Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

and I think the same result was at Brian Martin's. Cody carried Theracol, it was a little bit of a different situation, and I think if I remember correctly, y'all's recommendation was to approve that one. And that was a little bit different, because there was an existing house there that had been torn down, he was rebuilding in that spot, and his property was a pretty easy, pretty clear hardship, because number one, the company was requiring a different size, and there was nowhere else in that property to put it and if he wasn't granted a variance, he's out of business. So that was pretty easy and we went along with the recommendation. Ralph McKay and Brian Martin, both of them, I chastised them significantly after the meeting, but appropriate to do so perfectly. They came and presented the case to y'all as they did to us without information that verified any kind of hardship. I personally knew each of those three situations. I had personal background with each of those from my time in the poultry industry, my time working with them personally. I was aware of the hardship. I can look at Ralph McKay's and see the difference there. He had an existing house and a pad that had been constructed but no house ever built. So what would I know is if he's in that debt to build on that pad, but you were to be encroached on that property line What I knew from from personal my personal knowledge was If that bears are not granted he ends up with a second driveway a whole new construction of pad He ends up having to have a second second generator set up separate Likely a separate water set up. So I'm I'm in my mind. I'm calculating a $50,000 plus. Now, the thing that I cannot answer, is it appropriate for me to base my decision on my knowledge of the hardship, even though he did not present it? It's not fair to y'all that you didn't have that information. I had it because of my knowledge. Very much the same situation with Brian Martin. I was aware of what he was going to have to do, the additional costs that were going to be My feet have been on that floor, and I've seen it. So I was aware of that, and my mind, the cash register ringing, and I measure hardship there. Again, is it appropriate for me to have that information, and y'all not? And I did, I chastised both of them, and I had told them in advance that it was their responsibility to express to you what that hardship is, and neither one of them did so.

And they did hear about it from me, not a public matter, but they did hear about it from me.

So anyway, I'll give you all that information to explain my vote to no one. I guess congratulate is probably a, certify that based on the information that you had, I think you absolutely made the right decision. I think your vote was absolutely appropriate. But again, based on the information I had, and is that appropriate? Should I have required them to wait six months and come back and damn prevent hardship, I can't. I made the decision to move on forward with it based on my knowledge. So that's that information. But here's the challenge that I give to you in Mr. Pruitt's presence. So what are the criteria? And why do we look at these different when somebody has a poultry house or somebody's got a backyard shop? But y'all, and we're human. I'm not being critical to anybody here, but I am offering this as a challenge. And can always address the board's last meeting about this same kind of thing. So he's got a garage, but he still has violated, he's already built it, built it without a building permit, and he's violated the Senate Act. But we wink at that one. But when we come up with a chicken house, we pull out the magnifying glass. I mean, I get it. We all, and again, I'm not being critical of anybody, but like Kenona's presented to us, do we look at these variances as we should? Are we requiring everybody to prove the same level of hardship? And then we have another one the next month. Look at different situations. One garage outbuilding and we had another poultry house. Again, we look at poultry houses differently. Is hardship a hardship regardless of what the case is? I offer you encouragement just because if we reverse the recommendations you gave to us, there is, at least from my part, there's going to be sound reasons. But I don't want you all to think that there's something wrong with your thinking. I want to know your opinion. I want to know the class. I want to know your recommendation is important to me. And I feel the... an extra degree of responsibility to you in the situations where we reverse the recommendation.

Anyway, with that, that's all. If they don't recommend, come in and ask for hardship, why should that hardship be brought up? Well, the hardship is the reason for it, but it's not brought up to us to be a hardship. So that shouldn't even go into play if it's a hardship. So there's two kinds of exceptions in your zoning ordinance.

There's a special exception variance and there's a hardship variance. And 11.1 is special exception, 11.2 is hardship. If you read those sections, the criteria are somewhat similar, but not completely. And financial Financial considerations are not required to be considered in either one of them. As a matter of fact, under hardship variance, it says that in no case shall a hardship variance be requested or granted for a condition created by the applicant, including the result of an unwise investment decision or real estate transaction. And, of course, we know there are lots of problems with this zoning ordinance. It's a model that came out of the Northeast Regional Commission back in the 80s. It was adopted by Madison County in the 90s, 94. But this is what we have. Unless and until we get something better, we do need to try to observe what's in our ordinance as best we can, including when we use the terminology of hardship.

My concern is long-term, when we have people come in, and it's not just the chicken farm. It's other people that they say their neighbor says, well, it's fine. But long-term, when they get ready to go sell that property, it will affect what they say when you're not keeping those defined lines. or you have behavioral setbacks. So it's going to affect them and they may not realize it's going to affect them when they get ready to go sell that property.

And as I recall, and I think this would involve a poultry house, there was a variance maybe the following month or maybe two months later that you were the neighbor and offended property owner. And just like the man in the shed's neighbor, you said that's fine with me. Yeah. just like the man with the shed that there is, so that's refined. So that does seem similar, not opposed.

