Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Thank you, oh God, for this day that you have given us. And as we come this morning for the count of visit, we ask you to be with us all decision that we make. In your name we pray. We say together. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This time consider motion to accept minutes from December. So motion second. It's been moved and properly second. All in favor? I have it. Motion to open public hearing. So motion second. Is it moving properly? Second

Aita. Good morning. Uh I'm Skip Jernigan. I'm the Makita attorney. Uh we are the petitioner seeking a reszoning of 357 acres to I2 that has been presented to the uh PNZ board at the last meeting. At the last meeting, uh there were a number of objectors and it was determined that it would be wise to meet with them to see if this matter could be resolved in some manner and to address their objections to the reszoning of this piece of property from agricultural to I2. The purpose of the reszoning is for future economic development. Makita has uh is in need of additional industrial land in this in that area. It's directly across the street from the as you know the Amazon project. We did meet with all of the objectors. We had a almost a two-hour meeting at the Makita office. Unfortunately, nothing was able to be resolved. So ladies and gentlemen, we would ask that u you consider the reszoning of this property favorably. It is our position that we have met all of the legal requirements to obtain a reszoning of this property. We presented that evidence at the last meeting. Um and what has happened here is that these fine folks that are objecting used to live in a nice quiet rural area

of Madison County. They do not anymore. That area has changed significantly. It is changing daily. There is uh the development of Calhoun Station Parkway that will go directly by the subject property and where they live. There's obviously, as you are aware, Nissan Parkway and all of the development that is directly across Highway 22 from the subject piece of property. It is a perfect piece of property for industrial development for the benefit of all citizens of Madison County. And what has been done by Makita to date is is u astonishing really. and the revenue and the business that they have created will prevent any kind of tax increase for all of the 125,000 citizens of the county of Madison for years and years to come and this will just uh add to that. So, we would ask the favorable vote of the planning and zoning board. We have submitted sufficient evidence to meet all of the legal requirements to have this property reszone. The landowner is entitled to use the property for its highest and best interest and is entitled to have this property reszone. We would entertain any questions that you may have. I have Mr. Diesson with me this morning if need be.

There was a gentleman u I don't see him here today, but he asked a question. Is it 75 ft or 75 yards the buffer

75 yards and we've also discussed um Dr. browser. We discussed the Makita's ability to not only have a vegetative buffer, but to add a burm, a earthn burm along the side, which would be affecting these property owners. Um, and we've agreed to do that. However, we've had no agreement with the objectors about that one way or the other at this point. Any other questions? Not at this time.

Thank you,

representative from the home office. Good morning. Uh my name is Dario Manning and I live at 115 Hill Road. Um our purpose here is very simple and which is to oppose the petition for resoning reclassification variance. Um our objective is clear today is to in to be informative about the potential for detriment to our community if Makita's petition is recommended for approval and approved. Um what you have handed out to you is u presentation or some information that for the sake of time we have three individuals if allowed will come and present these things to you. Um so if allowed we will move forward with that if that's okay.

Dr. Rouser. Yes. Just one point, uh, as you've got in front of you here this packet, um, I did, uh, receive over the last couple of weeks a couple of mailings from, uh, Reverend Manning and, uh, I just confirmed this morning that this this is a cumulative exhibit of what was previously sent. So, I I've confirmed that they would like these added to the minutes and just let you know that.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Nancy P. I live at 122 Brown Drive, Canton, Mississippi 39046. And I am a member of those in opposition uh to this reasoning reclassification and variance. Um my task today is to uh discuss the reasoning and reclassification petition. Uh Mr. Jernigan has um spoke about the character of the neighborhood and how the character of the neighborhood has changed and what to extent. Uh there are three there actually three criterias that must be met and that one is there must be a mistake in the original zoning. Of course, we know uh there was no mistake in the original zoning. That area has been uh agricultural uh for as long as I can remember. Let me say first that I grew up in this area. My mother moved to Kent in 1972 and I have been a resident of that area uh probably better a little bit better than 40 years of that time. Um I live adjacent to this property and we have a map and there's a map enclosed in your um in your packet. Um I am so close the the the properties run adjacent and all the way down that I guess that would be the west side of the property. Uh and you would have to see the map to realize how close we are and how that buffer won't be effective or whatever they plan to do. But the mistake, there was no mistake in the original zoning. The character of the neighborhood has to have changed to the extent to some some extent whether it be significant. The character of the neighborhood has not changed. The neighborhood has always been residential where we live. The surrounding area has been agricultural. In recent years, there has been a change, but it has not been to heavy industry, which they're asking for today. Um, there's commercial properties, which is the hospital, the nursing home, but none of those are in

