Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

uh guys, you know, I don't know if you know what you're getting into or not, but welcome by a lot of people recently. [laughter] Uh but that's okay. That's okay. We thank you for your willingness to step up and accept the position. And it doesn't matter what we do as long as we do what we think's right. That's that that that is the uh that's the thing. uh prior to actually uh well, let's get the minutes out of the way first. Uh you have the minutes of April 7th and April 21st. Like all of you received them either online. Um and hopefully you read them. I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from April 7th to April 21st. I make a motion. Have a motion, a second to approve the minutes. Any comments or additions?

Hearing none. [clears throat] Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The minutes of April 7th and April 21st have been approved. Before we go into new business, I'd like to update you on what happened last night at the commission meeting. Uh there were a lot of items that came before commission. I think that all the items were approved except for two correct mean that is that right? Sounds right.

Except for two and those two were the variances that we said that we recommend denial. Uh but the commissioner saw fit to approve uh those those two bares. U I think one of them was the McKay and what was the other one? the one over by the father Mark Mark

Brown Mark with that again before we get started I want to say one thing I I I appreciate the work that this board puts into looking at and thinking about and trying to follow the rules regardless of what the commissioner because we are here to make recommendations. They are the elected officials that makes the final decisions. Although sometimes I disagree with them. I think that we did our job and I want us to continue to do our job. I want us to continue to think about things as what we believe is right and make that recommendation to them. then we have done what we're supposed to do. But also, I'd like to remind you that you are citizens. If something is approved, disapproved, whatever, and you don't agree with it, go to your commissioner, talk to them, tell them, "I don't I don't agree with you with that decision that you just made. not necessarily as a board member, but as an individual, as a citizen of this county, that you have the right to of to your opinion. But our job is to recommend to them what we think is right. And regardless of what they do, I don't want to change that. I want us to think about it, and I want us to make the decision that we believe is correct. Now, let me get off of my soap offering and we will call the new business.

Okay. First up, we have Kenneth Cosnell requesting a resone for his 4.46 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. Property is located at 435 GZnell Hut Road in Danielsville on map 68A, partial 44 in district two. So, we're just having to reszone the AR because it's the 4 acre minimum for ADUs um versus his A2 zone is the 10 acre minimum for ADUs. The street zone will also bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations due to the lot size. Um there will be separate driveways via house pl placement but there's ample road frontage which doesn't really concern us. There's no splits being made. And then um it is consistent with the uh comprehensive plan as it's in the rural conservation career areas.

Any questions? Does he just have 4.46 or he cut this off?

No, he only has 4.46. Any questions, comments? If not, number two. Okay. Andrew Ariano, applicant for his father Arolano, is requesting a variance to allow an existing barn type structure to remain closer to one side property line that doesn't meet the required 15t setback with an approximate 6 foot deficit. property is located at 1654 Lucky Jones Road in Hull on 14 Park 82 in District 1. So, this gentleman came in to the building inspection office and on January 13th, pulled a building permit for um and it was actually 5,28 square ft for [clears throat] horse and equipment storage. At [clears throat] that time, he had said he had already built the structure um prior to pulling that permit. So, and he requested an inspection that following day. When building inspection went out to check the setbacks, he found that it was only 9 ft off of the property line. Um, which, you know, it has to be that 15. So, it's that six foot deficit. Building inspection didn't issue a final due to this violation. So he's not being given a final co for it until this has been worked out.

All right. Questions, please. So I have one the the [clears throat] property owner that this is encroaching upon. Has there been a letter or anything saying that it was okay or No. Okay. Um, so his original property is well within away from the boundary. Did he give any explanation of why he chose to just operate on his own and and he put it up? He did not. [clears throat] He just built the structure,

found out he was going to get in trouble. He didn't have that that building permit to come in and guide it after the fact. And and there's is only there is that it looks like there's some cement foundation, but the uh there's a lot of wood up there. how how how big a structure I mean I can see it's fairly big but I I was wondering how how solid it is and well that gets into the building inspector's um wheelhouse but yeah it doesn't look very stable to me

it looks like it's been there's a fire there so the the the encroachment is in the back front side side on the side. Mhm. It's supposed to be 15 ft from that side property line and it's only and you have not heard from the they were sent letters.