And his was, so this, we're talking about, I'll put his name here in a minute. Right. White. Right. So he's colored bright, colored bright. So they had a pre-existing poultry house that the ice storm had fallen down and he wanted to rebuild in the same place, which was already inside of, already close to the property line than what it's allowed. And then the company also required the house to be a little bit smaller, a little bit larger. So it wasn't gonna be available on the same footprint, it was gonna be a little bit closer. So there was, yeah, yeah. And I was, I wouldn't be offended. So just, can you give us some guidance in general and separate in my mind the difference in sort of the two degrees or two areas that we're allowed to use variances When should a hardship come into play? Should the, or financial considerations, should they realistically be, I mean, is it $5,000, $10,000? Do we discount that completely when we play the hardship?

The only thing that I can say is that, and I spoke on this the other night, the only thing I can say is follow the rules. We got the rules. The rules are there. Follow the rules. And it doesn't matter to me whether it's a poker house or somebody building a house too close to the property line. I don't think it makes any difference. Variances are based on the property itself, not on the person. You know, it's crazy to me to understand how somebody can go and apply for a half a million dollar loan and they already know that they can't meet the setback. They already know that they're in violation. And in my opinion, they're creating their own hardship.

This could be a really good discussion if everyone were willing to read and study these two variant sections. Perhaps come in with some thoughts of what you've read, maybe some hypotheticals or even real life examples like you said. And certainly they don't answer all the questions. but to just sit here and talk about it without even having this in our minds and having already studied it. So like I told a lawyer friend who later became a judge, and I didn't, so there you go. You'd a lot rather sit around and pontificate about what you think it all might be than just look it up.

But let me say this. I do appreciate you coming in and talking to us about why you made the motion that you did. But let me assure you, me knowing this boy as I think I do, it doesn't matter. We're still going to recommend what we believe is correct. And we understand our role. We are a recommending body. What you guys do when you make a decision, that is because you're elected to do that. We understand that. But I do appreciate you coming in and telling us why you did what you did, but it wasn't necessary.

I appreciate it. And we'll get into zoning matters in general. So here's another challenge for you. So we had two years ago, there was a request to go from A2 to A1 up in the Hudson River Church Road, up near the water, up in that area, 178 acres. Right. Vietnamese gentleman, gonna build poultry houses. And there was obviously a lot of community up for zoning recommended denial. Correct. And Commissioner Adams and I talked to the applicant. Both of us felt like he had a good case. What was the reasons based on our comprehensive plan, 178 acres, what are the reasons that he should not get an A1 property there? We convinced him that there may be some more valuable use for his property, considering where it is, growth potential, etc. And he just withdrew his request. Essentially, my concern for him is I'm afraid his life is fixing to become miserable because he's fixing to be bombarded with lawsuits, etc. So, frankly, that went out of the way. Again, planning and zoning made the recommendation for us to deny. We didn't have to take action on it. A couple, last meeting I guess, a gentleman very close to the same neighborhood, 151 acres, owner rezoned from A2 to A1, and his intent is to build poultry houses. The same community, wasn't quite as loud, but the same community was in opposition, expressed that opposition. In fact, I met with him two different occasions as a result of that. The planning commission recommended approval stating that's 151 acres. How can you say it's not, should not be A1? Fishman Conference had planned to sell the property. Only two years ago, there was 178 acres, and Planning and Zoning said, no, it shouldn't be. Again, I'm not making a critical decision, but the reason was given was 151 acres shouldn't be A1. Again, what I want y'all to see in us as commissioners are recognized, we're all human. Land zoning issues should purely be, is it appropriate for this land to be rezoned to this class? We ask them what they're gonna use it for. I don't even know if that's an appropriate question, because if you're going to A1, anything that is allowed in A1, you can use it for the zone. But we always ask that question and we spend a lot of time there. Just recognize that we're human just like they are. There are other factors that play into it other than just purely zoning decision. I wish we could do away with that. I wish we could really look at each of these like a pure zoning decision and like a pure variance decision. And it's tough to do so. And I recognize it's hard to be consistent. So don't beat yourselves up. entirely all the time but at least have a little mercy on us too. We're humans. Anyway, thank you all very much for listening. I can't apologize for the creeps and that's part of our business. We're not having a conversation. We're not learning.

That's not part of our job. Not that we enjoy doing it, but... If there's a trouble, I don't get paid.

This is probably the best opportunity I've had to say this. You and I have an open relationship. We talk to D.C. Adams a lot as well, but When you have three, two votes and it gets to you all and you flip it, those are easy to swallow. It raises a red flag when it's, say, four or five in a vote and it gets to you all and you flip it. It's like, what happened? And when you don't communicate, and I know there's commissioners. I've tried to communicate to them. They don't communicate back. There's probably people here that, and I think the commissioners need to take the lead. We're their representatives. They need to take the lead. to open up communications and talk to their representatives on a regular basis. I'm not saying every meeting, but when either or the other has a question about something, just like you do, you'll call and ask me my opinion about things we're going over tonight. And when I have a question like with Ralph McKay's, I mean, we talked about it. But when you don't have any communication with your commissioner, it's not good. When that happens, all you can think of is where did I go wrong, they don't need us, what are we here for, those kinds of things. So if there's anything you can do to encourage your comrades to take the lead and communicate with this board like you're doing, I think it would be better.

Yeah, Commissioner Childs, I appreciate you explaining that to us, and I feel good about it.