adjacent. None of those bother us to the extent where we can hear the noise from them actually for the hospital. Um, we can hear the ambulance, but there's nothing else we can hear. Uh, there's a gas station, but convenience store that's on the corner, but it's not adjacent and it's not in proximity to the homes that we live in. Uh, those are the areas that he was talking about when he said things have changed as it relates to um the businesses around those businesses are a great distance from us. And you all know the industry that has come to Madison County. Uh and if you know where old Jackson Road is in proximity to Nissan and the other plants, you know that those have no effect on the neighborhood in which we live. If I could, Manny, could you get the map right here so that they can see the area that I'm talking about? This is the map that was presented um at the last meeting. Um if you look at the map, can you all see this? We need to bring it closer. If you look at the map, this is this is the area they're talking about right here with the buffer and this is the area. This is my home right here. This is my mom's home and we've been there since my mom's been there. I moved there 1972. So we changing this res that won't affect us. So that has been a residential area and the change of that of the neighborhood is still the same. As it relates to a public need, there is no need for heavy industry in that area. Uh there are available properties north um of this area that are available for purchase that have been reszone. [snorts] Um we don't need heavy industry. Heavy industry has never been a good neighbor for residential areas and nothing has changed about that. So there's no public need. uh there is an economic need, there is a financial need

for somebody's gain, but there is no public need uh for us to be subjected to whatever may come because today they don't even know what's coming. So, uh we argue against that we're in opposition to Mr. Jernigan's statement as well as Mr. Don's statement uh that they have met the criterias. Uh next is the um variance petition. They're asking that you all approve uh a variance so that these buildings can be the maximum height. I showed you where I live. I showed you where the proximity is. If you build a building that's at the maximum height, that building will most assurely affect all of us living in that neighborhood. Um you don't we don't know what's coming. They can't assure us what's coming. It's just a wait and see game. Well, we can't play wait and see because it's not beneficial to us. Um the criteria for variance is you must prove there's a hardship that is not self-imposed. That land although it's agricultural there's no it's flat flat land. So when you bring in what is the hardship if you all approve this what is the hardship? They can't prove there's a hardship because it's not there's no need for those buildings to go that high in air except you'll be able to put another building next to it so that the buildings won't stretch out they'll go up. So that too there is an economic gain for others but not for us. Um it will negatively affect impact our area because we don't know what there is. We don't know what the films are. We don't know what's going on. They've made a lot of promises and uh I heard uh Mr. Jernikin say that we didn't get anywhere with the meeting. It's because there were no negotiations in the meeting. you don't uh you all have to accept what we've done and we'll try to make it better and then through correspondence what you all have in the packet when we put it in writing then there were no assurances guaranteed then so we don't

want anybody to say I misspoke or I didn't mean what I said we discussed the um uh the burm we uh we discussed that with the dirt hill and the fence across the top none of that was mentioned but that's not going to help anything. So, in our negotiations, we didn't come to anything. And you want us to just go on your word when this is not the first time that you've said something and then say, "I misspoke or uh I didn't mean that." In the course of the meeting, we were discussing um the I think it was the burn. No, it was the variance. We were discussing the variance and uh Joy Dies said he thought that the that the variance request only cover one building. That's not what the paperwork says. The paperwork says it covers that whole area. You can't single that building out and then it said it's based on whoever comes in site plan. Why would you blindly give people permission to build as high or as wide as they want to based on site plan? But if you approve the variance that that means anybody who comes in there can build a 100 feet building next to my house. Is that 225 ft going to help? No. And again with that, they talked about the uh the growth, the existing vegetation. They're not talking about adding anything. And by the time you get to clearing that property off, tell me where the existing vegetation will be. Okay. Um they want to show that they're in strict compliance with the zoning laws and that if this is not approved, uh it would create an unnecessary burden due to site specifications. What site specifications? They don't have anybody out there. There is nothing out there. So why would you approve it? Why can't it be proved if approved on a case-byase basis if this is the way things are going to go? You're asking us to walk into the dark

