Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

reasonably harmed by Pacific land use. Tonight is the first of two public hearings. A second will be held before the board of commissioners, I believe, on December the 1st at 6:00 p.m. at this location. Attendance is not required, but your attendance is recommended. It's for the order of business tonight. I will introduce the applicant and then the zoning administrator will give her comments. Then the applicant will come forward, state their name and address and state their reason for their request. You may provide information or documentation supporting the application. Next, the planning and zoning commission will have the opportunity to ask the applicant questions. Next, I will open the floor for public comment. Ample time will be given to those that may want to speak for or in opposition to the reszone request. All comments will be addressed to the commission and not to others in attendance. No personal attacks will be allowed. Next, the applicant will be allowed ample time to rebut any concerns expressed by other speakers. At this junction, no other comments will be allowed except by the board members. Then I will open a special session of the planning and zoning commission. Then I will ask for a motion to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. The board recommendation will be presented Monday night, December 1st to the board of commissioners.

Does any of the planning and zoning commissioners need to recuse themselves for any request tonight? Hearing none, we will proceed. Any questions from the audience? We will Any questions from the audience? If not, we will begin our first request. Okay, we have Willie and Joanne Stevenson and they are requesting to resone a 4 acre portion of their 22.66 acres from A1 to AR to allow it to be split and gifted to their daughter for homesite and to reone the remaining 18.66 66 acres from A1 to A2 to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. The property is located at zero Johnson Bridges Road in Danielsdale on map 67 parcel 49 in district 2.

All right, Stevenson is present. Please come forward and let us know what you're asking of us.

Good afternoon. I'm here to ask we had planned this. We went over to the planning people and already and we want a minimum of four acres to be gifted to my daughter, my wife and I for her to build her home and from this committee that's what I'm looking forward for just to build a house on the 4 acres. I think that one of the requirement that she discussed was the minimum four acres. So we're trying to follow the rules down to what y'all have at hand this time. So if that is given, we'll move forward.

All right, sir. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Sperson?

Not like sir. You're welcome. At this point, we will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wants to speak for this particular resign request? Anyone here wants to speak in favor? Hearing none. If anyone wants to speak in opposition to this reason request hearing none, we will close the public hearing and I'll bring it back to commissioners and I will entertain a motion to approve disapprove or approve of conditions.

Mr. Chairman, I recommend we make a move that we approve this request. We have a motion to approve uh this request. We have a second. Any further discussion? If not, Cynthia. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. The uh board this is approved. We will recommend to the board of commissioners on December 1st that this that they make that approval recommendation. Uh, one of the things that I failed to mention is this is a recommending board only and we will recommend to the board of commissioners that they do accept this approval. Thank you. All right, moving on. Number two, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Um, I'm struggling with a bad hole right now to raise. Would it be all right if that would be just right? Thank you.

All right. And number two, Greg Malden and Maryanne Hines are requesting to reszone their 0.18 acre property from AR to A2 to allow it to be combined into their adjoining A2 zone property. Um 0057016 for a total of 19.25 acres for tax purposes. The property is located at 0 Maroy Road in Colbert on map 56 parallel 7301 in district 2. is absent here. Please come forward, sir.

Thank y'all for hearing this this evening. We basically just want to uh add that 2/10 of an acre to our other property so we have one tax bill.

Okay. Uh any questions? How'd that little sliver get there? It was kind of the road drill. Uh just curious. Long story short, uh when the property across the street was sold, we had asked to be able to buy that little corner to kind of square it off and uh it was granted to us and u it just happened to be a different thing. So when we had it reserveyed, they said we had to come take care of it. That's it. All right. Any further questions? Thanks, sir.

At this point, we'll open the public hearing. Is anyone wants to speak in favor of this reason request? Anyone want to speak in opposition? If not, we'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to the board and I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion that we approve it. Motion my fend to approve. Second by Kenna. Any questions, comments? Kenneth. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. We will recommend the board of commissioners that that this be approved. Again, you don't have to be here, but I recommend that you do on December 1st. We present before commission. All right. Number three. Uh, Rose Patterson is requesting to reszone her 9.45 acres from A2 to AR to allow a 4acre split to gift her son for a home site and to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. The property is located at 2825 Spratland Mill Road in to map 32, parcel 77 in district 3. All right, here.

Yes. Please come forward and make any comments that you'd like. Good evening. Good evening. I'm just requesting to give my son 4 acres of land where he can make a homesite there and be closer to me as I get older and need assistance. Anything else? Any questions? hearing none. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Thank you.

All right. We'll open the public hearing if anyone wants to speak in favor of this reason request. Anyone want to speak in opposition? Hearing none, I'll bring it back to the board and we'll entertain the motion. I'll make a motion to approve. Have a motion to approve. Second. Second. Any questions or comments? If not, Lee, I believe it's on you. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah.

All right. This has been approved. We recommend to the board of commissioners. Uh approval. Again, you don't have to be here, but it will come before the commissioners on December 1st. Number four, Tommy Hunter and James Pickrol are requesting to reszone their 12.01 acres from A2 to R1 to allow the property to be split into four 3acre tracks with self-p proposed conditions. The property is located at 166 George Edwards Road in CMR on map 68, parcel 862 in district 2.

All right, applicant, please come forward. Good evening. Good evening. How are you doing? My name is Tommy Hunter. I live at 2334 Holly Creek Church Road in Pioli, which is in our Carlton address for some reason. But, um, this is a parcel that my buddy James Burke and I bought about two years ago, I think. I think it was a 23. um and bought it in 50/50 split. James lives in Buford and has four boys that are in two one's two are in college and one's in high school, one is in his last year of middle school. And what he well I I just I would like to get out of that piece of property and not have partners um and go and do something else with my part of it. So, uh, the what we've talked about is him buying me out, uh, with with the condition that it could be split into four parcels for so he can give one to his each of his children when they graduate high school or college. Um, and so we were going to go ahead and approach do that, find out because of the way the zoning requirements are set up, AR wouldn't allow us to get to three acres. It's a 12.01 acre parcel. So, we want to get four equal pieces, three acres. The AR wouldn't allow us to get there. The herd called that they were going to reduce the acreage size. Hasn't been thinking happening with that. So, um we just want to go ahead and move forward with the plan. And to do that, we have to zone it to the R1. That's the only one that allows anything under four acres. And we realize that um commission has shown

some u hesitation I guess to zone property the R1 because of using subdivision such trace and I discussed that uh and so to get folks to understand what we want to do here uh we're willing to bring forth self-proposed conditions of property. Currently, it's actually two tracks. Uh, it's zoned A2. It's 12 acres, but it's two tracks. Track one is three acres, and the other track is 9.01 acres. The 166 George Edward is actually a 3acre parcel that borders George Edwards Road. The remainder borders Highway 98. And so, really what we're asking to do is to be able to split the 9 acre parcel. The three the three acres we could already give it to one of them. Um but then that would leave unequal gifts to the others and you know how that goes when you get forward and everybody want the same. So anyway we could go ahead like I said we could go ahead and give the one it's zoned A2 it's nonconforming uh by zoning it to R1 it would bring it into conformity with the zoning regulations. uh doing so on these other threes that do the same thing. Our recommended conditions because we know you give something to somebody, you don't have any control over what to do with it. And so future control what is done with it and because I happen to live in the area and don't want to see any more modular homes or mobile homes put out there on those that property with who knows what around it. Uh we put forward the recommended conditions to approve it as a R1 subject to the following enumerated conditions. One to restrict use the property as follows. A single family

detached residential dwellings and accessory uses and buildings only. B home shall be sight built and shall be a minimum of 1,800 square ft heated for single story and 2200 square ft heated for twotory. C home shall be finished with facades of brick stack stone fiber cement siding or shake with a minimum of a two feet brick water table on all facads. All dwellings D. All dwellings shall have a minimum of twocar garage. Item two, to satisfy the following site development considerations, all utilities serving the dwellings or any accessory building shall be placed underground and b all disturbed areas uh for construction shall be sided. And we do that because we want to make um the conditions part of the zoning so the county can enforce them. Uh so that people don't have to come around as individuals and try to enforce a covenant. Uh we want we want to add these conditions to it to make it from now on binding and and enforceable by by the board. Uh requiring a public hearing in order to change any of that. And so that's what we'll do. Make sure we're not looking to do a sub four split to give his kids. Who knows what they like to do with it. We want to make sure they don't the next ones don't do anything we don't want.

All right. I have a question. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do need to address something that he just said. Okay. Um, you said that these are two separate tracks and this recorded plat that was done August 26 of 21, it was combined into one track. So, it's all it is they did combine. Yes. So, not separate. Okay. Question. Well, my question was, you know, he's you realize that this is doesn't meet the comprehensive plan that that was put together. Do you realize that?

