. Will not breach it. Will not breach it. Questions comments?

All right. Number five. Melody Christian, applicant for Ernestine Cochran, is requesting to resone a 4 acre portion of her 28.17 acres from A1 to AR to allow it to be split to gift her grandson for a home site and to rezone the remaining 24.17 acres from A1 to A2 to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. Property is located at 2909 Highway 191 in Danielville on 79, parcel one in district 4. So, Miss Cochran lives on the property and just wants to split off that four acres for a grandson. This is of course taking a requiring a dual resone. The 4 acre portion needs to go to AR due to the lot size and the remaining 24.17 acres will have to go to A2 since it falls slightly short of the 25 acre minimum in the current A1 zone. There is ample road frontage for both tracks. Both the AR and A2 are consistent with the comp plan as it's in the rural conservation character area. This is in Kuba, but there's no bridge since it's immediate family.

Where's her home? Her home is like right here on the other side. Yes, ma'am. This red this red line labeled shared driveway. Will that involve an easement if that's straddling the property line, which it looks like it is, will that be an easement?

And is that what they're wanting to do? Is there a reason why they want it on the property? I think the topography was why they were just using the same shared drive. The 4 would be hard to get in a new drive. But how come she included Will the drive be on one parcel or the other or I think it's going to be on hers.

Okay. So there will be an easement to get to the new parcel when there's road. This was a topic of discussion last meeting with you. why we why we allow easements when there's adequate road frontage to for everybody to have their own access.

Um again I'm not a planner but uh I think the answer to that question is generally to reduce the number of entrances and exits into a public road. you know, every every driveway is a safety hazard, but I understand that's generally not the view here. I know in your point there in that curve right there, there' be one, two, three, four, fiveways coming out of that curve right there that

I don't quite involve an easement one way or the other. We have some commissioners that don't like the word easement but sometime it makes sense. I understand this case I would think so.

There have been you know there have been lots of cases in my decades here where there were many lots off of private drive and people eventually want county to make that public road maintain it for them. And I get why that becomes a problem. A share drive for two lots that both have road frontage. So it's it's only reducing the number of cars of points of access. It's not really getting into that problem. Seems like it would be okay. a lot of time public safety as well for an ambulance and those type things when there is an emergency and you go into and there's multiple residences things aren't always properly marked and then that can open up things for litigation purposes if for response times and those not saying it's founded but that was something that uh I've had brought up to me several times

yeah um you know at one of the couple of committee meetings I was allowed to attend There was a lot of discussion about private drives and um and I certainly I I mean CPL wrote the new ordinance to to not to require road frontage for every new lot, public road frontage, which I think frankly is a good idea in this case where you have lots that both have adequate road frontage and you're just using a shared drive um perhaps for that curve that That strike me as such a bad thing. But

and that's not counting on the other side of the road. One, two, five, six block on the other side curve or two. I do have a question like this does have road and they are using the same shared driveway. Do we need them to show like an access e or does it matter since they have is that going to be 150? I mean, you can't tell with these kinds of Well, we did tell them it would need to be. You did tell them that. We did tell them that. So, yeah. So, so no easements required from a compliance standpoint. It's just purely between them.

If there if there was had to have an easement, then who would be given the ease? the the person that's there now. It's a cross easement between the two land owners. It's pretty common for share drive. Okay. Further questions or comments? All right. Let's move on.

Okay. Um, Kenneth Hong, applicant for Richard and Carrie Klein, is requesting to reszone their 34.79 acres from A2 to A1 to be allowed to build four poultry houses on the property. Property is located at 0 Cherokee Road in Commer on 103, parcel 11 East in district 4. So Kenneth Hong is purchasing the property from the Kings. There's no structures on the property now, but he's again wanting to build those four poultry houses. He is also having to purchase u the team's adjoining 28.49 acre track because they won't sell one without the other. um he doesn't have any future plans for the 28 acre track. Um but we'll get into that in just a minute. But anyway, a reszone from A2 to A1 is required for poultry houses. Um there also will be a variance request um because one of the poultry houses will will be only 200 ft from one side property line on two corners of the poultry house due to um topography. Um and then A1 is consistent with the comp plan as it's in the rural conservation character area. it is in Cuba that there's no breach. And then I'll go ahead and read read the uh next one down for the variance. So they are requesting a variance to be allowed to build one poultry house that

cannot meet the 300 ft setback requirement in two places on one of the five property lines with a deficit of 97.2 feet and 97.4t. And um so it can meet all the other poultry houses can meet all the other setbacks and this one can meet them as well except for those two corners. Why crowded up there and create that problem? There's tons of acreage there. They combined both track have to buy the second track.