You know, we're going to move on to another thing, but I guess I'll just comment on Joe. And when you don't know all of the details, and this board of commissioners says five to zero to deny, and you all turn it around, The average person will look at it as well. There's a play of favoritism.

And Mr. Pruitt and I actually had a conversation in particular on that one meeting. We had one Vietnamese gentleman that got a no. And you had all the local guys that got a yes.

I'm telling you, that didn't look good. No. Not at all. You know, so that's one of the things you've got to consider. But you've got to make the decision, you know, for what you guys think is best for the county. And make the right decision. But it's kind of bad, but it looks like it's favorable. But anyway, thank you again. Thank you again. All right. Appreciate you. I'm out. Come on.

The first three applications are all consistent, contingent upon each other. So I will just read all three of those and just explain them all at one time. So Jay Pridgen, applicant for capital resource management, is requested to re-own five acres from A1 to AR to split a half an acre portion of his property and half an acre portion of his adjoining property to move property lines to increase the size of adjoining property 005800803 from five to six acres and to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. The property is located at 0 Thoreau Patterson Road in Colbert on Mount 58 parcel 8-01. in District 5. The second application is about the same. It's another five acre tract. He's wanting to re-mown from A1 to AR to split off a half an acre from this tract, half an acre from the tract we just named to move the property lines to increase the adjoining property from five to six acres and to bring the property into compliance This property is located at 0 Thoreau Patterson Road in Colbert on Mt. PTA Parcel 8-02. And the third one, Jay Pridgen, applicant for Capital Resource Management, is requesting to refund his, yet again, five acre tract from A1 to AR to allow a five acre portion from two adjoining properties to be combined by moving property lines to increase the tract from five to six acres and to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. Same address for that, the parcel number is 58, parcel 8-03. So if you look at the screen, this is the way the property sits now. Pay no mind to tract four. So these first three tracts are all five acre tracts. And their overall intent is to take a half acre off track one, half acre off track two. So it can add one acre to track three to increase that size from five to six acres. And you wonder why in the world you want to do that. He is hoping that when the UDC, if or when when it gets adopted in and that ar minimum lot size is reduced from four to three acres he would like to be able to split that that lot with it having six acres he sees the potential to split it to get an additional lot out of it now um the reason for this whole project is he has bought This tracts of land for him and his children to live beside each other. Mr. Pridgen is already building on track two his personal house. There is a house under construction on track three. And he's got another child that's wanting to split. So he'll need four tracts total. And that's just pretty much the overall intent. So of course it would have to be re-zoned from A1 to AR to achieve those lot sizes, because the current A1 zone has a 25 acre minimum lot size requirement. And the AR zone will also bring it into compliance. All tracts will have ample road frontage. The AR zone is consistent with the comp plan as it's in the rural conservation character area. And this is what the end product will look like. Now this is not showing this third tract split. And this fourth tract over here is Mr. Pridgen's 15.18 acre tract. that's not part of this development.

It's just a HLV app.

There is an existing easement, if you will see, between tracks two and three. I'm pointing the cursor over there.

No, that's an ingress-degress easement.

The existing easement is actually between flights one and two. If you look at the first plat, the recorded plat, and the site plan proposes moving it over to the line between two and three. And that's fine because the same owner owns all four of those tracks. So he can eliminate and create easements as he wishes.

So he's banking on the UDC?

Yes.

Good luck to him.

Yes, absolutely.

All right, any further questions on this one? Just one, two, and three, okay? Yes, sir.

All right, we'll give you just a moment. I'm having to work this thing like that. All right, so the next five zoning applications are for property owner Matthew Payne. Dylan Wilbanks is an attorney that Divine Healing has hired to represent the zoning applications. And If you would like, I can read all five of these.

I was going to suggest, Tracy, that I thought your analysis narrative, which I think is the same for all of them, was really, really good. And that might be all that's needed for everybody to understand.

Okay, perfect, perfect. So...

Some of you didn't get your packet till tonight, so I'm not sure that all of you have read the analysis.

So there's basically two tracts of land that Mr. Payne owns. One of them is located at 345 Furnace Creek Road, and the other one adjoins it at 289 Furnace Creek Road. And they both have double wives on the property right now. And in speaking with, it's kind of a lengthy thing, but in speaking with Mike and the commissioners, we have all felt that these, Divine Healing is leasing these homes from Matthew Payne as a sober living group home. And so one home has like seven men in it and one has like six, something like that in it. So each one of the group homes, you're required to be in an R3 zone because group homes can only be in R3. In order to operate a group home, you have to have a conditional use for that. And group homes must be a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines. And both homes can meet that, except one of the homes must be is actually does not meet one of the side property line setbacks. The existing home on the property does not meet the requirement at two points of the left hand side line with two deficit amounts of 21.6 feet and 33 feet. So this particular mobile home at 345 for an increased is actually going to have to require that variance request because there's no way to move it or anything like that.

The property that, quick question, the property that is encroaching upon, is that just owned by Mr. Wilbur or that's another neighbor? It's another neighbor.