I realize that that that's the that's stated, but we do have 27 contiguous um non-conforming parcels.

Okay. My and my my second question was uh you put these self proposed I have a question for our attorney. Even though you put that on there, you're expecting the county to enforce them. Does the county have a right to enforce self-imposed? Well, the county would impose conditions for, you know, if it's soft fit to do so, uh, to protect neighboring property comprehensive plan, the citizenry in general, conditions are not a substitute for covenants. If you want subdivision covenants, you're going to have to do subdivision covenants.

Okay, that was my question. I'm sorry. I'm I'm not understanding why you can't put it into three, four acres. because he's got four kids. Oh, that's the only reason, right? But I'm saying with four acres each. Well, even in this current, you couldn't do that because you can resone. You would have to zone it back. Yeah. But he would have one child, but he's only allow. Yeah, I know.

And and on condition. Well, we're not asking, we're not proposing to put the condition on there. We're presenting those to the board of commissioners to approve as part of their approval. We don't want an approval of just straight R1 with no conditions. We want an approval with R1 with those conditions. Then they become part of the zoning and they are enforcable by the board commissioners. again. But the government doesn't enforce covenants and these look like covenants. That's correct. They do not enforce covenants. These are not covenants. They are law school. I went to law school. Okay. They are zoning condition. I went to law school. Okay. I'm just giving my client.

Okay. That's fine. And I'm telling you what we're Okay. All right. Any further questions from the board? Hear none. Thank you, sir. All right, we will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in attendance tonight that would want to speak in favor of this reason request?

Do I see one? Okay. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in opposition? Yeah. All right. All right. I'll I'll ask you to come up one at a time, but I will ask I will ask because we've got a pretty packed agenda. If someone else says something that you want to say the same thing, uh please limit it as much as possible. Now, first one, please come forward. You choose whoever you want to speak first

and please make sure you sign in as you speak. Okay, I apologize for reading, but I'm not a public speaker. So, um, here we go. My name is Allison Carter. My husband and I live at 335 George Edwards Road. Um, I'm here with my parents, uh, Danny and Dian Lord, who owned um, the farm immediately facing this property to be reszoned, uh, 171 George Edwards Road. Um, we are here to speak in opposition to the reszoning of this property from A2 to R1. According to the comprehensive plan, this property falls into the rural conservation character area and should remain zoned for agriculture. Currently, there are farming practices that occur on all four sides of 166 George Edwards Road. Mr. Hunter has verbalized his intent to my parents to subdivide this property since its purchase to allow R1 zoning would set a precedent in this area that goes against the comprehensive plan. I understand that Mr. Hunter and Mr. the person looking for a return on their investment, but they knew this property was zoned for and surrounded by farmland when they purchased it. Our investment in this community is different from theirs. It does not have a dollar sign attached to it. We ask that this um 12 acre track not be reszoned to R1, but remain zoned for agriculture purposes.

All right. Next Hello. Um, my name is Jonathan Lacrosse and I own um the three properties immediately to the south uh west of uh Mr. Perkins and Mr. Hunters. I've uh owned in the area for close to nine years. I'm an architect and um and also have a background in urban planning. I want to commend you all for the impressive, comprehensive, and visionary plan. I've shared it with colleagues in Atlanta, uh, where I do most of my business. And, um, this county has it right, but this proposal completely ignores and is in non-compliance with the comprehensive plan on many levels. Allison said it correctly. I was going to say any of what she said, but on other areas it doesn't um it's also in non-compliance in terms of historic resources. On page 22 in our area, there's two properties, at least I determine those two only little blips. I have the oldest house on 98. It was f in its original location. It's a log cabin from the Critters family, 1790. The house that um I bought first is their 1870s home that they built after the Civil War. And my vision for this property is that it's a cultural, historical, and agricultural resource for our county. I'm committed to it and um I've slowly been adding acorage over the years and I would like to see this area preserved. Um additionally, the traffic in the area, three new curb cuts on 98. This level of density doesn't exist outside of the um outside of cities and municipalities. Additionally, hydraology of the site, I don't know

that that site can support four new septic fields, four new wells. Our wells are going to go dry. And uh additionally, um the damage um that this could do. We also have a county ditch that runs towards there. I don't see any easements to that that feeds into multiple creeks. If you look at the map, we have five creeks that go out and um that is identified in um in the uh sheet where you know we have the watershed that north of 98 and it's within the comprehensive plan. So I oppose it. Thank you for allowing me to speak and um thank you.

So your your property is this corner that Yes. Yeah. So I have the house here and this is where the log cabin is. This is the 1870s house. I've just restored an 1860 uh smokehouse there and then I go all the way to the edge of the road. All right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Please come forward.

I sent an email to you. I don't know. I'm just going to read you the email. I think I just sent it to you, but if you've all seen the copy. Um, I'm here to speak in opposition. Our counties worked hard to preserve the rural identity and this development would set a concerning precedent for our future growth. Approving this reszoning would signal to other land owners and developers that higher density housing is acceptable in areas not suited for it, potentially opening the door to a wave of similar requests. Such a shift fundamentally alter the landscape of our community over time. Beyond the aesthetic and cultural impact, our community simply doesn't have the infrastructure to support additional housing at this time. The sheriff's office is already short staffed and stretched thin. Our local elementary schools are operating at or near capacity. In addition, increased housing density would directly impact public safety and emergency services. Our volunteer fire departments and EMS teams already face extended response time due to long distances and limited staffing and adding more households would only stretch these critical services further. Roads and transportation must also be considered. George Edwards Road and surrounding routes were not designated for heavy heavier residential traffic. More vehicles or will worsen wear and tear on these rural roads, increasing increase congestion congestion and potentially delay emergency response times. Any further upgrades or widenings would fall on the county and ultimately the taxpayers. Furthermore, the reasonzoning would not lessen the tax burden for current homeowners. In many similar cases, increasing housing density has led to greater demand for county services, resulting in higher long-term costes costs rather than relief. Our rural community values responsible growth, not

rapid development that sacrifices the quality of life for short-term gains. I urge the board to protect the integrity and sustainability of our county by denying this reszoning request. Maintaining our rural zoning ensures that future growth happens softly and within the limits of what our infrastructure and community can realistically support. My family lives at 700. We just need you to say your name, please. J. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Watch your head.

Um, I'm speaking on behalf of my mother, Joanne Malan. She is strongly opposed to this. Um, they've lived there for over 40 years. She would be here tonight. Your name?

Kim Malan. M A L L O N E. But we were getting her in the car. I was. And she got really shaky just thinking about this. So the maladies say no and um just what I've we own the property, you know, right next to Hunter. When he first bought it, he was out there surveying the land. He is a developer from Atlanta and a real estate agent. So I strongly oppose this. That's all I have to say. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else?

Yes, sir.

My name is Russell Fog and I join Tommy's property. This is his line. Point point. This is my property here. Okay. And uh this this property was bought at public auction by my grandparents in 1934. So it came down uh my grandparents to my mother. And then I inherited it and I'm third generation and I've been on this property for really all my life. And uh I used to own the piece of property that uh Tommy Hunter bought from Scott Willoughby. I sold the property to Scott Willoughby in 2021. And um then a couple of years later, Tommy Hunter bought this 12 acre track from Scott Willoughby. And so I'm in I'm in opposition because uh it's been agriculture all these years. My grandparents, they planted cotton, they picked cotton, they had hogs, chickens. They were farmers. They didn't have a public job. They were farmers. I would like for it to remain a two Like I said, this this uh farm originally had been in my grandparents uh since 1934.

Any questions? No, sir. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? I'm Daniel and I live 171 Georgia just across this property. I guess I'm up here to speak with all the old farmers since I have five generations on this budget. It's on my known all the farmers that's farmed this land for 70 years. I don't think there's any of them that stand up here and tell you that they want this land split. that land on co Draper's road 75 acre track was split. It was already split up before the realtor bought it. He had no trouble selling those large tracks land. And so there's no reason that they shouldn't be able to sell this as one track since it's in farming and this and that's just the way I feel about it and I think everybody around me feels the older people that this is a shame. All right. Thanks sir. Anyone else? All right. I will remind the board that you got some uh opposition letters and we won't read those but but I'm sure all of you have gotten them and read them. Uh at this point we will uh ask the applicant you have any revolutions?