He's not able to combine them. Well, even without it, there's without the second track, they're just putting four houses right up close to the road and leaving many acres behind them undeveloped. Why? Why does that The only thing why does it need to be pushed up? The only thing I could imagine was would be topography. And I was going to ask if that is their claim, is it appropriate to put the burden on them to convince us that that that is the case? And we've gone through this several times that Instead of putting the number that they can fit, they want to put another one that doesn't fit. Then they have to hit event. So

what is the reason for the variance? I don't see one on here. I think it's because of the because of where they want to spend it, where they want to put it. I understand it. It is hypocrisy. Okay. Okay. Is that his land next to it or That's his land, right? You mean down here at the bottom? Okay. Where the yellow part is? The yellow up is his Okay. And he's not needing to set back to that other lane lot, right? This right here. So, has have they been set a little something? Are we hearing anything from

So, yes. So the land to the left of that small short yellow line is not hit. Is that his? Yeah, that's his. But he's still not one where he's got the is not hit. The yellow line yellow line is his property line. Right. And he's not the

Well, so what's a topography issue? Is it simply that some more grading would be necessary or is it I don't see a pond or you know anything significant like that. I mean just to avoid a little expense grading is not necessarily justification for a variance. I can reach back out to him to to say we need a little bit more he'll have to explain that variance and and and explain why he needs them. I want to is not one of those standards.

And I'm sure it's economic impact. That's that's well to some extent it could be but again let's look at the y'all know it's in section 11. That's in chapter 11 of his zoning ordinance. And every applicant needs to ask for a variance, needs to be prepared to explain why he meets those criteria. Okay.

Well, I kind of I kind of have a problem with I mean, you know, 10 ft, 15 ft, 25 ft, there ain't a whole lot. when you start getting in the 50s and hundreds and I mean why even have a rule if you're going to change it by various we got some days in the head oh I understand that yeah what's going on with chicken houses this is processing plants I don't know we have been overtaken I know county is one of the top growers in in George well you about to move up another notch in the road.

Now, six, seven, and eight, are they all together?

They can be voted as one. So, um, taken as one vote. So, the eighth one, um, this is where he's wanting to reszone the 28.49 acre track from A2 to A1 to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. Now, um, as mentioned earlier, um, this is the other adjoining property had to purchase in order to buy the 34 acre track that he wanted. Um, he told me that he had no immediate plans to build any poultry houses on the property. Um, but he said he just wanted them to have the same zoning. So in cases of that, um, due to the parcel being over 25 acres of land and being next door to a proposed A1 zoning, I just listed it to bring it into compliance. Um, I will say I have had um a a citizen, a neighbor, Tommy Hunter, uh, reach out to me um, and and was very

upset. Upset. Yes. very very upset that he is just reszoning this property with the intent of building poultry houses in the future without having to go before the board to actually have a public hearing for him to build those poultry houses. Well, my question would be why didn't you build this bar he's asking for? Why didn't you build it on that lot? Yeah, there's his. Okay. Can I ask something? the 34.79 acres. That's what he owns, right? Okay. Huh?

He owns five. Yeah, but he's buying. Okay. So, the 34.79 is one acre that he wants to put houses on. Okay. And um the 20, what is it? 28.49. He has to buy that one. Mhm. But the poultry houses aren't going to sit on it, right? He has any future plans for Okay. So why do we have to do that all together? Can't we just If you can be separately in case one doesn't go through, you can always be okay.

Correct. They're not they're not codependent. I don't That's what I wanted to know. Yeah. Okay. Because because because my my my problem with it is the barrier. Yeah. Because he got enough property although in two two two locations that he's got enough property that he can meet all the setbacks without a barrier. Right. I think all three of these could be heard separately. They don't depend upon one another which is fine.