Um he just I this is the second one we had here. Is this something that I know people inform but they just don't know to come in here and get information before they start building. Is that what they That was what he was saying just like that other gentleman that that built too close. I seen where he want utility he had to have to build a permit utility. Don't that might be why he decided he better get a permit. So [laughter] that's probably why you had to get your permit. I wasn't aware of that.

I think the utility folk, they um cut the power on. They had to have a building permit. [clears throat] You're right. Yes, you're correct. They got to be inspected that call that power inlet got to be inspected now. I'm sure that's what gaslighted him to get the permit. So I see this can be a problem down the road. you know, people just building and I know well they they say they don't they didn't know but like you said he had to get a building permission and you're not informed at that time was building from it. Well, what happened? He actually built it. Oh yeah.

Then he tried to get electric and they told him it had to have an electrical inspection before he could get electric. So he come to pull a permit and that's when we realized the structure was already built. I believe you're supposed to pay u double the usual fee. So it's there's there's some penalty for trying to get away with it. Correct. [clears throat]

I noticed he filed this as a hardship variance rather than special exception. Little interesting but guess that's his prerogative. says it's under pursuant to section 11.1.2. Now they have been

Oh, I'm sorry. That is that is special exception. It's 11.2 this hardship. Yeah, never mind. [laughter] All right. Any further questions? The man behind the curtain. I have two things to mention. If you look on the site plan, um the handdrawn uh area there where this barn is on the 4.46 acres, that parcel directly behind that barn is that three acres that borders on that side. Anyway, you see the three acres like he said

that's also owned by this gentleman same owner and I guess my question is is that barring is the variance request along the property line that he owns between his two parcels or does it infringe on that 4.8 acre lot as well? Let me It's hard to tell where the bar is, actually. So, you're asking does it infringe on anybody else or does it infringe on him? Correct. Because he's got Yeah, it depends on him. He's got two lots and gring the variance might make a difference if it's just

if it's just property. That's why he does. So I guess we just need to know exactly where the barn is. We wanted to take that into account because the way here it looks like it's infringing on the other property too. Yeah, I don't know where it's really located. Um, well, we'll [clears throat] be able to ask them.

Yeah. The other thing I wanted to mention and I know this is probably muddy in the water but if you'll look at section 7.3 which is AR the permitted uses specifically 7314 it says agricultural uses as described in section two 7213 with the following requirements. And then if you go to 7213, it talks about housing permitting permitted livestock shall not be closer than 50 ft from the property line. Does that apply here? Because he has horses. livestock. The definition of livestock includes equipment in there. If

he's supposed to have 50 ft, he's really off. Yeah, way off. Okay. Anything else on this one? All right. Number three.

Okay. Um Mark and Tasha White are requesting a variance to allow a stack house to be built that cannot meet the required 300 foot setback from property lines in two places with deficit amounts of 178 ft and 25.7 ft. Property is located at zero current church road in Royston 100 parcel 138 in district 4. So this gentleman has 19.75 acres, two active poultry houses, has ample acreage to build the stack house elsewhere, but said it was more convenient to build at that location due to the poultry houses being there. Um he he actually adjoins um owns four adjoining property owners uh properties where the setbacks can't be met. But if you own the same property, you're exempt from those. But the two other properties that he can't make the setbacks, um one of them, and and Mike, I was going to ask you about this one. One of them is in Elbert County. Mhm.

Um would setback still have to be met for that Elbert County? So the the adjoining track is all in Elbert and this one's all in Madison. That's an interesting question. It is. If you're looking at that site plan with the green circle, the very bottom of Mr. Bobby King, his parcels in Elbertton down here. Get to the page. I had never had one to be like that. I see. Well, if we don't enforce it, I don't know who would because it's not an Elbert County track. So, I would think so. Yeah.

So, that's the one with the greater deficit, that 178 foot. Um, there was a letter of support received from Mr. Bobby King saying he didn't have a problem with it. Um, the property to the north is owned by Chris Witward. Um, and he's only missing that set back by 25.7 ft, but he didn't offer to do a letter before. Is he giving a verbal? I haven't spoken with him. Okay.