I I I appreciate uh people's understanding on where they at about uh about this area. It would be nice if we could shut the door and say nobody else is coming. You can't do that. Uh believe me, that's why I moved to Poli to get back. I want to die how I was raised out in the country. I've own a farm out here for over 20 years on Cherokee Road. Uh, I've been I've spent a lot of time and a lot of money in this town. It's not like I'm some new guy that showed up. Um, the thing is though to think that this is never that this is going to stay an A2 piece of property with farming alalfa, which is what we're doing, uh, on FA facing 98 highway between Cul and Danielsville. It's just that's not that's nonsense. It's not going to happen. But they're making the assumption that we're going to come out here and build houses. And I I popped off to Danny because the first time I ever met him, the first thing out of his mouth was, "Get those tarps out of my side. I'm tired of stealing them." Before he even told me his name. I've lived I've been a country boy my whole life and I know good and well that when you meet somebody for the first time and you tell them what to do on their property, that ain't a good way to get off.

Okay, sir. Let me let me let me stop you there. don't need any personal attacks. Stay on the subject of the M. So the reason they'll just get out I told him I was going to put a bunch of houses over. I just did that business. We ain't got no the market's not

you know if you build houses and there's no market going to buy them and you ain't going to build a house and but this is for something I don't know what them boys do with it. Don't really care. But I do know if they ever do build no if they ever do build houses on it or if anybody ever does build houses on it, I want them to be nice ones. It's going to be a benefit to the county and a benefit to the tax base instead of right now. You could probably you could put a trailer over there right now and pile all kind of junk over there right now. My partner James is he's known for that. It's been quite bad and keep him from bringing stuff from his auctions over there and leaving it. And he could do that, but I don't want to see that because I and I fight with him all the time to keep it cleaned up cuz I live there. And what he want these kids want to do is that's their business. But we won't be able to let them do it and something they can give them cuz where they grew up was country not too long ago, too. And when they graduate, they want to they're the type boys. They're always been farming, hay, cutting hay, bailing hay. That's all they know. They can't do that in Buford anymore. And so I don't know whether they'll ever move out here or not. They might be their choice to do it. It's not We're not going to go out there and I know James is not he's not a builder. He's an electrician for Cardinal Glass. He's not going to come across the house. That's that's all we're asking us to split for four lots. He can give them to his boys. Who knows what happens from there. All right. Thank you very much. All right. We will close the public hearing and I'll bring it back to the board and I will entertain a motion. But I will say as chair, we must be consistent. uh we have a comprehensive plan that

guide that guides us as one of the things that guides us in our deliberations. So at this point I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that this parcel is in the rural conservation character area. R1 is inconsistent in this area. I would uh move that we deny this request. All right, we have a motion to deny this request. Do I get a second?

Second. Have a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. I believe uh yes on you. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. Uh sir, this from this board uh it has been a denial on December the 1st. We will recommend the board of commissioners that this request be denied. The decision will be up to them, but from this board's position, I will present to them a recommendation of denial. All right, moving forward. Next, we have James and Ruby Dunlap are requesting to resone their 15.15 acres from A1 to A2 to allow a second home to be placed on the property as an accessory dwelling unit for a family member. The property is located at 475 Rocky Drive in Danielsville on that 5219G in district 4.

All right, Africa here. Please come forward, state your name, and tell us what you like. Good evening. Good evening.

All right. Anything else? Thanks sir. All right. At this point we will open public hearing. Is there anyone here that wants to speak for this reason request in favor? Hearing none. Is there anyone wants to speak in opposition? Hearing none. We'll close the public hearing and I would like to have a motion. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Have a motion and a second to approve. Any further discussion? Cynthia. Yes.

Yes. Yes. All right, sir. This will I will recommend to the board of commissioners that this uh reason request be approved. All right. Next. We have Hunter Downing, applicant for capital resource management is requesting to resone 6.68 acres from A2 to R1 to split the property into three tracks containing 1.895, 2.04, and 2.189 acres to sale. The property is located at 227 Golf Lane in Calbert on map 71, parcel 88 in district 5.

All right, Mr. Hunter couldn't make it tonight. Her son got sick and so I'm stepping in for her. So what we're basically doing I'll wait for to get the picture up here. Thank you.

So the center track here. The center track here has a house on it and some barns on it. Very bad condition. We tore down most all the barns. Cleaned the property up. done a lot of work on the house, got it livable again, and so we've kept it. And right now, that's a rental property. The tracks on both sides of it, which are one and three, this one is on Highway 172, and this one is connected down here is Highway 72. This is just a cut road between it. And so I'm just basically, she was cutting out the house parcel with the barns on it so we could build a house on par one and par three. That's what we're requesting.

All right. Anything else? Any questions? Thanks, sir. Basic question. Is this in quarter comprehensive plan? Is this in the car area? It is. It is inconsistent. It's consistent. It's consistent. I'm sorry. There it is. Senator Senator Calbert. I'm sorry. It is consistent. It is consistent. Okay.

All right. We will now open the public hearing. Anyone wants to speak in favor? Anyone want to speak in favor of this reason request? Anyone here wants to speak in opposition? Yes.

Please come forward. State your name. and Thomas Stillbaugh. I just bought the joining property there on 172 uh back in February. Uh what drew me to the area was the ruralness of it and uh got me out of Athens. Uh seeking against because I have I want the water table and it's already pretty low. Adding two more houses onto that. I'm not sure if I'll be able to wash my clothes and take showers the way I'm used to. So also as my understanding once it's been to residential you can continue to subdivide that can you not? So like when you when you start settlements you know when you're putting it up for sale for residential how how far does that go because an acre you can put four more houses on that lot.

It's not true. Okay. But again, it's like it would drew me like I have I have that acre surrounding it for my dogs and like we we got drawn to the country to see more properties go up right there. All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else want to speak in opposition? Yes. Please come forward. State your name and

My name is Melinda Baker. I own all of this. Two and a half years ago, I wanted to do this and was told I couldn't. I had too much land to go to residential. I didn't have enough land to be subdivided. I will send you to your page 82, section 7.2, agricultural district. The last sentence of the introductory paragraph is the minimal partial subdivision in this district is 10 acres. It's in your ordinance.

I was told I couldn't subdivide. Two and a half years ago, I had to wait until this particular ordinance went into effect to be able to do it. I also have some other notes as well as TJ. I am concerned about the water table. I had to tie into county water because there wasn't enough to support my house and their house and it runs low. And that lower part, this part they're pro they would have to tie into county water too whether they know it or not because you don't have enough water. I also have a problem with watershed. That property drains down into my property. I have a ditch to carry it off. When Danny owned it, he owned this property and my property and he dug a ditch which is on my property. Most of it is on my property. So, I'm worried about all the watershed if they start developing those two ends. I've also got a question about whether it can support two new septic tanks, two new drain fields, and I have a what shall I say? concern about their history with buying properties because they put tra single line trailers on them and

I don't have anything against a trailer. I lived in one for years until it burned and I was denied under the same circumstances to do the same thing. And I have my own personal quarrel with them over the renovation and the messes and pushing things up against my fences and tearing them down. And there's a deer stands into my back property, which you can't develop that pro part of my property because it is the watershed for all the surrounding properties. So, I'm definitely opposed.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? Anyone else in opposition? hearing none. Close the public hearing. Little I'm sorry. I just so y'all are aware and everyone's aware. The water line for the county runs straight down Highway 17 through here. First thing I did when I redid that house is hooked to the county water line and I've got access to put three meters for each of those houses. So, we would be connecting to city water. So we would not have any problem to mess with anybody else's water for their properties. Soil scientist has already reviewed the properties. All the soils are good. Don't have any problem putting sept tanks in there. Um it meets the county's comprehensive plan to where this is going to be. And as we all already know that once this is done it can't be split again.

I'm sorry I was reading. Are you going to develop these? I'm going to build a house on each track. Okay. There's something different on our

As y'all know, we're in the process of developing Sprout Mill right now. We are the developers in Sprout Mill. House of the last house we sold in there. Last month went for $980,000. I think that is one of the highest Madison County properties on a one and a half acre track to sell. Um, we're just finishing up NY's Place, which are 22 2600 feet houses. As y'all are aware, we don't just do we do everything. We do houses, we do apartments, we do condos, I do office and industrial. We hit everything. So, we're not into just one zone.

All right. Any questions for not? Now I will close here and bring it back to the before the board and entertaining a motion.

Mr. Chairman, since this is in the Colbert Comic area and it's appropriate for the requested zone, I recommend that we approve this request. All right, we have a motion to recommend approval. Do I have a second? I'll second. We have a second. Any discussion? All right, Kenneth. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. This has been approved by this board. I will recommend when I make my report on December 1st, the board of commissioners to recommend that this takeover request be approved. I will say that you people in opposition and the applicant themselves, you don't have to be there, but I do recommend that you do because commissioners have a final say and they may have some questions that we we did not address. All right, moving on.