They may economically to him and he may ask if they be heard together and if so that's I think that's fine. you know that's but if he wants some heard separately again you know that that depends on his own I guess individ the the private financing or arrangements contract arrangements and and we could do it either way his choice. So another question if we go from A2 to A1 and he decides he does want to put something on that other property and he tries to put four and cancel does he still have to come back to I mean, no. If it's already Well, if he can't fit,

if he can meet the setback. Oh, yeah. But I'm saying if he trying to put more than he can, he still has to come back. If he can't meet the setback, then he had to prepare. But if he can made it, he won't have to come back before you, right? And that kind of sounds like a little bit like the one that was denied last night by the officers.

Yeah. And I was just thinking if I just give everybody a reminder so we've dealt with these from time to time about A1 and A2. So I mean Mr. Hunter has a point and I would have thought when I started here and have thought since uh that A2 would seem to be your sort of default zoning because it's it's not it's not small tracks suitable for subdivision development, but neither is it intensive agriculture. Seems like A2 is sort of the most innocuous classification but whatever general farming.

Yeah. Right. Um, for whatever reason in 1994, uh, the default seems to have been A1. Uh, and so you have, as you know, many A1 spread throughout the county, many of them non-conforming, smaller than the required minimums even before the minimums are raised. Um, I remember gosh what, three or four years ago, maybe there were in one little section of the county, uh, appeared to be a really tight-knit neighborhood. They all knew each other and they said, "Hey, we need to change all of our zoning to A2 and they sort of came in here in mass, which was smart on their part." Uh and this is another unique area where I noticed looking at the zoning map uh that although normally you see green everywhere you for A1 you see mostly yellow in this area.

So uh yeah an interesting uh combination of circumstances. But is this the is this the same guy who wanted to build up road? Just to clarify, Mr. Hunter's concern is being able for him to expand the number of houses in this parcel next door to him. Is that his concern is expansion? Yeah. being able to build culture houses within on that 28 acre track without having to go back before the board for approval.

And the answer is yes. As long as he can meet the setback one, yes, he can. And the true the true zoning is A1. So it's only 25 acres. And for that matter, yeah, I don't I haven't seen the property and I'm not an engineer, so I wouldn't know anything if I did look at it, but not necessarily he's just going to build four on the 30 acre track. There's a lot of room left there. I thought that might be his concern that if he gets both partial, five parcels, he can expand over onto the other. Sure. That's what I was saying. No.

Well, give the variance. He can't put it on. He has to move to Oh, what could you give him the variance? Again, that's what I was pointing out. He's got four houses crammed up in a very a small percentage of that 30 acres, right?

There's a road. I mean, assuming topography allows it, he could put at six more houses there, maybe more, even on that track, not even looking at the 28 acres. That's just we don't do we don't Madison County has never required. Sometimes we're really rock conservatives and people want to be able to do what they want. Sometimes we are Stalinists and we want to make sure that people tell us everything we're going to do and somehow we think that's binding even though we don't make it a condition of our motion. I'll shut up now.

You know, and I know I know I want to go backwards. We talked about this, but even the one last night that we're talking about about the guy want to build a free I didn't realize but they could have made a condition rather than turn it down. They could have made a condition that he couldn't do anything else and the rest of the property correct. Mhm. Sure. So I thought that would have been a better idea, but I'm not. So number nine.

Okay. Jake Roberts is requesting a variance to allow a storage building to remain closer to the rear property line that does not meet the required 20 foot setback with an approximate deficit of 14 ft. The property is located at 4986 Highway 29 North in Danielsville on map 64, parcel 11 in district 4. So Mr. Roberts lives on the property and has poured a concrete slab and has built a or erected a,200 square foot metal storage building on top of it. And it is actually only six feet away from that property line. So that's a 14t deficit because it's supposed to be at least 20 ft from that property line. um he wants to be allowed to keep it in the in the same spot because moving it would be very costly. He built the building without a permit and discovered and it was discovered by code enforcement which then he there was a stop work order that come into effect.

That is my question. and then he come in the next day to get a permit even though the building was already built. But they would not sign off on the final until this variance was allowed. Now I do have a letter of support attached in your packet that was submitted by the affected property owner Lawrence Ya stating he had no objections regarding the 14oot deficit. I might add to I talked to Jonathan today for a little while after he had talked the other day. He he told me that they one of his guys discovered the building going up, but it's not finished. It's framed up, but it doesn't have a skin on it yet.