and just be accepting of the fact that this is going to happen. And of course, Mr. Dies has said it. It's going to happen. So when is it going to happen? Does it have to happen today or do does this need to be looked at closer? because apparently there's a problem and apparently people are used to doing things their way and but that's not what your task is here today. Um economic hardship also cannot be a factor because um if you don't have the money to purchase the land that would be more feasible then don't buy anything. You don't buy insurance before you buy the car. So what I'm saying is that if if Mr. if Jubilee's land is cheaper economically it's it's a better deal that's of no consequence to us because that would negative negatively affect us for the remainder of our lives for those of us who choose to live there. Again I say to you that um heavy industry is not a good neighbor and I ask you to heavily consider the decisions that you make today. Thank any questions. What were you all negotiating uh asking requiring or requesting of them?

We talked about the vegetation. Um and currently the land has been cleaned. There are pine trees that are standing I would say 50 to 75 ft. I guess all of them are strip bare at the bottom. There is some wild grass that has come up and we talked about them putting a they talked about putting a burm which is the hill of dirt and then they talked about putting a fence across the top of the burm to alleviate some of the noise and some of the dirt. Well, where do you put the burm? We kept going back and forth with with questions and then when we addressed the issue of the burm in writing there was nothing. So you're expecting us to just take you for your word. We did discuss that. Uh what we expected was once we put something in writing, we would get feedback. We would get some assurances or we would get some guarantees. That didn't happen. Again, we discussed um traffic, how traffic I'm getting out of my area, but I'm going to answer your question because they're supposed to be covered some of this stuff. We talked about traffic. The traffic is already terrible out there. Uh there is so much traffic going down through there. People there no they speed. Uh you can't get out. I know we are used to being somewhat comfortable but to keep adding things to that area, buildings to that area and not doing anything. They talk about Calhoun um um Parkway. Well, one of the supervisors just said in a meeting the other day that Calhoun Parkway doesn't b any anybody doesn't benefit anybody. it only brings uh undue uh traffic to Madison the city. So they talk about that being a thoroughare. That's not a thoroughare. That's a parkway that links one county to the other. I mean one city to the other. We discussed the traffic. Uh we discussed um the areas I think we touched on areas that more areas that were available. Um

they mentioned some in their application and and let me say that they submitted an amended application but in our discussions and things there has there hasn't been another application submitted to uh address the changes and stuff that they said that they're going to make. We cannot take them at their word that doesn't work. So I think what Dr. Hower was saying and what we're asking is you didn't like what they were proposing. Were there any proposals made by you that weren't accepted or were there what would make you feel comfortable with the approval?

The I don't think there's much uh that can make us comfortable because it's in such close proximity. You're talking about a putting heavy industry next to a residential neighborhood. And I'm not talking about a residential neighborhood where everybody's house is sitting on two acres. I'm talking about where the houses are we are next door neighbors. Okay. I think that was where our understanding was trying to get. We were trying to understand is there any option here?

Um I don't think so because it it would just be an inconvenience. Not not just an inconvenience, but it could be detrimental to our health at some time in the future depending on what's approved to be there. You know, Mr. uh Dies talked about a cookie plant. I like cookies and you all fost can tell but I don't want to smell them all day long you know and and what goes in the process uh man pastor man I was talking about it but what goes in the process of making cookies what fumes are put off you know there's Nissan over there but by the time the stuff goes in in the area Nissan is somewhat dispersed you're talking about somebody that's going to be two possibly 225 feet from me or from any office in that area that goes down the longest part of this area. So what are the health benefits for us?