We have Stanley James, applicant for his mother, Jim James, is requesting to reszone her 2.06 06 acres from A R to B to allow the property to be combined with her adjoining business owned property uh 612702. The property is located at 212 James Adams Road in Danielsville on map 6127 in district 4.

All right. Yes, sir. I'm Stanley James and I'm owner of James Turbo Barks which is on 192 and I like to confine the 312 which was my brother's he's passed away the house for maybe some storage. Okay. Uh questions So you um do is this turbo and car system? What is it? Usually big truck. We just do the turbo. Say we don't work on the trucks.

So you just do the turbo. Okay. So you said you want to use this for storage. Storage or maybe a conference room. This I don't think nobody's going to live there. My brother lived there. Passed away two years ago. So trucks stay overnight and you No. No. You just do the turbo control. Okay. So there's no nothing. So what what are you using that particular piece of property now for right now? Nothing. It's cleaned out. Nothing at the moment. So the extension of your business.

Yeah. We we expanded so big. So the like last few years we need the space. So just store you won't be expanding your business to do more turbo work in that area. We just need the storage space. The buildings are on both properties is the problem. What else is on the property in addition to the house? Some build storage buildings. We use those tractors and stuff like that. But you're already using those for storage of tractor. Yeah, we use those storage for storage buildings. Well, the house is nothing. What kinds of things would you want to store on that piece of property?

Our tractor equipment and stuff like that. We still got five acres. We uh my mom's joining land. We keep our property lawn mower, stuff like that. So, you do you do any farming? You say you got tractors and stuff. You just keep cleaned up. Probably cleaned up. This is on presently AR. Is that right? And you will be doing the I guess you have to put up trees and all that.

Is that a condition or is that something that has to go along with the business? I think that's just part of the beef part of running a commercial business. Yeah. Okay. He may not have done it on his parcel if it's been there a you know he's been running that business a long time and maybe before something came into effect but now he would any further questions

the the property that you're currently operating off of now you were able to select business zoning when zoning came into the county this was an exit because I think doing a little research Like you've been there since ' 81. Is that right? Yes. And we came in in 94. So you selected or it was recommended or something at that point, right? Okay. One last question. I guess all of the properties surrounding or close to your business, what what is what is that? Is that A1, A2, A?

They say A1, A2, and A R. A1, A2, and AR. No, no other businesses close. Yes, sir. I'm I guess I'm sensitive to the fact that you've been a long time family business there, right? Um, what what if this does not get res? I'm thinking about later on if I need to sell a business or I want to carry it on for my kids have to deal with.

So you're combining the properties into one track, right? Uh yeah, once it's business, it's business. It doesn't matter who owns it. Keep the same business. Not unless you make Not unless it's reszoned to business with a condition that it only be used for storage for a truck turbo rebuilding business. You'd have to impose that as condition. Otherwise, it would just be open to whatever be any kind of business, right?

All right. Any any further questions for Mr. J? Thank you, sir. All right. At this point, we will open the public hearing. If anyone wants to speak in favor of this request, I will. Please come forward.

Good evening. I'm caring James, his wife. So, I feel like I'm part owner of all this, too. Okay.

And I'm looking out for my children. As I've seen my elderly aunts and parents and see what kind of messes not leaving your business in order will cost you. So, that's what we are trying to do. That home is where a brother died and a girlfriend gutted it. So, no sinks, no stoves, it's just a hole of bad memories. The shop was very nice and built by that business because it was family and family supposed to do for each other. But in the meantime, that's not what happened. So, we want this back for when our children have to do something with this and this business has been there 40 years or more that they can sell it as a whole and let it go. Just let it go because there's none of our children that are in there working to keep the business continuing. The only thing they would be able to do then is rent it. The house is um good for storage or maybe a meeting room because there's no parts in there right now, but it will be. And the shop is great for the trailer, the tractors, the gators, things used on that property to move parts to and from and to take care of our mother-in-law's property. 17 acres across the road, 50 acres up on the hill. that's been in that family family 63 years old. So, it's nothing's changing. It's the same piece of property. The same neighbors have lived on each side and across the street was our grandmother's property. So, I just wanted to say I'm for it. But the reason

we're going forth trying to take care of this type business now is for our children's future. So things they don't have to fight for when it's our responsibility to get things in order. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me ask you a quick question. What what is the what is your advantage of combining these to one single 5 acre parcel versus leaving them separate? Say say the house

I will I will say this this house was a gift for someone to live in and work here. He no longer lives and on that building this shop paid for this. This shop paid for all this to be put there. You can't cut a line. My mother-in-law winded up having to pay $240,000 for this to get it back from an estate when it didn't cost the person living there anything. Does that make clear sense? So, yeah, a little bit of is there. So, to divide that, we're still giving somebody something. I want it James Turbo. It'll be June June till she passes. Then it will go into the state of um the boy LLC and then can be rented never as a house. Nobody ever needs to live in that. But um you know, but that's that's the story. If you can just see there's no way to split what's here being used by this business because this owner was the business or so he thought he was good. Thank you ma'am.

You're welcome. Anyone else wants to speak in favor? Hearing none. Is there anyone wants to speak in opposition? Hearing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back before the board to I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. All right. Thank you.

Um I'll make a motion to I know this is not inconsistently comprehensive, but it's a longstanding business that's in there and I feel they're just trying to extend it. It's an extension of the existing business that's already been. So I make a motion with conditions that we approve this with conditions that it remain a truck turbo re.

All right, we have a motion by Cynthia with the conditions. Is there a second? Is there a second? And what happens if it is not used for that purpose? Well, as I said, we put a condition on that if it's sold. Is that not right?

Well, yeah, but that that hurts. I mean, what they're trying to accomplish with combining this is to create value for a larger parcel that for a business. And when you put a condition on it, then that kind of offsets the valuation somewhat there because it's only approved for that business, right?

Well, I feel well this is 40. They've been here 40. They already have this. It's already been they want to extend it or extend it or put storage. So even if someone else tried to come in with this, they still had to come before the board to get that approved because it's not a business district. So I mean that's what how I if it's business they would not have it back. Is it not that expense? I mean

well let me ask let me ask this question since you brought that up. This is first attorney. Yes. is if there was a condition that if it wanted to change type of business would they obviously have to come back and get approved

right so when you have a if you place a condition that's specific on it um that's not going to be any practical sense sustainable for a future owner. So they would have to come back but then the county would be in the position of granting a new zoning either relieving that condition altogether or redoing that condition so that it is not a substantial detriment to the land owner that's not justified by the benefit of the public. So, so if there were in case someone else wanted to try to put business in their area, they would still have to come before.

Yes, ma'am. But I just said a lot of other stuff around. Yeah. Okay. Uh bottom line, we have a motion on the floor. We got a second. If not, that motion is dead. Do I have a additional motion or separate motion? Can't leave it hanging in there. We've got we've got this something to recommend. I'll make a motion that we approve as presented.

So, are the track That's what you want. Okay. M. Okay. I'll second that one. All right. We have a motion on the floor to approve as presented. Any further comments or discussion? So, instead of having a 3 acre business part, I guess our choices are two. If it gets approved, it'll be a 5 acre parcel zone business. If it doesn't get approved, there's still going to be a 3 acre business part. Is this already there? It's already there. More text.

All right, we have a we have a motion and a second. This be approved as presented. Okay, I believe it's yes. Yeah.

All right. We have uh the board has voted to approve a recommendation from the board of commissioners that this be approved as presented. Again, you don't have to be here, but I suggest that you do because the board of commissioners may have additional questions and the uh final decision will be up for them. All right, moving on. And I think these three or four together. Yes, sir. So, agenda items 8, 9, 10, and 11. Yes.