Okay. The R3 zone is inconsistent with the comp plan as it falls in the rural conservation character area. If the group homes are not approved, then they will have to stop using this property for that purpose. And there's a lot of ins and outs that went into it. I don't know if you recall, but Matthew Payne in 2023, he went and re-zoned this tract. It was like a 13-acre tract of land. He re-zoned it to AR to split out a four-tract for his mother-in-law to live on. Well, that never happened. And so we found out in 2024, Divine Healing started leasing these homes from Mr. Payne and operating these great homes out of it. And this was all brought to light when some complaints started back in August of last year. We had gotten numerous complaints that the men were harassing the kids on the property. harassing the dogs, there was tools being stolen, that kind of thing. So we had code enforcement go out and we determined that Mr. Payne was in violation of the ordinance. So that's when the director of Divine Healing Ministries, Keegan Boswell, came in to meet with me. And he said that Before he started Leasing the Homes, he had met with previous zoning director, Christopher Roach, and informed him that due to their program being a non-profit religious organization, that they would be exempt from all zoning regs. There was no written statement, just a verbal.

Because that's what Chris Roach told. Yeah. Yeah, I mean.

And... So, Mike, there have been talks on the email chains, I believe, with the measures that maybe this, since it is religion-based, that it might be an allowed use. I don't know if you want to go into that.

Yeah. Yeah, I hate having to discuss sensitive legal issues that I'm open, but we don't really have a structure here that permits otherwise. So there is a federal law called Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and in no other part it says that a religious exercise is not subject to enforcement of a land use regulation, including zoning ordinance. If that regulation imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise unless the local government can show that the regulation in question serves a compelling governmental interest and achieves that compelling interest in the least restrictive means, by the least restrictive means.

So there is a,

memo just from a couple of years ago on this from the U.S. Department of Justice saying that religious-based group homes, at least in the view of the USDOJ, are a religious exercise. So then you go to, is this a substantial burden? There is case law saying that nearly five, requiring A filing of applications for the appropriate designations is not a substantial burden, and they've done that. They haven't resisted doing that. Obviously, if those are denied and then the county enforces the zoning ordinance requirement, then they'll have to shut down. Obviously, that's a substantial burden at that point. options on the table at this point seem to be grant them deny them or a third option discussed is for the county to simply say based on the facts as known to us now we believe this constitutes a religious exercise and we will not require you to go forward with these applications at all you can just continue operating as you are now that's been bandied about Again, we lack a structure that would provide a recommendation to you all. Obviously, I can't do that, so I guess I'll stop there.

First of all, does him back in, when he asked for the rezone, originally not for the organization, but we was granted the rezone from Does that have anything to do with his intent, like, to do that and then turn around and violate?

Well, so, Corey, so I asked Dylan Wilbanks, the lawyer, for Divine Healing, that question, and he said that he inquired and reported back to me. Then Matthew Payne, the owner, did intend to do that. I don't remember the details. Bottom line, plans changed that the mother-in-law moving there never occurred. Then this group expressed interest and he leased it to them. I don't know what there is about that that would be relevant to this decision.

You're questioning the fact that he changed the use and didn't get approval to do it. Correct.

Well, he did. According to him, he did. Because he talked to Chris Roach about it.

And then when he decided to lease it to this religious organization, did he go through the appropriate steps? And I guess the appropriate steps is he said that he asked Chris Roach. Right. But we don't have any kind of documentation or anything to say that that actually happened.

Nor does he have anything to say to him. Right. Well, So again, it doesn't, again, when you routinely entertain zoning applications to cure an existing violation. So I don't know what's special about this one that would raise a red flag as opposed to all those others.

Well, I guess in my mind what raises the flag is that they are truly in violation of everything that we can think of. It's not in the comp plan, it's not You know, are free, not appropriate, whatever. But because of federal law, I'm not sure we can even, we should even. Yeah.

Oh, my God.

I remember that. Why is that? Why do we even?

It's federal law. Well, that's the question.

No, you didn't. Okay. So it's more complicated. So I can certainly. I would not be shocked if it were true that someone here interpreted RELUPA as, oh, you're religious, we can't touch you, the zoning ordinance doesn't apply. That's not the law. The law is what I just said. If you're trying to enforce something that imposes a substantial burden, then you can still enforce it, but only if, number one, you can show it serves a compelling governmental purpose, that the regulation you're trying to enforce is the least restrictive method of achieving that purpose. So that's a lot of stuff. And I certainly would love the chance to work with a planner, with county leadership to flesh that out, but so far I have not been afforded that opportunity.

My feeling is that in my opinion, and it don't count much, is that it's well needed, and I'm not opposed to it, but I just think it's in the wrong place.

I can tell you that some of the research I did, it was actually a survey of a loop of cases up until whatever point in time this article was written, is that the vast majority of them are settled and do not go to trial by some sort of compromise. So, you know, working out whether we're not going to enforce the ordinance at all, or more typically, you know, we're going to require you to go through the application process. We may impose some conditions on you, but ultimately, you know, we're going to work out something that's agreeable to you and to us. Because along is uncertain. Whether you, you know, for whatever that's worth.

So is there a hardship, proving hardships, is a thing that we look at that's already in our... What are you talking about?

For the variance part?

Yeah, you said they had to prove hardship.

Well, we have to prove hardship. No, I didn't mention hardship.

You said something about...

I said substantial burden.

Okay.