So the consensus is there's not anything any considerations to be made. You just the consideration is that they buy the property north of Amazon that's available because if you ride up and down Villia Road there are signs on top of signs on top of sign and a lot of that area already there has already been resoneed for heavy industry. So it's I think they're financially burdened is the reason they don't want to move to the other side. We talked about the sewer system [snorts]

um the infrastructure for this area all day long. We've got the sewer thing going on with the smell and stuff. So you're bringing all these buildings in here. Mr. Diesel talked about running it down old Jackson Road, the same system that we are in that is currently smelling. It cannot handle masses of M because they're not going across Tisa to Amazon. They want to come down through the neighborhood and share the same one that we already have. that's already smelly that we're already having problems out of. The infrastructure is just not designed to handle that. So if you go on the other side of Aurelia Road north of Amazon, you go across the road and you can tie into Amazon, that property is available. Maybe five people will be displaced and you're talking about a whole neighborhood now on the other side. So, you're gonna inconvenience a whole neighborhood for the rest of their lives so that you can put it where the land is cheaper. Did I answer your question? Are there any more questions? Um, again, my name is Davarium Manning. I'm going to try to be as brief as possible because she was very exhaustive and in going through everything. But again, I thank you for your time. I thank you for your consideration. Um, again, nothing is guaranteed. That was a statement that's been made to us. Unfortunately, it has been positioned to us that let me say this. We are not against growth and economic gain in this county. That's not what we are against. We understand that growth is coming. That's not what we're against. what we are against is our way of life not being taken into real consideration. Um couple of things that I will deal with um in in just is land use availability, the vegetative buffer. I'm

going to touch on that just a little bit to give a little more clarity and the restrictive covenant because these are things that are addressed in the um application for reszoning. Now I understand that the planning and zoning has a very unique responsibility. you have a unique responsibility in balancing how things move in the county. You you have one side as if you look as you're aware of in the 2019 comprehensive plan, you know, you have a responsibility as it relates to residential that has to be taken in consideration. You have a responsibility when it comes to commercial that has to be taken into consideration. You have a responsibility when it comes to um heavy industry or I2 as it is stated. Each one of those have a specific goal [clears throat] that is stated in the comprehensive plan. Your responsibility is to find a balance because you also have to drive change but also reserve what's there. As residents, you have a responsibility to look at us and to make sure that our way of life is reserved with the balance of moving the county forward. That's the responsibility that the planning and zoning is tasked. We cannot simply look at the economics factor that is given because economics is not the only thing that is impacted in this decision. There are people, there are lives, there are families. So you have to find that balance in doing that. [snorts] The assertion that was given on the December the 11th meeting was that there was no more available land for Amazon. If you go back and you reflect on the minutes, their assertion was that all the land that Amazon had, they've used. That's not the land in question. We're not trying to buy more property for Amazon. They're petitioning you and they're

saying that that that the only land available, there's no more movable dirt north. I say to you that that statement is incorrect. that I say to you that that statement is false because there are properties listed at 333 and 366 367 Verilia Road which approximately 99 plus or minus acres ready for sale already zone I2 Verilia Road approximately 153.37 acres already I zone ready to go property listed at 117 old Yazu City approximately 207 plus or minus acres already zoned I too now we have to deal with what's been presented the reason one of the reasons that they gave you to purchase the land and and get this land reszone is there is nothing else there and I say that statement is false so we have to look at all those things and consider is is it just for the sake of economics worth putting the people in that area at risk I say to you that question is no. As far as the vegetative buffer is concerned. Um it is it has been proposed and said to you that there would be of course the vegetative buffer that is there. It was mentioned in our meeting that there could possibly be an in uh an inserting of additional plants. That's good. But how long? See, there's no guarantee how long it's going to take in order for those trees to to really develop the uh an adequate buffer to filter out noise because trees have to be a certain density. There has to be a certain type of underbrush to uh to deal with the amount of noise or whatever will come. And again, now they're going to make the assertion that hey, it's understood that during construction you're going to have dust. But what we