Yes, sir. Um, taken up as one vote. So, number eight, Ramona Aosta, applicant for her husband, Juan Aosta, is requesting to reszone 4.4 acres from A2 to R1 to allow a 1.030 030 acre portion to be combined to enlarge his daughter's property. Parcel number 001200 or excuse me 021 to 2.030 acres and to allow a 1.023 acre portion to be combined to enlarge his adjoining tracks 0012022 to 2.053 acres. The remaining 2.335 acres will be retained by his son. The property is located at 1754 Rogers Church Road in Commerce on M 12 parcel 20 in district 1. Number nine, Ramona Aosta, applicant for her daughter Christina Martinez, is requesting to reszone her 1acre property from A2 to R1 to allow a 1.030 030 acre portion to be absorbed into the property from adjoining property 00120 to enlarge it to 2.03 acres and to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. The property is located at 1786 Rogers Church Road and Commerce on Map 12, parcel 21 in district 1. Number 10, Ramona Aosta, applicant for her husband, Juan Aosta, is requesting to resone his 1.03 acres from A2 to R1 to allow a 1.03 acre portion to be absorbed into the property from his adjoining property 00120 to enlarge it to 2.053 acres and to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. The property is

located at 1830 Rogers Church Road in Commerce on Map 12, parcel 22 in district 1. Number 11, Ramona Costa, applicant for her husband, Wana Costa, is requesting a variance for his 1.03 acres to allow property lines to be altered on property containing a dwelling that does not meet the required 60 ft setback requirement from the center line of road. It would be an 18.2 2 foot deficit. The property is located at 1830 Rogers Church Road in Commerce on map 12, partial 22 in district one.

All right. Is the applicants present? Please uh combine all this and most you just want to divide so we can make it like even for our kids and just make it larger on the other two that are 1 something acres. That's what we want to do. So the site plan um as you can see it's enlarging. So this track right here went all the way like an L and she

Yeah. And she was just adding this Yeah. this one to this track to make it 2.03 acres and this one to that track. So it's coming off of a 4.4 acre track that goes like this like L. Now again as I as I asked on all of these R1s is it consistent conservation is not the conservation. Yes sir.

Board needs to know that before any questions for the applicant. So right now it's only one track. There's currently three tracks. I know this the one she wants to split is just one, right? The 4.4. Okay. That's what I want to know. Sorry. Any further questions?

We're also dealing with the variance here. Yes. The third reason is dependent upon an approved variance um to allow the property loan to be altered to a property that doesn't meet the setbacks from the letter. Correct. Okay. Further comments or clarification like that comment if you want to go through the process. Well, I have question. Do we we're questioning? Yes. Okay. So, your your daughter and is your son living next door? My son is saying that one.

My daughter. Yeah. And their property is not what is it acre or something already or this is the four. Yeah, that's the four. What's theirs? This is one acre. Where am I? And this is I think it's 1.3 where we're at. So now all of these residential buildings or houses or whatever they were there prior to zoning.

This one was and this one we remodeled and here my daughter's building a house. which is fine because you can do that as long as you can make the setback. All right. Any further questions? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. All right. At this point, we will open the public hearing. Is there anyone wants to speak

in favor of this request? Anyone wants to speak in favor? Hearing none. Does anyone wants to speak in opposition? Come forward. State your name and tell us what you want to say.

My name is Brenda Watkins. I live at 1318 out of Hope Rogers Road. Um I'm also a member of Rogers Baptist Church and I'm not in opposition because it's too late to be in opposition. Um, the reason they need to bury it is because this house that they have remodeled probably was built back about 1901 or very long time ago. And that was a not a paved road. That was dirt road. This was dirt road. It wasn't that close to the road when it first built. This house is an existing house. They bought this property. They bought all this property. Um, they remodel this house. It's beautiful. They do nice work. Um, but I don't understand. This house is just recently been built. And why is it just now needing to be reszoneed? Like this was an existing house. This was a separate property. Like I said, it came here and that way. And uh so I don't understand why it's just now why the zoning has just now come up. That's my first question. And I guess my second question is if it is free, it doesn't meet the like I said it's it doesn't fit our community. It doesn't fit the comprehensive plan. Um R1 on the corner there across the church at those two crossroads. or one's not what fits there if it is approved, which I guess it will have to be. Um, can they build anything else? If it's if they've got two acres and two acres and two acres with R1, can they build a house right here in this part? They already have a garage right in here. I don't know if the garage has a bathroom or not. I have a feeling it

might. And all there's a well and the septic tanks. Can they build else on this property here. If it's R1, they get two chicken from building. They wouldn't be able to get a permit from ADUs and R1. That's right. Okay. What? So nothing else could be built on any of the other the three properties. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else will speak in opposition? Please come forward. My name is Brena Hart. Uh I own 860 Minish Road. Um right beside of one of the properties and I got a letter of it, but my um everything around us is agricultural. They are fenced in. We've got a goat farm right in front of me, you know, right there or even across from them. We've got cattle. Adam's family has always had cattle. They got cattle all around us. They've been horses across the road over there. And I just want to my opinion is I want to keep it u agricultural. Um and the reason is and I I'm I'm new to I don't know. I've never spoken like this. But I also like like Brenda Washington say um there I don't even understand about the permit that the house that they said it's already built. They didn't have enough land. They're combined in land now to u have it permitted you know where it be regulated or whatever y'all call it. And I'm saying the house is already built. They hadn't even got the lights and all cut on because they got to get all this situated before the house even, you know, can be right. I mean, I don't understand all this. And also, I'm I'm just saying the water uh without added houses that's coming in on it and all. Uh I like it. Me and my husband, we've owned it since 85 at my property and we've had to adjust our

foot bow and everything and our well several times during, you know, the drought and this and that. So, if you keep adding houses in this area on this same little plot and everything, what what is it going to do for our water? I mean, I mean, I'm real concerned. I mean, I'm I'm 60 years old, so you know, I just can't keep adding and building. I don't have the money, you know, to keep adding to redoing a well and all this. And I mean, that's my concern on it. And I just, you know, I just want to keep it agriculturally if we can. That's what I had to buy. Uh we own 64 acres to start off with, but they paved the road in front of us. So we owned 5 um like 78, you know, cuz they the county took some for the road and all, but we moved there because we wanted it to stay agricultural and you know, rural. So that's just the way I feel about.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? All right. My name is Johnson Bennett. I'm the previous owner of 1786 that they're trying to get rid. And the reason I had to sell it is because y'all told me I didn't have enough property to have my septic tank in my well on that piece of property. So now I live at 860 Men Road with M Mr. friends that was just up here because I didn't have enough property to put a whale on. They have they've already put a whale on that property and they built that out on my existing abandoned uh set line. How did they do that? Cuz the first thing it says on on when you pull up y'all dumb and codes that uh it is unlawful to build a house on top of abandoned septic tank lines. And they didn't remove no septic tank line. That house is built on top of my city line. When I had them put in I bought that property when I was 13 years old. I put a trailer on it when I was got married when I ended 1988. We put a safety tank in. And we put enough lines for two people. And y'all come out there and inspect it. Y'all made me put 500 more foot in because it was a three bedroomedroom trailer. The whole backyard where that house is built is on top of my septic tank line that I had to put in in 1988 because that y'all said I didn't have enough. Nobody removed them. And the drainage ditch that they've got in front of the house in the side of it that runs out in the field. It's got to be running off that line. They I lived there 37 years and I don't understand how they got permit to build that house on top of that because it is illegal and unhealthy.

I can't ask you a question. I don't know. Anything else? No. Anyone else? None. You have a rebuttal?

Yes. on the garage that's on our property, the 1830, there's no restroom for that. That's a huge garage. So, there's no restrooms in there. And what he's talking about, um, the septic, the old septic tank, we did not build on that, but like way off onto the sides. And they checked and we did all the permits. We did the soil test and everything was good. That's why they let us build there. All right. I I have a question for you. Uh what happens if it's not resolved? Nothing. Nothing.

I mean, we just wanted to divide for so we can make it even for our two like our other children just to make it like we just want this to be all one. We're not going to build nothing like here or here. Right here. We're not going to do anything. We just want it to be like all straight so they can have something even. That's it. We're not we're not going to build anymore. Okay. Anything else? The library is over here. No. No. No. We're finished with that now. Uh you have anything else you want?

No, that that was it. I just we just wanted to so they can have it even. All right. Mhm. Thank you very much. All right, we will close the public hearing. We'll bring it back to the board for any discussion or a motion. They don't need that really since it's been there existing anyway. No, because if they're going to absorb that extra acreage into that property, it has to conform with the current guidelines and you can't have more road frontage. So that variance is required. That's only if it's

only if it's refund. Yes. Well, it's because you're creating a new lot of record, right? So once once it's a new lot of record, then that lot has to either comply or have a variance. I have a question might be for Tracy Melissa. The parcel in that blue um had a home on it that has been right on to something that was already there. The parcel in yellow, is that a residence that started contract construction? Oneacre lot. Yes.

Correct. And they were able to get accepted, right? What the question unique about this to me is we've got two one acre lots um that if they are reszoned to R1 well there would only be a reason to R1 if we combined we do a split combine but as is they're too small to be R1 they would be nonconformant R1, they're currently non-conforming A2s. Correct. They're going to be non-conforming regardless.