And I will say just for the record, Mr. Bobby King that owns the bottom. If you look at Q public directly across the street, there's a poultry farm with 2, four, 6, 8, 10 houses across the street in Elbertton. Mr. Bobby King owns those

across Cor. Yes, sir. Right there. And that's over as well. It is

with the portion in Madison County infringes upon some property in Madison County also, right? 25 ft. 25 ft. Yes, sir. So, were you saying that we need because it is an Ela County, we still need to go in that?

I think so. Yeah, I mean I'm just shooting from the hip here. It's the first time I'm hearing it, but um yeah, uh because obviously there's nothing Elbert County can do about it. Uh because this track's not there. So we it's up to Madison County to enforce it. I think probably a Madison County citizen affected by a neighboring track in Elmer County would want the same same consideration. Correct. All right.

I asked this I called the office and asked this question today and Teresa had helped me and I just mentioned this to these ladies that on that site plan where it says the dirt drive. You see that dirt drive that kind of goes from east to west by that proposed stack house.

Let's just show it with the cursor. whether that's a private drive or a county road. And I'm hearing that it's a private drive. And the reason I inquired about that was to me if that's a private drive and someone owns that property, if this gentleman owns that property, which I assume he does, he owns both sides, taking that stack house, moving it to the north to get a try to get a 300 foot set back down to Mr. King, but pushing it toward Abacombry Drive and those other poultry houses would be a much better option than well done that cut even. It would, but I mean to me I personally I would rather have the I would rather have the deficit on that side along the road and toward those other poultry houses on the other property if we're going to consider variance and try to get the 300 ft between the back house and Mr. King that makes sense. seems pretty much sad on putting it there.

Well, one of the things that that I think we one of the things I think we need to consider is that we are here to enforce the ordinances, not to make it convenient for somebody. Depends on who somebody is. I didn't say that. What did you say? Don't shoot the camera. [laughter] I mean that's that's just fact that's not that's not that's not why we're here

to make things convenient for people. We are here to follow the guidelines that we have been given to go back to make recommend like I said in the beginning to make recommendations to commission once it's in their hand it's in their hands but our job is not to make it convenient for folks and and it seems poetry people just always just push the envelope to for meaningful convenience. Well,

you might want to try to solve Middle East peace. [laughter] I go back to what will say always consistent and I don't think and I don't know this situation but I know the other ones that we had talking with them I mean them coming up talking it seemed like the problem wasn't really the setback because the setback they needed to set back because I think they were being pushed by a company to do things that add more on. And I think it should have go back to their problem is with the companies instead of them trying to infringe on their neighbors. They need to to me it seemed like they need to talk with the companies. [clears throat] But that's just my opinion.

I I think they're just puppets to the company. Well, I just think they need to Well, anyway, as we're considering these things, we've got a couple weeks again, just consider what's proper and what's not and vote to conviction. Yeah. Any further questions or lessons? This one? Hope that conviction is not a 4. All right, move on.

Okay, [clears throat] next we have Colen and Nicole Bryant. They are requesting a variance to be allowed to build a poultry house on their property to replace one that was recently destroyed in an ice storm that cannot meet the 300 ft setback requirement for property line in three places with deficit amounts of 182 feet, 143 feet, and 5 ft. Property is located at 465 Hilly Road in Danielsville on Mount 67, [clears throat] parcel 5-01 in district 2. So, this property has 22.61 acres, three active poultry houses, and one existing dirt pad from the the poultry house that has recently been demoed that was destroyed by the ice storm. we had back in January. Um, so they're wanting to build back on the existing dirt path. Um, and they were going to actually be in the same footprint, but like some others we've heard, their poultry company is requiring the structure to be larger. Um the previous the one that was there was a 40 by 350 and then now it's got to be a 50 by 400. So um that's the reason it can't meet the setbacks in three places. Um now both of those deficits um encroach on Commissioner Chandler's property and he has submitted a letter of support um stating that he has no problems with it whatsoever. Um and then the five foot deficit is from the road.