don't know how many buildings are coming. We don't know how long construction will last. We don't know how long it's going to take for those trees to grow. So what's essentially said to us is wait and see and hopefully you're okay. Wait and see and hopefully the noise doesn't bother you. Wait and see. Hopefully the dust doesn't get to you. Wait and see. Hopefully you don't develop um what is it? COP or those types of things or respiratory issues. Wait and see. But we don't have time to wait because the businesses are going to come. But we have to wait to see if the buffer is going to grow, if the vegetation is going to grow and get to a density conducive enough to keep us from being affected by those things. I say to you, we don't have time to wait. as it pertains to restrictive covenants and they've asserted that they would put in restrictive covenants. I say that those accounts somewhat faulty. If you look at the restrictive covenants and how they're listed and how they're the language is the language is given in such a way that it really only pertains to those who aren't close to residential the restrictive covenants through Mr. introduced his own admission through our last conversation. Um, he made a conversation with me and he explained to me that we would smell we we we would be should be excited to be able to smell, you know, something sweet from the cookie factory, candy factory, whatever that is. But again, the covenant says nothing smelly. Look at it. What he said, what what's stated on the application is nothing smelly. It didn't determine what it smells. what smells to you is not what smells to me. Not everyone has the propensity to smell something sweet all the time. In addition to that, there are issues that that go along with that because um whether you know it or not, there are certain particullets and uh VOCC's that come as a result of sweet manufacturers.

Uh I'll read this article and then I'm done. Emissions from sweet manufacturers facilities primarily contain volatile organic compounds such as ethanol, ethanol acetate, particulate matters, including sugar dust. Other potential emissions can include flavoring, greenhouse gases, heavy metals depending on the specific process and materials. So, if we're going to allow these types of industry to come, what regulatory systems do we have in place to make sure those things aren't going to affect us? Are you aware that uh cookie manufacturing, sweet manufacturies also produce smog? Do we have things in place that will deal with that? [snorts] But again, they're saying wait and see. They're saying, "Let us be good neighbors." I say to you, this is not the place. My family can't take the risk. their families can take the risk. So, we're asking you to deny this request. Thank you.

Okay, I'm back. Um, my tax now is uh the failure of economic overdevelopment with an overburden infrastructure. Canton, the city of Canton is overburdened. We're living with an old infrastructure that has not been updated in some time. Um, some time ago, and it's not been that long, in October of 2025, CMU sent a letter out, and I think this thing is tied up in court now, where they uh went up on the rates, and the sewer company that they chose has two charges on our utility bills now. And uh some of our uh utility bills have more than quadrupled. Uh I think now Lake Carolina is about to go to court with them for those rate changes. Uh those enormous rate changes. And the reason these things were done is because uh CMU says that they needed to do improvements. Well, if you have to do improvements, that means that there's something wrong. Uh I talked about earlier uh us having problem with the sewer system where we live where it's just not where we live because if you ride uh that east if you ride east down Nissan Parkway you can smell the sewage. If you ride down old Jackson Road you can smell the sewage. So we're talking about all around us we're smelling sewage. That's unhealthy because sewage puts off gases. It's unhealthy and uh CMU has stated that they need some improvements. So they needed to do the rate hikes and those were passed on to the customers. Well, if you add all this industry here, who does that rate pass on to? We're talking about uh the water usage also price increases burden infrastructure, overburden infrastructure. If you keep adding to an infrastructure that's already failing, what happens? Eventually, there's a collapse.