So, it is just framed up, but he is in the process of building it. And the reason he felt like it got too close to the property line was there is another old little block building right on the property line. And he knew where the property line was, but he used that as a gauge of where to put this not getting a permit. I mean, he didn't say it was intentional not to not get a permit, but he felt like if the other one was that close to the property line, it must have been okay. So he just erected this one, poured concrete and did his own thing. And what was his reason for not getting the building permit?

A stop work order was placed on it when they discovered it. But the stop work order according to Jonathan was until you get a permit, you've got to stop. Once the permit was issued, they pulled the stop work order down and let it continue even though it's Yeah, he hadn't gotten his variance yet. But they won't they wouldn't they wouldn't sign off on it until he got the variance, right? Okay. But you said it's it's not complete. Go ahead. That's what Jonathan said. Okay. So So Worthy just moves it back. But it's on concrete

concrete step hang over tear down and start over or just not use certain parts of that but the concrete that extra part for a basketball court. Yeah. Yeah. I was trying to find out how much of this was just the fact the guy didn't care or didn't know or what. And I'm still not clear. I mean, that may sound real silly, but I mean, if he wants to get do it without a bear, he can.

I was just wondering if it was Jake the Snake. Some people got that. There used to be a wrestler called Jake the Snake years ago. Yeah. Yeah. snake snake in the bag with had a snake in the bag with it and I remember that because when I I started practicing in Barrett County where I grew up and Russell firm the senator's nephew and great nephew and older Mr. Russell senator's nephew sold the property the rest of J.

All right. Any further questions on this one? comments. We will hear from him at the public hearing, I'm sure. Number 10.

Okay. Um Gary Harbin, applicant for Ralph McKay Jr. is requesting a variance to be allowed to build a cold treehouse on an existing graded pad that cannot meet the 300 ft setback requirements from property lines in five places with the following deficit amount. 18.6 ft 121.1 ft 134.3 ft 146.4t 4 ft and 195.3 ft. Property is located at 2190 Shallow Port Lamar Road in Danielville on route 35 parcel 35 in district 4. So this gentleman has a 191 acres with one active poultry house and one nonproductive poultry house. In 1999, he graded a pad for the po for a poultry house, but he never built on it and he never poured it. It's just a graded pad. Now, he's wanting to build on the existing dirt pad despite it not meeting the setbacks in five places to save on grading and infrastructure cost.

So, he doesn't even have a basketball court. He doesn't have any concrete to hang over. to come on for us a year or so ago. Can I ask this back in 1996? 999 they didn't have to meet setbacks. I mean 94. Okay. So why would he make that grade if he if he wasn't meeting setbacks way back then? Good question to ask him. Very good question. he was going to just put it in there without meeting the setbacks in the first place.

So, there's more than ample acreage to build elsewhere on the property. Um, two of these setbacks, um, the 18.6 and the 134.3 deficit amount cannot meet road frontage setbacks for Shiloh Fort Lamar Road and the 146.4T 4 foot and 195.3 foot deficit amounts can't meet setbacks from I think you said his brother James McKay.

Um and he actually signed a letter of support saying that he's fine with his brother building this and he has no problems. But the 121.1 ft deficit amount that he can't meet setbacks from at Jordan Property. Michael Burns said that he was aware of this deficit and had no issue but refused to sign a letter of support. You know, if that grading's any good after 27 years, we need to find whoever did it. We need to work on our we got trees growing on.

Why are we talking about this? I know. Exactly.

Well, folks, this this this is my neighbor and he just wants what he wants. Mike's having a good time tonight. I've shifted from despair to just abusement at where I wound up in life. I mean, I mean, really, if if we just frankly saying if this is approved, we might as well do sit back. Exactly.

We might do well, but we may not like the next guy. Well, who is this? Anyway, anything this master's week or something number 11.

Okay. Jeff Hendricks has requested to resone his 47.3 acres from A1 to A2 to allow the property to be split into three 15.76 acre tracks to give two to his two children and retain the other track with the home on it for himself. Property is located at 1216 Sailors Road in Hull on Mount 15, parcel 117 in district 1. So he lives on the property and will be will be keeping one of the tracks with his home. The in the refone required would be the entire property must go to A2 to allow for the three 15.76 acre tracks because the current A1 zone requires a lot minimum size of 25 acres and A2 only requires a minimum of 10. There is ample road frontage for all three tracks. A2 is consistent with a comp plan as it falls in the rural conservation character area and this property is not in Kuba. Questions or comments on this one.