So, how are they? Well, then it go to R1, then it will meet the requirement. Correct. Non-conforming in the sense of the comp plan. That's what I'm guess where I'm going is would they be more conforming if we made the acreages two two and two as opposed to what they are now? Would it be a matter of moving toward more conformance by doing what they want to do? They can't build additional houses on it. They can't be split once they're made two acres.

I got a question, man. Three houses that we're not having right now. This the discussion is over from the public. I just want houses on it, sir. This is up This is up to the board. I'm sorry. denial.

So each each property already has one. Yes. as

I guess my only comment from my perspective and I'm not involved member is we have to we have to be consistent if we're going to say that the comp plan says that it is inconsistent that we have tried to do you know I understand that there's circumstances surround things Everything comes a lot of things come into play other than the comprehensive plan. But that is something that the citizens approved. It was put into effect. This is honestly this is not fit. So I don't from a standpoint of common sense, it doesn't really nothing's actually going to change, but we as a board have to be consistent in what we do. How's it different than the last one?

I agree. I agree. I agree. But but you know it's it's up to the board. We'll make the recommendations that you uh it's not consistent with comp. I recommend this all. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? Any questions or comment?

Yeah, this is where I go back to. I wish we would stay where we were with ARS to keep because we keeping nonpwerforming a bridges bridges. So, but water under the bridge. Yeah. Well, as your chair, I'm sure you've heard me say lots of times because I disagree with but what has been decided has been decided. No, what the rules are are the rules until it's changed. Then we must remain consistent in what we do in our recommendation.

So anyway, I have a motion or a second. Uh I believe it's on you, L. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. This has been uh denied from this board. Again, on December the 1st, we will present to the board of commissioners. I suggest that both the applicant and those that are opposed be present because they may have questions that we did not address and they will have the final decision. With that, we'll move on to the next one.

Number 12. Keith, Deborah, and Brian Reynolds are requesting to reszone their 6.13 acres from R1 to AR to allow a second home to be placed on the property as an accessory dwelling unit for a family member. The property is located at 457 Rocky Branch Hollow Road in Nicholson on map 6, parcel 58 in District 1. All right, here. Yes, sir.

Please come. Uh, I'm Deborah Reynolds, the property owner. My daughter-in-law lives with my son on the property, and we are requesting a change from R1 to AR in order to add uh a second residence, and I'll let her give you the story on why.

The second residence is for my brother. Um, he is um dealing with some health issues. um he is not married. He doesn't have any children. And um I am his only um relative here. He uh my my mom lives in Maine. And um it would just be in the best interest of him to um live next door so that we can take care of him as he needs to be taken care of. All right. Okay. I guess this is this is one that's actually backwards from what we've been used to hearing. Come off the

Any questions for the afternoon? Thank you. Thank you. All right, we'll open the public hearing. Anyone here that wants to speak in favor? Anyone wants to speak in favor? Anyone want to hear want speak at opposition? Hearing none. I'll close the public hearing bring back before the board and I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. Have a motion by fender to approve. Have a second. William. Any questions or comments?

William, I believe on you. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Uh the board has voted to recommend approval. Uh again, we will present it to the board of commissioners. You don't have to be here, but I suggest that you do. All right. Moving on to number 13.

Uh Adam Swan, applicant for James Brawl, is requesting to resone a 4.4 4 acre portion of his 15.16 acres from A2 to R1 to sell and combine with adjoining property 40 38 for desired additional road frontage. The remaining 10.76 acres will stay in the A2 zone. The property is located at 973 Floyd Road in Danielsville on map 40, parcel 44 in district 2. All right. Someone here representing the applicant or the Yes. uh please come forward.

My name is uh Cody G. I'm here uh representing Mr. Adams Swan today also with the approval of the property owner James Ball. And really what we're looking to do here uh is there is an existing uh track here that is 50 acres. Uh and their request today is really to take uh four acres from Mr. Burke Doll's property. He's going to sell it to uh Mr. Swan, my client, and combine it with this property. The driving force behind the reason to do that is currently this 50 acres only has one access point through an existing subdivision uh through this Raccoon Hollow Road. And so by acquiring this four acres and which is allow some frontage there off of Eugene Hardman Road would allow a second access point. Uh so it just has additional access to the to the property and um again like so we're not really uh you know changing anything here. Um the boundary I would just note too of what we're um going to be reszoned. This is already sort of a you know an R1 that up against an A2 that's not going to change. It's just going to be split over a little bit. Um again to allow the uh the frontage there. Um and so if you don't mind scrolling to the other the map the color map. I just kind of again want to make a point too that um while this is a inconsistent um use with the with the plan uh I I I kind of want to just again highlight that really what what this would be doing was was making this red just kind of squared off um there. So, it's not

like we're putting a residential use uh next to something that it wouldn't be normally next to. Um, it's already going to the same property boundary and the boundary up to the same use. It's just a slight extension of the R1 uh for the purposes of allowing that additional access point along Eugene Hartman Road. All right, questions. So I was are you coming off the front or the back of um the red part? Um it would be oh the front like so where the red would just slide over. Okay. So where's the other road?

Um right now it comes through this uh this subdivision. So this line right here is the raccoon hollow that I was showing you. Right. So that would be the only access point to this R1. But if we allow this to move over, then you have a second access point off Eugene Hardman Road. That way if there's ever any sort of, you know, emergency or blockage or whatever on this one, you got another access point. Oh, and vice versa. Find out the road. Okay. Right. It's it's right that um black uh um line is is kind of using Harmony. It fronts this uh property. Yeah, this may be another another good example of it.

Oh, okay. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So, you got only the one access point here. This by bringing this up here and over a little bit, you allow 200 more feet of footage. That way, you can have a second access point to what is already the already the R1. So, um we're not really Yeah, I mean that's not changing. We're just sort of moving it over and again not changing the boundary or you know how how it adusts. It's just kind of an a slight expansion going from 50 acres to 54 to allow that additional access. Is that access going to be on to a paved road or a dirt road? Um right now Eugene Hart are you asking about Eugene Hartman

the additional the additional entrance that you're asking if this is approved. Oh right yes it would be paved uh to bring in u if this is ultimately ever developed into a subdivision that would be would be paved up to that point and then the roads would would you know go into the uh into the subdivision to allow access there. paved by that's county road paved by the developers.

So right so Mr. one would be willing to pay and this there's been discussions about this but we can't really get that far without having the access like right now there is no access but there is a willingness to pay from Floyd to Eugene Hardman to allow access in here

Luke back to the access issue is the having having the access to Eugene Hardman road. Is that a a wish or a necessity?

It it's a a yeah strong wish. It's not a necessity because like I said, we do have access here. There is water that comes through here and there could certainly be, you know, access through that way. But allowing it off Eugene Hardman is just uh makes more sense logistically. it would be a lot easier and you have sort of the added benefit of uh two points of access um in the event like I said that you know there's an emergency condition road blockages or anything like that um you're not you're not diverting everything through this subdivision you've got a second access point

has it been determined that um Raccoon Holly can be used as an access point I know there's a a power line easement that comes through Has all that been cleared up that that can be used for an access point?

Yeah, and that's that's my understanding. And uh the my client also yeah controls the HOA for this u um subdivision as well. So, we could definitely uh or I don't say definitely, but there's the there hasn't been an actual plat or design for what would happen in this R1 area yet because what the options of what you could do there are kind of dependent on whether or not there is another access point and whether or not the primary access would come this way. So, so long term you want to develop that part.

That is correct. Yes. I mean there's no current like no current but long term it's a what you really want to do is get it prepared where you can. Yeah. Yes. That's correct. And I mean even going back to when this um subdivision was developed and the various covenants were done like that when this was platted it was there was plans for subdivision up there going back to 2005. So it just hasn't a second phase of this just hasn't ever been done and now it's kind of like looking at you know the various options to do that at this point. So that part that in the blue is that already our one?

So that's already our one right. Yeah. All we adding is slightly squaring off far away to add more access. Okay. So, the existing one that was sort of phase one, but that was reszoned. It was actually a 90 acre and a 10acre parcel back then, but they were reszoned together. Everything you're looking at, both the developed and the undeveloped part were reszoned to R1 with the conservation overlay. Conservation was later removed the ordinance. And that's another something I might want to discuss with Cody offline. Sure. Any further questions? No.