So we don't need to add more on top of the problems that we already have. Yes, there are some future plans uh that may or may not address these issues. We all know that plans fall through because these things have to be voted on. These things take money. Um and often time the money is not there to do it. We're talking about pollution. Where's all this garbage going to go? It has to go somewhere. And what kind of garbage is it going to be? Can any of you tell me what kind of garbage is going to be? No, because none of us know what's coming. Is that fair to us as taxpaying citizens? No. Because we need to know what's going to be going on, how our infrastructure is going to be able to handle this. You all know that Madison County, yes, has grown significantly in the last decades, but our infrastructure is not able to keep up with the growth because the money is not available. And then sometimes and it may be most times if the man is mismanage mismanaged you may have the money there but the progress doesn't take place. So where's all this waste going to go that all these heavy industries are going to be putting off. So when our landfill gets full, what do we do then? We put another landfill in another neighborhood. We build another sewer system to handle all of this. We keep adding. We keep messing with the existing vegetation. We keep at with the environment. Amazon cleaned off a thousand acres. We all know this area has been ruled since rule been rule. Where are the where are the animals? You can drive up and down any highway or thoroughare and there are deers laying everywhere. There are pawsums, raccoons, stuff just laying everywhere because they have nowhere to go. You're constantly disturbing the environment that will also affect our health because those trees serve a purpose. and they and some of them need to be

left there and if you can't leave them there at least put the industry away from the neighborhoods. Um the and that goes back to the environmental injustice which was my last point. I think I've I've touched that uh we all know that if you keep clearing and you keep clearing and you click clearing there's nowhere for the smog to go because we don't know what's coming again. We cannot and we ask that you all my vote [clears throat] to lead us blindly into a burning building. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Janette Whistington and I live at 1064 Old Jackson Road. Um I have lived in this area all my life. As a child, I grew up living on parcel and it's listed on your in your pack 02 092H33041. And now as an adult, my husband and I own a home on parial number 092H34003, uh, which is adjacent adjacent to the new convenience store or truck stop, um, at the Nissan Parkway. Um I am here to talk about other extinguating factors that is that is and will affect us as a community. First thing I want to touch base on is loss of local tax revenue. Local taxes are meant to fund services for local residents. and what we have we've come to knowledge of and I do want to mention that I am I am also a retired 32-year educator librarian with emphasis on research and so one of the things that we came up with as doing this project and working on this project was the spillover spillover effect which means that most of the um the residents who are now living in this area due to all of the heavy um of the development that's going own um don't live in this area. They are renting and therefore they are not paying taxes. They they are taking a part in um the commuting in and out in which we're all guilty of it as well because when I drove up this morning I looked at a lot of the tax on a lot of them said rank rank and county um commuters don't pay property taxes and revenue is lost and this loss accounts

for a large percentage of our local taxes taxes and revenue. um commuters who work in the city do not um uh do not reside here as well. Uh this imposes a cost as well uh for our our community. There's also an overburden of economic growth. If no one lives here in in a sense, if we have all these people working over at Amazon and Nissan and all those standing apartments and stuff and they're renting, then that means that they're not buying houses at all and they're they work here during the week [clears throat] and they go home on the weekend. That means that their tax money or their property taxes are being paid somewhere else and it's not here as well. So we're not benefiting from that at all as well. Um so it means that if a factory comes across in front of my house with a said buffer that means that um these people will come in they'll live the week and they'll go home and then we profit nothing from that as well. um public safety wise. Also, if we look at that, we'll look at our last census in 2024 says that Canton uh has a population of 10,777 people. Um and that was for uh that was for the census of um in July of 2024. Now, the average um income range was 34,812. Now, if we look at it, um, for renting wise, people rent houses based on their incomes. And sometimes, um, um, their monthly salaries are $1,400 a month. And if you're buying a home, you're going to be looking at 16 uh, $1,600. And so, you uh, if you're if you're making $20 an hour based on buying a house or your income. So, which one are you going to be doing? You're going to be renting. And so, we're looking at this as well as income. Now, one of the things that we also look at, we looked at as well as public safety. Now,