I'm surprised. Any questions? Not that it matters. I'm just curious. Uh the the poultry company on these is it Harrison Poulry perhaps that's was recently acquired by Wayne Sanderson. I'm just wondering if that recent acquisition is driving all this. Yeah, I know last night two of them were were from that company. Any other any other questions on this one? All right.

Next, we have Tyler and Amanda Hall. They are requesting to ref their 151.68 68 acres from A2 to A1 to be allowed to build four poultry houses on the property. Property is located at 986 Drake Woods Road in Danielsville on map 22 partial 9 in district 2. So the homes just purchased the property in March of this year and they purchased it solely to um build for poultry houses. They also own an adjoining property where they reside and have um an existing poultry house farm and they were just looking to expand their farm and they bought this other track not to be combined but as a separate um poultry house farm. Um let's see. As far as the road signage go, the property has no road frontage. Um, but there is a mobile home that uses an existing easement off of Drake Woods Road. Um, since there are not going to be any splits, um, that's kind of irrelevant, but um, let's see. But they will actually access the the new four poultry houses through their other adjoining property off Job Down Road. So, it won't be additional traffic on the Drake Woods. Um the A1 zone is consistent with the comp plan as it's in the rural conservation character area and surprisingly or not it um the property's not in yet on this one.

Yeah. [laughter] There is there there is some conversation about this one though. I was about to answer a lot of small A2 lights in the south. A lot of conversation about this one. This I got I got a call actually the other day from that they're having a community meeting or something about this particular one.

This is the same area years several years ago where a gentleman wanted to put a pretty large operation like in the middle of a 4 or 500 acres. It was large people up there just over opposition. That you mean we had the courtroom? Yeah. Okay. And I think that there will be a lot of conversation about this one, but from what I gather, the conversation that I had that the community actually is trying to get behind this one.

So, we'll see. But anyway, by the way, I can't go that. All right. Any other questions? Next.

Okay. Um, Gerald Hunt is requesting to resone his 18.8 8 acres from A1 to A2 to allow a second home to be placed on the property as an accessory dwelling unit. Property is located at 3187 Vineard Creek Church Road in COMR on map 994, parcel 44 in district 4. So, the property has a vacant home on it now, and it's in need of um interior renovations uh before it can be lived in. But Mr. Hunt is wanting to actually build a home on the property to live in and then plans on making the renovations on the existing home after he moves in the new home. So, he is unsure at this time who will live in the existing home, but it it really won't matter um because he'll be living on the property in the principal dwelling. Um so, it's kind of like an ADU, but in reverse. The existing home will become the ADU and the new home will be the principal dwelling to be lived in by the property owner. The resone will actually bring the property into compliance as far as the size requirement. Um they will have separate driveways due to home placement but they have ample road but no splits are involved. So kind of irrelevant there. Um the A2 zone is consistent with the comp plan as it's also in the rural conservation character area and this property is in Cuba that this will not breach the contract.

Well, does that road go through the corner of that property? questions. Any questions, comments [clears throat] on this one? Which home the chickens live in? [laughter]

Okay. All right. Next. All right. So, seven, eight, nine, 10, and 11. Um, I don't know if you want me to just read them all together and then we'll discuss them. I would I would think so because all of them, I believe, are contingent on the other ones. I mean, you can't do one without without all of them. So, um, Gary is going to do a Okay. Okay. I got that. Ask you a question. Yes.

All right. So, Stephanie Wilson, applicant for Madison County Industrial Development and Authority, was requesting to reszone their 64.79 acres from A1 to industrial to combine with the joining properties. And I've listed five tax particles there for an industrial slash business park to allow for a mixture of business and industrial high uses for resale purposes. This property is located at zero highway 72 west in Calbertt on Mount 46, parcel 206 in district 5. The next parcel, same information, but this was a 1.88 88 acre parcel going to be reszoneed from business to industrial to combine with all of those parcels for the same industrial part um to allow for the mixed uses. The next one is also a 1.88 acre property being reszone from business to industrial to combine with the other parcels. And the next parcel is 1.78 acres going from business to industrial to combine. And then the last one is a 1.79 acre parcel from business to industrial. So four of the five were already zone business. Um but then the the large track with 64 acre track is A1. So um let's see. So so they have five adjoining properties to be combined and split into multiple tracks for an industrial business part to market to sell. Site plans submitted for 21 lots. However,

that might change depending on what future buyers want. Could be more or less. Now the okay the only thing with the 64.79 acre track um it does adjoin an R1 zone subdivision called Brittany Point on the right upper hand side of the property. I don't know if you can pull up that t

um Yeah, it's right there.