This is federal law. I have to tell a story. Uh-huh. I don't know if this is true or not, but one of my older, now long-retired partners told me the story of a magistrate judge in Clark County many decades ago. He supposedly was in court and heard this, that somebody, one of the lawyers who maintains the magistrate courts, made a constitutional objection. And this magistrate judge looked around and said, I don't know if the Constitution applies in the magistrate court. Yeah. Along with RLUPA and all of that.

Let me ask it this way. When you first started this off about the RLUPA, we've got the memo that you had put together to go to the commissioners about RLUPA. We have copied on it. It's not totally foreign to all of us. But I guess the first question I wanted to ask was does 73111 mentioning religious institutions and their customary related facilities. Does that apply to what we're talking about here? Does that use apply to this case? And the reason I ask that is if it does, then that's where it needs to fit, under AR, under the current number, A2. Is it currently A2? So it would fit under AR as a permitted use. But if that does not apply, then I guess all they can do is ask for R3. I'm opposed to R3 in that area and for other reasons, but does 73111 apply here? If it does, it seems like the most disruptive mechanism to approve this because they have a right to do it, do what they're doing.

That is, you know, I did not find that way. That's, that is a good idea. 7311. And that's a permitted use, not a conditional use. That is correct.

Is that for AR though? I know it's AC. It is under AR.

So I guess they would be religious institutions and their customary related facilities. So I suppose that we would be conceding for purposes in future situations that religious based rehab group homes are customary related facilities and I honestly don't see a problem in conceding that. That's consistent with the USDOJ's position that such homes are religious exercise. That's all.

Okay, good job, Lee. Well, how does that fit with the one that's asking for the variance?

And this one, I noticed in here, it also has all buildings at least 50 feet from any property line, so we still need the variance on that one tract that has that problem. But the other two tracts could be rezoned to AR rather than R3.

And they're already AR.

Oh, they're already AR? Oh, okay. So they can stay AR. They don't need a conditional use permit because that's a permitted use, so it's just the variance.

And I think the question you asked earlier was, is the variance against his own property next door or someone else's, and you answer this.

But I think it's his own property. It is. If it's his own property, then it's a report. Yeah, it's not a common boundary line.

The mobile home is sitting where it is against his own property, if that's real. Now when I saw that, I thought, you know what, if we're going to be required to consider them to use that the way they're wanting to use it anyway, and this applies, then there is no reason for R3. He can do what he's doing under AL.

Plus, I don't think R3 fits there anyway. Right, and that was the idea behind just saying we're not going force it but this is a much better one it's saying we're not we are enforcing we're just saying you fall into this and you're okay that's a better approach by far in case what you said works or is appropriate do they just need to withdraw their request for our freeze yeah uh so they would probably want um And I'm just sort of thinking out loud now. If I were Dylan, I would want a zoning, you know, I have these real estate transactions pretty regularly. They want a zoning compliance letter from the zoning department saying, you know, it's not really binding on the board of commissioners, but at least it's the county's zoning officer's opinion that, yes, I'm agreeing that what you're doing fits in the zone that you're doing it in.

Just as of what if, If we or the commissioners feel like there needs to be some conditions placed on this, the fact that it's under a permitted use, can you still have conditions?

Yeah, you don't have a vehicle for doing that. You don't have a reason for a conditional use. And what kind of conditions? Is everybody allowed? I don't know. Well, I'm guessing that, you know, just sort of gleaning from the emails going back and forth, There obviously are concerns about some of these men maybe creating litter or neighborhood disruptions, trespassing, that sort of thing. But those are things that are already prohibited by local ordinances and or state laws. So we don't really need conditions for those.

And I've heard questions like, so there are seven guys in one house and six in another. The seven guys are in a mobile home, for instance. Who is responsible for the living conditions when it's built to be a single-family home, and now you've got seven people living in it? I mean, who's to say they couldn't have toilet oil or whatever? I know they're leaning on this national organization, but they're not certified in any way. They're not licensed. They're not... They just try to apply to live under this national... It's these standards that have been created.

So that's where it comes back to group home and R3. Because, yeah, I mean, our definition of group home is pretty clear that, you know, that many unrelated people living together is a group home and that can only be an R3. The only other avenue would be if there's some building code that it violates, but I mean, that's not typically the case.

That's a good one. So they still have to come to the board for the library, right?

For the set, actually. That's only a one or two.

If it's not, if it's encroaching on somebody else's property. Yeah, right. If it's not a common property line.

So the setback is on that common line. Yeah.

Okay. So that's a problem. That's a new problem itself. Yeah.

So the number of people will fall on them. Well, in essence, they don't have to tell us how many people live in there.

It ain't none of our business. Well, I said that falls on them.

And I've had a ton of people in the office today that have said about this.

So be ready for a fiery meeting on the next week. I think this is controversial just because some of the immediate neighbors Yes, they have had some problems there.

According to the... Tracy said there's been a lot of opposition, not just people that are complaining, but other people as well. According to the... What are they claiming?

Just that... I don't want it. I don't want it. It's not the appropriate place for it. But mostly the surrounding property owners.

Yeah. So... being clear when we go into this, according to these discoveries, they're already in compliance. So we don't, all we need to look at is their variance. So in the absence of a leadership structure on issues like this, y'all could be

leadership structure you could assume leadership on this one uh and at your meeting two weeks from today um vote take a vote that uh you think the applications are moved because this is a permitted use under 731 now with that being said do we still have to hold the public here yeah still there And for that matter, you know, I don't think they would, but certainly a property owner would have the right to say, you know, y'all already flip-flopped on us once. Because Chris Rose told us it's okay, and now you're telling us it's not. So we just want to go on through with this R3 and conditional use just to take it off the table for the future.