I guess my my hesitation is to reszone an additional 4.4 acres to combine with what you've already got without um absolute assurance that an entrance can be made off of that road back there. that it is paid. Does it have to be from one end to the other? Does partial paid? I mean, none of that has been worked out. I'm I'm trying not to put the the cart before the horse. It just sounds like there's still some moving parts here that haven't been definitely answered. And here we are, you know, looking at reszoning 4.48,

right? And that's certainly a fair scenario, but what we get from the other side in planning in the the road department is well, we're putting the cart before the horse talking about access when we don't even have access to the road. So, at some point, you know, I guess we'll either have like to work together or someone will have to to do this and that's why we're here today sort of seeking access. and the reason we don't feel like it's that significant of a request and sort of earlier and then when we have the access we could go to planning and say okay it's there now design it accordingly spend the money to take to do the design that we need to do and then can work work that way and if if paving and and a certain conditions on the access need to be conditions to the approval then that's something that definitely I think that we would be willing to consider And has it been determined that that being approved 20 years ago as an R1 uh for a potential a conservation subdivision, which we have no more,

right? Adding another 4.4 acres to something that doesn't we don't have on the books anymore. I mean, I'm not trying to muddy the water, but I think the water's already muddy. Should we move ahead with it or are there questions that can be answered before we consider this? Um, I mean, as you can tell, I know Mr. Goth. I think he's an excellent lawyer. I would love to have more time to discuss these issues because I do think the water's already made

and I would be uh certainly inclined to have those discussions. I I will say that um as far as the conservation easement uh issue um when this uh the first phase what I'll call the subdivision right under here um was zoned R1 and put in the conservation the conservation easement only covered that uh track. So as recorded there is not a conservation easement on this one. Uh and uh but again as when the conservation um subdivision fell off the ordinances and was was uh uh repealed um the consequence of that as I'm understanding is well so no no longer can these be developed as lots that are half an acre which was allowed under a conservation subdivision. now they have to be follow the 1.5 acre rule for R1. So again, you sort of get a trade-off and it doesn't ne doesn't really materially affect the number of lots that could ultimately go there. It's just whether or not the

like now we don't have the h the conservation requirement in the smaller lots now. You just have the normal lots under R1. Um that's my understanding of it. We'll certainly be willing to have some additional conversations. I think part of that is that um

yeah I mean conservation the conservation overlay was I guess ideally considered to be a win-win. The developer gets smaller lot size as a less developed area. The public gets preservation of open space. Who views what is the benefit in this case? Does the developer would the developer want smaller lot sizes in exchange for conservation area? Would the county like to have smaller lot sizes in exchange for conservation area? I don't know. Um

well I I have a separate question getting a little bit away from that. Is it appropriate since this water is flooded? Is it appropriate for this board to say we want to delay this until more information can be done between the attorneys and to to to unmmer the water to to uh certainly you can with the with the applicant's permission and you may not need his permission is what I'm looking up right now. Um But I guess and if you don't know, you don't know. But do you know would you be able to consent to another postponement for a month or is that something you not prepared to say today?

Um I Yeah, I'm not prepared to say at that moment. That would be definitely something I would need to talk to about and he was traveling and so I'm here on his behalf. Well, can I ask you? I'm just curious. Can well talk. Um, do can we use conditions on the road that they have? Well, and that's another issue that we we talked about in our business meeting here and and Cody didn't have the benefit of.

So, I'm not at all sure that a condition that requires what the development impact fee law calls a system improvement would be enforceable. So, Well, from from from my standpoint, you asked him the question. I think that decision is upon this board, not necessarily needing the approval to delay if if we feel like we're not ready to recommend either approval or disapproval. So from what I said that's my recommendation

to the board of members. Can we go ahead with public hearing? I would think so. We need all the information we get. Give me just a second. Sure.

These amendments Okay. So, Huh?

Yeah, this is weighing on homemade amendments. So, I don't know. Takes chances if the board if it's possible for me to take 60 seconds, I could go make that phone call and see if I could get Mr. Africa. Okay. Right. And and and with all due respect, I understand I understand that you can talk to Mr. But I still think that that decision is upon this board to decide if they want to delay or not. Well, they got enough information or not.

Well, you didn't get me to write it. So, I would point to your home a 14371 and 14. Sure. The way it says cycle. So you have so it says in 1437 under planning commission action a public hearing is conducted. Planning condition is not only planning zoning commission may recommend that the application be postponed to a certain time granted as requested or it may recommend a modification or it may recommend the application not be granted. I'm not sure exactly what some of those things mean. But then you also then under that as a you have 14372 was added to say when a postponement is not requested by the applicant, the planning and zoning commission has the authority to postpone to a certain time for a maximum of one meeting cycle. So I guess it was postponed last time with the applicant's permission. So maybe you still have that one meeting cycle available after you conduct the public hearing. you could postpone your decision to your next public hearing meeting. Although you would hold another public hearing. I know I sound like a crazy man, but I didn't write that. All right, let's go do the public hearing and then I will leave it up to this board to determine if you want to proceed or you want to postpone until next week. Totally agree. I mean,

based on what you said a minute ago, if if we say it ends up being postponed, is 30 days enough for you all to get together to answer the questions that were on the table. I had no idea. I mean, I can certainly make myself available and do um whatever I needed to do to to work with Mr. Puit to answer answer this yet. Okay. So I would try ad. All right. Well, with that we'll move on to the public hearing and then we'll come back and make some type of decision. Thanks, sir.

Okay. Now, at this point, we will open the public hearing. Is there anybody here that wants to speak in favor of this request? Hearing none. Is there anybody here that wants to speak in opposition to Yes, sir. Please come forward. Thank you. First, I'm My name is Mike Sales and I live at 1176 Floyd Road and own the property at 950 Floyd Road with Eugene Harden. when it comes up at I guess 60% grade maybe from Eugene Hardman up to the top of Floyd Road about 6.318 yeah 6.31 acres directly across from it. The questions I have that I don't think has been answered I don't think it's been even answered on this plat uh with the acreage they're wanting to include in R1. If you notice, there's also a 20 foot by 80 foot piece. They won't by 800T piece. They won't include as R1 going all the way up Eugene Hardman Road to Floyd Road, which would then be R1 right across Floyd Road from where I'm at. And it has it designated there as a as you know as additional right away. But if you look at their plaque on up Eugene Hardman Road past the creek, they've got another line drawn in that says future ride away. So is the county planning on buying the future ride away from the creek on Eugene Hardman all the way up to 98? Is is that what this makes us assume? I don't know.

Also, what's not drawn out here is the property line that shows Muddy Creek as the boundary from their request to reszone that property to R1. And if y'all have been around here longer than if you lived around here longer than two years, you've known the county has also had to go in and replace that culvert on Eugene and on Eugene Hardman Road twice or maybe three times because when it rains, Money Creek floods, it goes over and it takes out that whole road where EMS, fire, sheriff's office, anybody else has not been able to go down Eugene heart of a road. So, I'm assuming with the 20 foot rightway all the way up to uh Floyd Road, the county would have to go in and build elevation on Eugene Hardman Road up to that hill because in the last several years, the county has had to go in and patch Floyd Road, which is a tar and gravel road for and it as you come up through there, it tears tears tears tears and all. I would venture to say the paved portion of Floyd Road at the top of Eugene Hardman Road is probably not 25 ft wide now. Okay. And then all the holes down through there. The other problem we have with that is, you know, people talk about the other piece that was R1 and access. Well, they do have access into that area from that which gives them two entrances on Rogers Mill Road. There's two entrances from the other side and this road would go into this acre track. Okay. If you look at R1, that's 1.5. you're looking at 35 or 36 potential lots being sold there, which

they've even said that they're hoping that the county or somebody will go in there and pave that all the way up to Floyd Road, which if you look at the other side, there's two to three cars in every house on the other side of that R1. So we're looking at 70 minimum if only they drove away and never came back. But we're looking at 140 cars a day being dumped on that narrow toring gravel road that comes out right in the S-curves. And sir, let me let me let me stop that because I think you're making a lot of assumptions.

You know, we we we can't assume what's going to happen in the future. What we're talking about right now, okay, is resoning that to R1 means 1.5 acre lots according to your ordinance and I don't see where it adheres to the comprehensive plan, not in that area. So, that's I got some other things, but you're right. You're right. I'm only going to assume that it tear up the road.