Mhm. Right there. Um, so this particular track actually falls into two character areas. The mar the majority of the property which is the back portion is in the south Madison and then the small front portion is in the whole Calbert corridor. Both are consistent with the comp plan. Although industrial loan is considered a spot zoning as compared with the surrounding area, the other parcels are in the whole car corridor and they are consistent consistent but are still considered spot zoning as far as there's no other industrial zones um on the surrounding parcel. So question. So they're asking for it to be reszone. I mean I don't think they going to combine all of it, but

to be be reszone into B and I. Yeah. Just to I just to I not be just I.

Right. because four uh four of them's already B, but they're want to change all of them to I to allow for a mixture. Like if some companies want to come in and they want to do administrative offices or you know restaurants or stuff, business is okay. that you can have those same uses in the industrial zone, you know, and then other business may want to come in and they would have to be in the industrial zone to do a certain type of work, you know, so they're just wanting to cover it all with an industrial. Can we let Bethany tell us what is?

Sure. I mean, she she'll have that opportunity on our our our meeting, but if you want to give us a little background. Sure. Real briefly. Sure. So, I have some larger plans with me as well as um the driveway plans that were just approved and awarded for bid for the construction of the entrance of that property. But our plan before you go too forward with that, now let me ask this question. Sure. It's already been started to put driveways and stuff in. Correct. So, the front is already zone business. Yeah. Okay.

So, we're already in compliance with that. Yes, sir. Um, but yes, all of that was out to bid. The bid has been awarded for the driveway entrance. Um, the back portion is specifically what we're looking for industrial for. We would like to go ahead and do the front four lots as well and combine them. But if you're familiar with the area down at Madaka Drive where SMI um Georgia, stuff like that, that's kind of what we're envisioning for this area. Unfortunately, we don't have a light industrial zoning. So, if we did, that's what we would be asking for. We're not predicting to put any type of heavy industrial there. Then, we're also going to work with Mr. through it to ensure that we have agreement with anyone that purchases purchases the property that they can't bring certain things into the county. It has to be things that would be conducive with the county plans and with where we're wanting to go as a whole. Um and then whenever the property is sold eventually it may be sold, you know, change hands, whatever. if something different is going to go on that property than what the original intended use was, we're going to request that they come back before the IDBA board so we can, I guess, for lack of better words, kind of police that to make sure that what somebody else may be bringing in the county is something that the county would want as a whole. So, that's kind of our vision for the property. Is there any other specific questions that you guys have that I could answer? It's going to be light industrial like one day at Mico. It's not going to be no heavy industrial. No sir.

No sir. That's the that's the intent. That's the intent. That's the intent. But rather than getting into a whole long discussion tonight because this is this is a business meeting. We're just you know be sure to come back. Absolutely. Can I ask one question? Just one. Just one. Okay. I know that um you said that you are you build the sweet suit, right? Correct. Okay. So, my problem is well not problem but my concern is that as you know you're building the suit and your goal is to build out all that and get it occupied.

Well, all of it that's available. Not all of it can be built on. So, we've already had a septic. Yeah. um they've already tested for subject like the soil test to see not all of it is good to build and so we're aware of that and the area that's not good is the area that's in the back. Okay. Well, what I'm saying because there is a subdivision. I talked to those people and they got a concern about this.