I mean, I don't have a problem with citizens speaking. I mean, I'll get this room full. I mean, I think citizens have a right to say what they want to say.

Well, I mean, but preliminary to that vote and obviously if that's the consensus feeling here tonight is that that's at least an option you'd like to explore. I can certainly call Dylan first thing in the morning and talk that over with him and see if the county were to take

I just want to find out step number one is from a legal standpoint, is this usable?

It's usable, absolutely.

All right, any other questions on this one?

Hi Mike, as far as that variance, we won't even have to hear that variance since it's his own property line that he's encroaching on.

Right, yeah, I think that one's moved regardless. Okay.

Can you send me something so I need to reflect this in the minutes?

Yeah, I'll be glad to. It's the same issue that we've had a few times recently. Our ordinance for good or ill defines common property line as only applying when there are different owners of those properties. Right. And I was meaning to say that. With my dime store planning degree, I wouldn't like that, but that's what it says. And that's the definition of so-called setbacks from a property line. You're talking about a common property line, and it wouldn't apply here, but I'll be glad to send you an email.

And I was just, I was talking about also the 73111, saying that, you know, we discussed it, the board discussed it and said, oh, It's just how to word that, I guess, is what I'm saying. Oh, you mean for the minutes? For the minutes, yes, sir.

Okay.

All right, do you have anything else on this one?

Well, I mean, this is something to be, and this is, and this is why it's really good y'all have these meetings, these business meetings to discuss this, because now we've got two weeks. sort of work this out. Obviously, I'll stay in touch with Canolis and Tracy and they'll let the rest of y'all know what you're coming into two weeks from tonight based on those discussions.

I suppose that's why you enjoy your job so much. I was reading this and y'all really did a fantastic job.

If religious wasn't attached to this, then it would be clear.

It would be clear.

It would fit.

Okay, next up is Matt Thomas, applicant for Old South Madison LLC, is requesting to re-own the 29.74 acre property from A1 to A2 to combine with his adjoining A2-zoned 1.475-acre tract, known as Map 16, Parcel 102, for a total of 31.224 acres to split into three tracts containing 10, 10.5, and 10.725 acres each. The property is located at 1319 Leon Ellis Road in Hull on Map 16, Parcel 101 in District 1. So Mr. Thomas is actually the owner of Old South Madison. He recently purchased both tracks. He's just wanting to combine the two tracks to enable him to cut three out of it. The 1.475 acre tract is already zoned A2, so we need to rezone the 29.74 acre tract to A2 to allow for the desired acreages. As the current A1 zone has a minimum lot size of 25 acres, and A2 only requires 10. Road frontage, the 10 acre tract one, it is tract one there, will have ample road frontage. The tracts two and three will be served by an existing private drive. The private drive will only serve three parcels, so it will not be going over the four parcel limit It is exempt from being paid and brought up to county rate standards because it was referenced on the flat recorded in 1991 prior to the driveway ordinance in May of 2022. The A2 zone is consistent with the comp plan as it falls in the rural conservation character area.

So what about that existing driving? You're saying it's just going to serve those three, or two, two and three? Yes, ma'am. So what is five of that?

So the easement will not serve track one that's in red. Track two in blue and track three in green, and then the one under it that's not shaded exists in five. So that will be a total of four tracts. I mean, excuse me, three tracts that will be using that easement. Or private drive.

Not easement, private drive. Private drive. Okay. So let's see. The easement is the legal right to use the property. The private drive is the physical structure on it. So easement's the term. I know we have private drive in the ordinance, but that doesn't mean anything. Just making terms. But it really is an easement. It's an easement.

I got a question from Mike. This property joins my sister's land. Do I need to recuse myself from this property?

You're not required to. You only have to recuse yourself if you or an immediate family member have a financial interest. I think she doesn't profit or loss from that.

No, she got to talk to me about it, and I told her that I didn't know, but I didn't know if I had to recuse her. You don't have to. I know she said she ain't got no problem with it, and I'll tell her that. Right across, actually, right across the road from me, and it's on the back side. I've been knowing people know that story about it. I didn't say that. Okay.

I have one question about the private drive. And when you talk about easement versus private drive, I think it states that private drives cannot be more than 1,500 feet long. I think this one is. It's about 1,800 as best I can tell when it reaches that farthest lot. So you might want to check it. Okay. I know it's It's fine detail.

Is it being made longer for purposes of this redivision?

No.

Okay. It's already there. Yeah, the difference is that it is being made to serve an additional lot. So, we can do that one either way.

What you just said is a private drive can be over 1,800 feet. Correct. How about these ones? I mean, it describes it as two different things, I think, doesn't it?

No, what I'm saying is private drive is meaningless from a legal standpoint. I mean, private drive could be, I mean, I suppose from the road department's perspective, a private drive, anything that has a blue sign, you know, it could be all on your property. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about when you don't have road frontage and you're accessing it across another piece of land, and that's called an easement, and that's all we're worried about.