Okay. All right. Anyone else? Thank y'all. Long interesting evening. My name is Beth Warner. I don't live on Floyd Road, but I live on Coley Davis, which is on the tail end of Floyd Road. And I'll start off with if you drive Floyd Road very often, which I do whenever I'm going to Iowa or Midway Feed or to Commerce. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen little hot shots who ended up not making that S-curve and they're off to the side. So to think the Floyd road needs more traffic does not compute with what I see on a regular basis. The road is narrow. It also has a curve that is quite dangerous for people who go off and on that road. Now I will say part of my concern is we're talking about this one piece, but we all know it's in context of a larger future plan. And I think there's a little bit of concern that maybe some decisions could be made that will influence this in the future. So, I do want to make sure we have the chance to have regular full input. The comprehensive plan came along after the subdivision was put on hold. That's going to be an interesting thing to figure out what the rules are. But in terms of the Floyd Road, there's that S-curve. There's it's a low traffic road. It even says in the application it is incompatible with the current plan with a current comprehensive plan to have that on there. I disagree with the checkbox that says it won't affect traffic. Of course it will. If we look long range beyond this one change to say we're talking about a subdivision widers mill road is on the other side. Maybe they need to look at an existing paved road that has better roadways less as curves in order to get a different entrance to a subdivision which may or may not happen. But thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you. Anyone else? My name is Steve Warner. I'm her husband. Uh if you look at the the map, that subdivision is packed. And if I live in this area and I have a choice to go through all that to get out or go over here, I'm going to go this way. So you can figure most of your traffic is going to come down on Floyd Road. That's my point. All right. Anyone else?

You could scroll back to that color picture, please. My name's Amy Abrahamson. I live across the river from where the muddy creeks in that one. My property is right here. If you look up here, you see there's a lot of bare ground. If this gets developed, it's going to lead to a lot more problems and run off down here where that creek comes in. And I have a picture of what it looked like last June when it was raining real hard. This is a hill that came down.

Yeah. At the bottom of that hill there was an island. It's no longer an island. It's all tilted up. It's all filled up on the far side. So now this is undercutting on my side of the property. The lights on. I'm very concerned about developing that area. The creek should have um tested on it already at 18 and it does not. I'm also very concerned about developing that area because the ground wasn't us that many houses and likewise with the traffic and everything else that's already been said. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Isler. I live at 1000 Floyd Road, which is right next to Mr. Sales Property where Eugene Hartman comes up. Uh, two other things that haven't been mentioned, uh, but they might be in the comprehensive plan. um in this area that uh comes down right through here where Muddy Creek comes through uh would be because it uh definitely ties into the South Fork of the Broad River that would be considered to be a jurisdictional wetland. So there are a lot of u if that gets developed if there's any action any silt u as Amy said that comes down into that area that that's going to be a problem and then the core of engineers EPD would get involved with that. The other thing that hasn't been mentioned um is that uh right next to this parcel in partly on um the property in question and partly on another property down Muddy Creek there is a great blue heron rrookery. Um they are not endangered species uh but they are very very large birds. Uh they nest there every spring. I can hear them all the way up the hill of my house. there are at least 16 nest trees in that area. Uh any kind of development in that area could disturb uh the breeding habits of those great blue heron. So that's not a certainty but that could happen. So thank you for your time.

Right. Thank you sir. Anyone else?

Don't have a lot to say. Thank you. My name is Judith Hersland. I live also across the river right there. I am an avid walker, so I frequently walk on Floyd and down Eugene Hardman with my dog. And to think that it could hold any more traffic is absurd. I know that's for the future, but that's basically because just walking in a car comes down the dust will fly. and to pave only from that little area up to Floyd. What about the rest of Eugene Hardman? I don't think he could stand any more traffic. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. My name is Wayne Chandler and um I live on 173 Floyd Road. my land backs up to Eugene Harden Road and um they're correct on the pipe about it flooding but it's washed out a bridge or two in the pipe but still if you ride down that road today the road is lower than the pipe it backs up from the pipe and still flip crosses the road and um like I say that where they talking about coming out at that their land is right there at that creek. So, uh I mean suggest that y'all look at the road before you make the decision what I mean what would have to be done, you know, and then if it dumped out in Floyd roads, that road ain't been touched in years. It's still old one of the old first to and gravel roads and it's done narrow down to where it's uh not much more than a one lane road.

Uh because I travel the hell a day and uh if you meet somebody and spots you just about it, you know, on the shoulder of the road where it's done the payment's done gone, you washed out. So, it's going to be a lot of work that the county is going to have to obtain to handle this traffic. And this subdivision when it was started out developing, it wasn't hard drive on Eugene Orman Road. That's basically a narrow dirt road except on the other end. It kind of widened it a little bit, but um but you know, it's it was designed to tie into that other subdivision and I don't you know if they're going to develop it, I don't see why it has to dump in on Eugene or not with what it's going to cost to fix it.

All right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else?

All right. Any sir? just a few points. Um I feel like this is sort of turning into a referendum against the subdivision rather than you know a question of just resolving this one track and I get it and I understand everyone's concern. Um it sounds like that there are some uh already some issues with Eugene Carter Road and I don't think that should be helping at my client. Um and I guess to address the points about um what this is going to do to uh potentially endangered species or erosion and sediment control, there are plenty of other other government agencies that oversee that like was mentioned Army Corp of Engineers and EPD government govern erosion control. Um EVD also governs endangered species. There will be a lot of stuff that will have to be done uh to concern that which I think is in the purview of the those other regulatory agencies. Um, and then as to just sort of general traffic, I mean, I get the idea that people who live along and use using Harman Road, you obviously may not want more traffic. Um, but the alternative really is just more traffic through these areas. Um, which is still, you know, comes through Floyd Road and Rogers Middle. Um, so it's like there's still going to be some additional traffic. And I think there's a something to be said county and emergency uh services emergency response having two access points to certain areas and not having this one access point here um into the subdivision uh I think could have some um you know some safety concerns but u again I don't want to get into the whole thing about the merits of the subdivision. I just really want to talk about the fact that we are um really just talking about extending this out a little bit here. And I want to if we can scroll back to the site sketch. Um I just want to address one point that the first speaker made um about um I I think he had indicated something about coming all the way down the road, but that's really not what's what's happening. It's it's just this area right here. It's just 200 feet along um

Eugene Harmon Road. So the like an access point would come in right here um and then go from there. So that's all I want to say. Hey, I just kind of wanted to address a couple of those concerns. Um, again, we're not really adjoining to any other property and we're not putting R1 where it doesn't, you know, wouldn't normally go. It's already kind of there. We're just expanding it from 50 to 54. So, that's all I'm going to say. All right. Thanks, sir. All right. We'll close the public hearing and I'll bring it back to the board. Have a lot to consider. So I will entertain a motion. Entertain a motion to approve, to disapprove, to delay, whatever your pleasure. Based on what's been said, I would I would make a motion that it be postponed for 30 days to allow these gentlemen to try to work out whatever's still on the table. So when you say to postpone, you postponing the vote until the next not the next business meeting all not be another public hearing because we've already done you postponing the vote to that meeting. Okay.

We've already held a public hearing, right? All right. I got a motion on the floor to postpone for 30 days. Postpone to the next to the next public hearing. Yes. Uh, is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second to postpone for the next public hearing. Uh, any further comments or questions? If not, Cynthia, I think it's you. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. Uh this has been postponed as far as a vote from this board to make a recommendation to the board of commissioners. Uh in the meantime, we'll it's not the right way to say it, but we'll try to unmut the work and to give us a better understanding of everything that can or will be. All right. Any other And I suggest uh well I will present to the board of commissioners that this be postponed. Right. Okay. All right. Moving on to OB.

That's okay. Um actually don't have the amendment. Let me make this real quick. Okay. Thank you. I took this on. Um, our goal was to establish setbacks for caution board, correct?

As a result of the one that we we had before in the last month or so, I took that on to try to come up with some amendments to to deal with it. And one thing turns into another domino effect. And we've spent the time I've been back and forth with Mr. as well as the P&Z office trying to clean this up enough to get it to you all with their their concerns and comments to try to for you all to be comfortable with approving something to go on to the BC. Um, and I'm not there yet. So, my my recommendation is u within the ne the next few days I think I can have a clear picture of what is being recommended. I would recommend not waiting until the night of the meeting, but getting that on to the wall by email. If you have any concerns, okay, need this, whatever to let's do it so that by our next meeting, it'll just be done.

Yeah. And I think at our last meeting, we had said that if there wasn't enough time that we would there was no big rush. Yeah. And and I think it's a wonderful start. I mean, it's more than a start, but a few little I'll take that on and I'll I'll drive that. We certainly appreciate it. I want to drive that fine job. Okay. Uh, anything else? I have a question. We have to make a motion on the old business. Uh, since it was on the Can you tell me how it's phrased? It say consider.

It does. To consider recommending to the board of commissioners a proposed text amendment to the zoning ordinance requiring. I mean, this is not written in stone. But usually when it says consider, we take a vote to postpone it. If it just said discuss, then that implies there's no action needed. I'll make a motion to postpone. You got a second? Second. history move second to postpone this consideration tax everyone in favor of all right I get a motion to journ All right. Journ.