But anyway, um I know your goal is to build out and get whatever is in there, but see when you go to industrial and this is my problem because we had one before that you if you can't find it's there desired interest and there's undesired but if you can't get the desired one you still whoever comes to you you're going to want to sell that property no so you just let it sit yes if it's not something that the Industrial Development and Building Authority Board aligns with we would not sell it to them

and you can't come I'm asking our lawyer here is can they do it where They can have so we can have some kind of idea what who wants to be in there with um contracts with contingencies between

I mean you know like okay she she's building suit so she can she's trying to get people in there so she's going to get she's going to get either they're going to come to her or she's going to go to them to get persons that want to build in there they are interested. So they're already starting with the road. So is there is that something that you know so we have some idea that this is the company that's interested and they're going to be in there and it's contingent because you will be you would have a possibility we would know who would want to be in there and be contingent on if it goes into

So remember this is a government agency. Oh, he's also our attorney. So, yeah. Well, I'm asking.

So, yeah, the industrial authority is an instrumentality uh of the county uh the subdivision of the state of Georgia. Um their charter uh charges them with economic development uh for the good of the citizens of the county. So, um, industrial parks typically, um, involve understood cooperation between the county and the industrial authority. Uh and and yes, so they're the ones charged with vetting they sell to to make sure that they're providing employment opportunities, providing tax base, provide uh providing environmental protections, all of the things that they're charged with under the rubric of the best interest of the county. Typically, the county would not particularly get into second guessing that. So my

um why they want to go to industrial why won't they keep a business because you can get business parts and everything in there. Why does it need excuse me? We're going to have a public hearing not here tonight to debate. You know whether you like it or dislike it is okay. No I'm not. But in our public hearing, all of these questions can be answered. We can't I mean, you know, I want to stay on on on task as to what we're here for. [clears throat] Anybody else?

I do. Mike, I understand you're working for both entities, but is this a typical arrangement as far as inside of it? I know I'm asking you to kind of take that hat off, but this is the first time where we have something proactive come before us that is government sponsored, if you will. Right. So, does this Gianha? Yeah. I'm bringing my I'm bringing my southern charm to this. Okay. Yeah, she was right and I was left. I know. Uh so, um

yeah, I think so. I mean, different counties do it different ways in my limited experience and seeing it other places. Uh but I think the idea here is to uh obviously it's uh it's exempt from zoning so long as it's in in the ownership of the industrial authority but they won't sell the whole county ultimately wants that to be privately owned and then it's subject to zoning. I think the idea here is that let's go ahead and get it own industrial so that there are not obstacles to buyers who are interested in this property. uh and then the IDA can control it again through they have much more author counties are restricted authorities are not by design of law on disposal of property. They have very wide discretion on picking and choosing who they sell to again to serve the best interest of the county. uh and they may choose to place covenants on the whole the whole industrial part or on lots different covenants lot by lot whatever sort of I suppose in their discretion looks best as it goes along and I had suggested you know for example if u one I mean everybody likes restrictions and conditions and covenants and we all know the good things about them the bad things about them in a position in a situation like this is, you know, if a Rivian shows up and wants to buy the whole park and create 2,000 jobs in Madison County, um, you don't want to have a lot of restrictions already in place that are going to be an obstacle to that.

I have a procedural question procedural. Okay. Um, just like with every zone, industrial has permitted and conditional uses. Most of the conditional uses listed here are those that really tip over into heavy industrial and I can imagine that those are the ones you probably don't want. However, if there happen to be one like chemical manufacturing, you know, internal within a building confined, you know, put on the FN, but it does fall under conditional use, would they would they have to come back to us or would that be something controlled by the

They'd have to come back to you. And uh I guess to go down the same path of the example I threw out, um as attractive as one would think a lot of jobs and money from Rivian might be, it was not that easy in Morgan County when that happened. Uh and there was a lot of conflict and controversy between various government entities. So no, it's I think this is trying to remove the first obstacle by getting it own industrial, but it doesn't remove all obstacles just like traditional uses.

All right, that question I have now that [laughter] brings into the dust. Okay. Can there be a condition put on it that whatever wherever they sell it to or whatever company they they're dealing with has to come before not us but the board of commissioners for approval that's out there way in that field. I've never heard

I I don't know that it's legal but uh it's certainly out of the ordinary. I play deep. I mean, I think I don't I think I had the same question. I don't really going if if you all sell a parcel to a company and they have they promised you they wanted you they want this use on that parcel. What if it doesn't work out? They sell it to someone else. Do you control that sale and the use?