Actually, I do want to answer your question. 821 says private access drives and private access easements must meet the following requirements. Shall not exceed 1,500 feet in length unless approved.

So this one's been there longer than that ordinance has been there. That's what we're saying, I guess. Yeah. Yeah, that's the only question. Thank you, that's a perfect illustration of that one. It could be a private access drive, it's all in one piece of property, or it could be an east end across the river.

All right, any other questions? All right, number 10.

Casey Marvat, applicant for Selma Drain Farm and Ranch at Low Seas owned by Adam Kwan. is requesting to rezone the 22.03 acre property from A1 to R3 for a 14 lot subdivision. Property is located at 0 Willis Glen Road N Hall on map 30 parcel 053 in district three. So Mr. Marba is a planner that Mr. Swan hired to represent the application. And I did want to note, I noted on the narrative that I included, that tax records show this parcel as being 27.24 acres, but a new survey revealed that it only contained 22.03 acres, which is quite a bit different. So the residential lot sizes will be ranging from the smallest being 0.75 acres and to the largest being 1.84 acres. There will be an open space lot that will consist of 6.54 acres that will be used as common open space, stormwater management facilities, and natural area to be maintained by mandatory homeowners associations. The water and septic will be county water and individual septic tanks will be used. So the rezones is required to go to R3 because it would allow you to go down to three quarters of an acre when utilizing county water and individual septic systems.

And you said the smallest would be 3-4? Yes, sir.

And the R3 zone is consistent with the comp plan as it's in the South Madison character area.

I thought that was an interesting point. I looked at, so the comp plan says medium density housing, but it doesn't define that term. Yeah. Wikipedia, one of my favorite sources, says that medium-dense city housing is, in a lot of scholarly articles, defined as not more than 30 to 40 units per hectare, which you could tell us about. But I looked that up, and that converts to between 12 and 16 units per acre. So what's he doing?

Up and down.

No, per acre. He's applying for 14. Yeah. Per acre. Yeah. Yeah.

And another part of it is that it's usually considered something between single-family residential and high-rise apartments. Now, they may not be what people in Madison County thought in 1994, but we also approved a comp plan that didn't define that term, so we gotta define it somehow.

So that's what his intent, it says Walcott's family, so are we talking about apartments or? No, we're talking about family houses.

Yeah, that's another quirk. You were zoning orange, I was over here. R3 would typically be multifamily, but yours applies to not only multifamily, but also small lots, single family.

Yeah, with R3, that's the only way he can get to three-quarter acres. If you look on the zoning map here, there are other R3 complexes in that area, even adjacent to this property. The lots may not be three-quarter acres, but it is zoned R3.

Okay, further questions?

So, we might have some, some needs out there at home. That's what I'm saying. So, I'm trying to understand, I wonder what he's going to put on those. No, I know that. I'm talking about the build. Is he going to bring us something that he might be building out there?

There's a site plan in there. He's got a, I mean, the whole thing's got to be approved.

No, no, I know this is, I'm talking about the type of housing.

I don't know if he's planning to. Okay, any other questions?

That's the question that,

So you may want to ask him from here. Okay. Number 11.

Okay. Mary Dyer, pastor and applicant for Galilee Holiness Church, is requesting a variance to allow a 9,000 square foot fellowship hall to be erected on an existing concrete slab that doesn't meet the 50 feet setback requirements on both side property lines with deficit amounts of 14 feet, 14.2 feet, and 34.4 feet. Property is located at 0 Jottam Down Road in Danielsville on map 10, parcel 61E in district one. So the intent of this is the church was left a significant amount of money by a member that had passed away And they had voted to take the money and purchase a 9,000 square foot metal building on the track that adjoins the church track. So they got two adjoining tracks. One is the church track with a park and this one just has the 9,000 square foot concrete pad. And they're just wanting to put that building there. The existing pad was poured in 2013, and it housed a 9,000 square foot open pavilion that was used for outdoor revivals, events, and storage purposes. But in 2020, the pavilion was destroyed in fire, which was ruled as an arson. So they're just wanting to put this new building back where the old one burned on the existing path. Now, section 7213, it requires that religious institutions and their customary related facilities requires that all buildings must be a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines. The deficits, the existing pad meets all the required setbacks from all property lines except on both side property lines. The right-hand property line that abuts Darling's south-hands property has two deficit amounts of 14.2 and 34.4 feet. And the left-hand side that abuts their church lot is the only 14 foot deficit, but since it's same ownership, we really don't even have to consider that, as it's a common property line. And due to the placement of the septic tank and drain lines in the topography of the back portion, then it can't go anywhere else on that traffic lane. So they're pretty much here or not.

So they burnt something, it was burnt down. Yes. And they want to put it back the same dimension. So I thought we had an ordinance or something about something that when it's destroyed by fire.

It's been more than a year that it was destroyed. It was destroyed in 2020. Oh.

So this kind of goes back to that Polkton House issue that we had, that they were building back on the same footprint. I see that as basically the same thing. To me, that's a true hardship variance.

Yeah, plus again, this is a true religious exercise, so if you were to deny it, you'd have to say that somehow that setback is serving a compelling

Also, do you know if the original structure when the pad was poured and they put a pavilion there, was that permitted?

I believe so.