All right. If not, move on. Okay. Brian Martin is requesting a variance to be allowed to build one poultry house that cannot meet the 300 foot setback requirement in two places on one of the side property lines with a deficit of 122 ft and 134 ft. It's a chicken house jigsaw puzzle. just can't figure out soon.

The property is located at 4787 Highway 98 East in Commer on 82, parcel 11 in district 2. So, this property has four active poultry houses on it. He wants to to build another one. All other setbacks can be met. And there there is a letter of support received from the affected property owner, Patricia Kerry, stating she was aware and has no issues with the deficit amount. Why not put it on the other side of the city? Yeah, that's right.

That's it. arrangement. He didn't get It's the same length chicken house that's already there. He's just shifted it back towards the property line.

I would have to quit taking I guess I guess my take them if they want to submit it. I guess my point would be that even though the existing property only says it's okay, that's not what we're here for, right? Because they say it's okay, that that doesn't mean it's okay. We got rules to go by. We approve this and the next property only comes and the property owner says they're not okay with it and we approve this and not that one. Mhm.

Well, you know, going back to the one we just talked about, his brother owns that right next to it. You know, they actually together. But you're making an excellent point, and I'm glad to hear that that you're you're here to enforce the zoning ordinance, which is for the good of the entire public, not to mediate between private land owners. Right. But even if you grant exceptions with a verdict or something, setting precedences is something that can burn you down the road consistent with what you're

does the letter mean anything if one was carried to court again that you're not this is not a private dispute. This is signing ordinances on public health health, safety, and welfare. They're under police of local government. I just want everybody to hear that out loud because they wouldn't have to come to us if they could just which apparently some people do.

Okay. Any any further questions on that one? Let's move on. And the last and it's a Cody and Carrie Threel

is requesting a variance to be allowed to build one poultry house that cannot meet the 300 ft setback requirement from prop property loan with deficit amounts of 6.65 ft, 229.64 64 ft and 272.44 ft. And it cannot meet the 400 ft setback requirement from a surrounding dwelling with a 105.21 ft deficit. Property is located at zero moon guest road in Carlson on mount 96 parcel 68 and district 4. So this property has 37.73 acres with one active poultry house and one damaged poultry house and a stack house. So the damaged poultry house is very old and his parents is fallen down. Um it wasn't storm related anything like that. So, he wants to demo it and build back, but um it has to be larger than the other one due to his poultry company regulations, contract regulations. The existing one is a 40 foot by 425 ft and the new one will be 40 foot by 525 ft. And the home that is affected by the 400 foot setback requirement belongs to his father-in-law and has no objection.

Okay, y'all sue me on Do you have to have a stack house with Oh, some say all these other ones never asked for or say there was a stack house. knew I was a chicken lawyer, but it's NEVER

only thing I can say is we're going to have fun at the public here. But and we got a few more variants of white knight in the June one. Oh gosh, I know we are sick to that other one. The the difference with this one is that it is replacing an existing footprint, right? Well, he wouldn't. Yeah, exactly what you need to do there. And if he if he if he met the requirements for rebuilding one of which is in the existing footprint, he would need to come there. If they were building it by the same footprint, he would be okay.

Yes. Depending on if it be destroyed by natural circumstances, what percentage is destroyed? And I don't remember all those rules. 75% something like that. Yeah. So, we got more coming in June. Yeah, at least one. I think one maybe.

Well, I don't I don't I don't have any I don't have any idea public hear how you supposed to vote. But these people kind of need to know that their chances of getting all these wild viruses wasting their money. Maybe not.

Maybe not. Well, as you said, there's no setback because somebody coming over now all this crazy. So, well, anyway, change it.

We going to put you on YouTube. They have a limited target. Well, you know, people have a right to ask for what they want. So, they can ask and then we'll have to go on and then what we say will go before the board of commissioners and they'll have to go. They would have a final say. So, anything else need to come before us tonight? Not a motion. I might get to make a motion.

You are