That's right. So whenever they purchase a property, they're going to have to tell us the intended use and if it aligns with what we see in the comp plan and as a whole for Madison County, we say, "Okay, great. Yes, that looks good. You have x amount of months to get that going. If not, we're going to give you your money back and the property goes back to us." If you sell it to someone and the use for the property changes, I don't know that we can do that. But uh because there are while there are the law allows reasonable covenants on property, it prohibits restraints on alienation which means restrictions that unreasonably constrain fair market value sale of that property.

So So which part are you question are you having having a restriction in the deed that says if you sell it to somebody else they can't change the use. I think that's probably an illegal restraint on aviation if but can we have in there if the use is intended to change? Did they bring that before our board? What's the difference? So we would know and be able to figure out what's going on with it. No. Is it just for information or is it for a decision whether they can do it or not? I I think what said if it's legal, it's legal. If that's not a legal, it doesn't matter who you bring for.

Yeah. I could I guess I guess you could have give us notice, but again, if you if you have the right to say no, then that's a restrain on alienation. And we've had this problem before where like the uh transfer station, it was zon industrial. Okay. people didn't want it there, but it was zoned industrial. So, you that's what it was. You could you could put it there. So, um I would have I mean, y'all this is not the first industrial park in United States. No.

Right. So, I would have hoped that there would have been all this conversation uh and communication and a common understanding between the board of commissioners and industrial authority before this land was purchased. This is an odd time to be hashing out these fundamental philosophical questions. Well, those are the questions that we have, but I'm not I'm not I don't know what has happened between the industrial authority and the commissioner. Todd sits on our board. Well, I understand sits on the board, but he was aware and the commissioners are aware of the purchase of the property and the intended use. Can I go ahead?

Okay. But I'm just saying this is our time to get information. Like you said, this is the first time we have something like this between authority and

and this may be a situation where the planning commission has a limited role because this is something being pursued under the charter of the industrial authority which is essentially and that's why I read the survey on the condition of the industrial authority acknowledge that it is total it's subject to total control by the board commissioners because the commissioners at its pleasure appoints and removes the members of the industrial authority. So um this is kind of happening at a higher level. This is not Fred building the chicken house.

Yes. So then that means that we really don't have any say but to zone even though I live in that area people live in that area. It's already done. You're a recommendation. Well, I mean, you need information because that's what people want is information and they have concern because they I believe on the letter that Tracy sent out, she also included my phone number. I urge anyone with any questions to give me a call and I'm more than happy to speak with them and explain the use and the importance of this property. May I suggest to you

that's in your area? That's in your area, right? If if people are concerned, tell them to show up to the public hearing and they will be able to hear what she has to say and they will be able to express their concerns to this board and our role is to recommend to the board of commission. And I think sometimes concerns come from lack of full understanding or misinformation. And that's why I'm so willing to speak with anyone that would like to. Okay. Thank you so much. Do you have documents on visual copy?

Yes. Um I think I sent it to you. We'll get up later. Okay. But if you have them on digital, you just Thank you, madam. Thank you. Next.

Okay, we have Gary Harvin, applicant for Kevin Gordon, is requesting a variance to allow proposed lots number one with 6.355 acres to remain in its original configuration that does not meet the leap to width, excuse me, length to width ratio that requires The lot point length can be no greater than four times its width. Property is located at 2870 Prabapple Hollow Road in Nicholson on map 17, parcel 9E in district 1. And um so if you'll remember um a couple months back you approved the reszone for Mr. board and split his um 16.55 acre track into three lots.

Um so during the VOC uh meeting uh it was brought up that lot one did not meet that lot width ratio requirement. So, the board had actually voted to contingently approve the reszone application to allow the three splits and for it not to be effective until and unless the property owner applies for the variance and the BOC approves it. So that will be going before you.