So if it was permitted, then the setbacks would have had to be dealt with at the time. So I don't know.

If that portion of it, you know, the ordinance changes so much, I don't know if that's what you said.

I don't know if they just did it or permitted to do it. I mean, if they did it, to me, they have To me, it looks like they have a right to place something on it.

It was permitted that we hadn't pulled that in the archives.

Is there any opposition? If you're standing in the road, the property to the right, that's someone else's property, is there any opposition? Have you heard any issues with them?

We've not heard any, no issues whatsoever from anyone.

Because that house has half a million. I mean, that's up there near me. It's half a million. It's a big issue. Any further questions? All right, number four.

No, I think that was it.

Okay, so Preston Strickland is requesting to rezone his 1.67 acres from business to R1 to market the property for residential use and to bring the non-conforming use into compliance with zoning regulations. The property is located at 1544 Highway 72 West in Comer, on Map 84, Parcel 68 in District 5. So Mr. Strickland purchased this property on December of 2025 to sweep and sale. It has its own business. and there was a vacant 1998 mobile home on it. The previous owner had rented the home out for years and when Preston bought the property, the home was in such bad shape that he had to gut it and completely remodel it. So now he's just wanting to market it as a residential property, just let them sell. So the issues and parcel history. The 1998 mobile home was placed on the property in 98. At that time, the property was owned by Marie McCollum and it was zoned A1. In 2020, excuse me, in 2003, she rezoned the property to business and turned the mobile home into a daycare center and the mobile home wasn't being lived in, it was just a pure daycare center. So that's how it got changed to business. Then the property changed hands about three times and it's unknown if the property was being used for business or residential use. The ordinance prohibits residential use in a business loan. So what we do know is in 2006, Kim Dyer purchased it and used it for residential purposes until she sold it to Preston in December of 25. It was a violation for the property to be used for residential purposes, but it went undetected off of everybody's radar as far as building and zoning goes because never in that time did she ask for a permit for something. You know, we would catch it then. It was just an existing mobile home that never needed any upgrades or permits. So that's how it was detected. So the R1 zone is inconsistent with the comp plan as it's in the rural conservation character area. And although I know it is inconsistent, rezoning it from business to R1 will bring the non-conforming use into compliance with zoning regs.

So... Say that again. Say that one more time.

The whole question?

No, what she just said.

So, although the R1 zone is inconsistent with the comp plan, rezoning it from business to R1 will bring the non-conforming use into compliance with zoning regs.

Okay, but it's already zoned business.

But it's been lived in.

Yeah, but it wasn't re-zoned R1.

That's the application.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So even though she was living in it as R1, it wasn't zoned as R1. She was living under a business fund. Yeah.

But now he's wanting to market it for residential.

Which is consistent with the zoning.

This is surrounded by other lots the same size that I assume are probably all residential. It's barely outside the city limits of color.

I'm surprised it's not in South Madison County.

It's got to be close.

But it's not. Yeah, there's several lots there that for one larger and DOT has taken some of them and made them smaller.

Is this on the E Highway 72? The bypass, I guess they call it. Oh, no. It's on the old car.

Oh, yeah, the boys get to come. Okay. Gotcha. So, can I ask you something?

Yeah. We have a setback. And that's what I was asking you. Because we already have setbacks. When somebody encroaches on someone else with a variance, when they go, that person goes to resale their house or their property, that is gonna cause a problem, right?

Well, I mean, not if the variance is granted. It'll be legally compliant. But the bigger issue you're raising, didn't get to say this, but I thought, you mentioned it before when Terry was here, and I thought the same thing. You know, you really, you said that well. It's, I think everybody finds it hard to deny these variances when all of the neighbors, everybody, people you know, and they're saying, you know, we're fine with it. Why would you deny it? But if you're looking at it from the global perspective of the future and how you want the county to look from now on, yeah, then it's a problem to keep granting all these variances.

And I know that's after the buyers, they're diligent to investigate what they want to buy that property. So it might be a hardship on them. So to sell it, it's a distraction.

That's the idea. Yeah, that could be as well. That's true. I guess I'm just thinking from the, again, the far overhead view that planning is generally about trying to create an orderly use and configuration of properties that you think is in the best interest of all of the citizenry tomorrow as well as today.

Because like you said, when they go to sell their property, they're going to be upset when their real estate agent goes and finds out that somebody's encroaching on that land.

And he's going to want to buy it.

Well, in all honesty, that wouldn't be something I think an agent is bound to disclose. Because if it's a variance, if a variance has been granted for it and there's no there's no legal violation. It's not usually the term encroachment means when you're actually over the property line. So it's just encroaching them. It's just a variance in setbacks. So I'd be up to the buyer to figure out if it bothers them or not.

It's kind of like when I'm making my own presentations. And by the way, I did that as an individual. I did not do that chair or I was not speaking for this board but you know it appeared to me that we need to follow the intent regardless of who we know or who it is or you know because I spied nowhere in our zoning regulations where it said if the neighbor says it's okay it's okay

Y'all heard me say it before, land use is not science and it's not even art, it's religion. All right, anything else?

Motion to adjourn. I'll second that question. 7-26. Yes, sir.

I think, thank you guys for listening.

Let me turn the recording off.

I come up with a good idea every now and then.