Any questions? That would be complicated anyway. So the only reason he's coming for a various is because of what the board did

cuz um that that lot the length is [clears throat] greater than four times its width. But that was the only lot that ended up that way. those and anytime there's three or more lots of 10 acres or more split, they do have to meet that lot to ratio. [clears throat] 10 I'm sorry, 10 acres or less. I apologize. Okay, I'm just a little bit confused and that's not I recall that's not unusual.

No, let me try to help if my memor is correct. Y'all tell me if I'm wrong. Um, I believe this one went through with no controversy and it wasn't until the board commissioner's level where this requirement on length to width ratio in these narrow circumstances got pointed out. And so sort of the result was we don't really see a problem with this, but technically you were supposed to apply for a variance and you didn't. So we're going to have to send it back through for the variance. Oh,

okay. Okay, clears it up a little bit. Anybody else? Any other questions? Is that the last one? Nothing.

Anything else need to be brought before us tonight? I'd like to add one thing as a recommendation. Um [clears throat] over the past month we have handled more variances than a long long time. um last night at the BC and it became apparent to me that and it's no fault of anyone but the applicants are requesting variances which means exceptions to the rule um without in my mind coming prepared to justify their their variance really just a real justification there the the minimum I've looked at the minimum requirements and they're supposed to submit an application, a fee, and then a site plan. And then you can have them to submit a sketch or only a sketch plan if need be. And that's what they're doing to me. To have a an applicant to come in for a poetry house variance and just say, I want a variance because there's a big drop off doesn't tell me anything. It sounds like the the burden is on the applicant and needs to be clearly stated to them that the burden is on them. They can bring topo maps. They can bring engineer drawings. They can bring whatever they need to convince us that they need consideration for variance. I just don't think that they're prepared to sell us on their request in the coming year. I confirm

my my recommendation would be to make them aware of that that the burden is on them. They bring anything they want to prove their case, but just these just a drop off, don't you? Just to say so. Well, will that Mike would that have to come in [clears throat] the form of some type of text amendment to our I think I don't think so necessarily. Let me restarted the answer. So, let me hear your thought on that.

I was just looking here. I think that the zoning administrator has the ability to request really anything else that might be appropriate for for the variance. Under 11413 says a site plan to assist the approving authority in rendering a decision on the application where in the opinion of the zoning administrator, the county would not be better served by a formal site plan on the escape plan will be required with I mean, for me in general, I would think Tracy has the ability to at least notify them that the burden is on them. How that would be done, I don't know.

Yeah, that makes sense. It It makes a lot of sense. Um whether people take that advice or feel like they need to, if they come in, it's up to them. If they come in and haven't done their homework and convinced us that why they need their variance, then they're playing with it tonight. Well, they're playing with it, but several didn't bear that consequence, and that could certainly be the case in the future as well.

I just feel like they need they need to know what is expected of them when they come in. Well, maybe not a text amendment, but maybe a recommendation to the board to look at that cuz Mr. Tra just don't she works with somebody. She just can't come up with rules. I mean, it's got to be approved by Yeah, that's why I'm throwing it out. I'm not sure how to do that. So, so I I think it needs to go from the top down somehow that we put something in there. And I agree with you. You want to discuss that with

Sure. I'll be glad to agree. Dr. I'm actually looking at the um um CPL variance provision, which is section 13.8 eight in their latest draft and it actually just at a glance here it seems actually more restrictive than the one Madison County has now and may address some of those concerns that you're talking about. If you haven't looked at it already, it might be worth a glance with that if we ever get if we ever get

Well, yeah. I I mean and I understand uh I understand the board of commissioners didn't go for it last night and that's certainly fine. That's their prerogative. U the thought with the TUD and I guess this would be the same thought here and it might meet the same fate is that even if we're not ready to do it wholesale perhaps we could take parts that are clearly superior and amend what we have on the path to doing them. They they have got to be willing to do that. Yeah. And I understand they may not go for that and that's fine.

I don't know. Whenever I hear things, I try to look at at resources that might help me think about it and get other ideas. So one last comment before we journ get I don't know how much this will affect us but get ready because there was a gentleman came last night want say moratorium on a moratorum on so I don't know what that's going to be down the road but somehow another in the middle east as well somehow All right, I got a motion to start.

Okay, we are