our police department has was constructed in 1908. Um, the sheriff's department was constructed in 1991 and the ad annex was added on in 2001 and 2002. We have four fire departments as well. Um the first fire department was constructed in 1973. The second one fire station number two in 1961. The second one in 1985. The fourth one in 2003. Now the department combined have a total of 47 employees in all four administrators and 43 firefighters. And you have 10,000 residents in in the city of Canton. So you have 47 firefighters to to handle the city of Canton at one time. So there was a way of we um us trying to can I share this information? We were trying to find out trying to get this information and so we had to go in to the fire stations to try and find out how to get this information from them. We went to the fire station and they were closed and so where where are the employees? So if a fire happens then if the fire stations are closed then that means that if my house catches a fire if the factory catches a fire and the firefighters are not there that means that somebody has to call them they have to go to the fire station they got to get the fire truck and then they have to go to the fire then so what happens to our community after that the fires ablaze and then so many feet from our community and then that's a whole our whole community is wiped out and so you have to look at that as well then we look at traffic management we always touch base on that because we did talk about that in our meeting with Makita as well. They talked about traffic traffic lights also. And then I think one of the representatives says that there's a process that they go through about traffic lights as well because you have to meet the u the guidelines as well. So we did talk about traffic lights and stuff and I don't think that's going to happen for a while also and they did that was one of their requests because

they wanted a traffic light in front of the Makita building because I think they having issues trying to get into their their their jobs as well. And so they see that as a that's a problem with them. And so I guess it's it's the fact that if it bothers them then it's a problem for them. They don't see it as a problem with us also. It only affects them and not us and so many words. And so to me um I all of this yes I object to this. We all object to this or we feel that there's a need for there's not a need for a factory to be in our backyards for us to be blocked in as a community. We feel that they can find somewhere else for to put other factories somewhere else other than in our backyard. Um I've been there for 60 years as a child growing up there. Um and so who other than wouldn't know other than there are other people in this room as well who have grown up there as well. And so we know what is and we're not we not against change because we uh growing up we know we're educated people and we know that there's there's a need for change for everything but there's not a need for something that's we know that's that's not that does not need to be there and so with that being said do I did I miss anything? Okay. This I don't think there's a need for a factory to be in my front door. Not in in the back door where I grew up at, nor in my front door where I now live. I don't think there's a need for that at all.

Thank you. Questions? Any questions? Yes. Oh, and I have a question for you all. When you all we were here last time and and you said we you can't just vote on on on opinions or whatever emotions. Emotions. Um, and um, I think Miss P asked you all whether or not you all had ever gone to to view the area. Did you all ever go to view the area? I'm familiar with the area. You did view the area? Only one person. Anybody else? I have also. Anybody else? We're pretty familiar with We Anybody else? That's part of our That's part of what we do. We review everything that comes before us. It's not paper.

Okay. Yes, ma'am. Um, attorney, did you view the area? No, ma'am. I don't I don't vote on it. Okay. Okay. All right. You have questions.

Uh, come to the mic, state your name. You want to say something? My name is Nan Morris and I'm up here about Al Cwell Road. I grew up there, too. And this is everybody's job to go out there and see why didn't everybody go because you got a lot of people that grew up there. I grew up there. I'm almost 60 years old and this is ridiculous. It's like you guys don't care about the people that live out there. Everything is about money and it's not like that cuz if you were living out there, you'd have a problem, too. But you guys are looking at us like we're crazy for being up here not wanting this to happen. And I agree with her about change. But not if it's something that's going to mess with our health or mess with people out there. And there's a lot of older people out there and what you guys are doing is not right. That's all I got to say. I'll speak for myself, but I think we all I mean I travel that area frequently. I don't think there's any misunderstanding about what you guys are dealing with. We totally understand and empathize with that. It's just making a decision for the future and we've not made one yet, but we're just trying to understand. But I I for one and I think I speak for everyone where we are all very familiar with that area and totally understand what you're

you know what the future holds and what you're dealing with. So that's not the case at all. Okay. And you also know the value of everybody's property is going to go down, right? No, no, it won't affect.

Yes, it will. I'm a real estate broker. It is going down. Nobody, none of my clients want a property that's anywhere near near industrial and they're not going to buy any property if there's an industrial area, if it's zone industrial. They don't want property there. The value is going down. We have to follow guidelines and there are things in place that would protect you as as well as the builders and if something goes up they have to come here first before it go up. So right now they are trying to reszone land and even if they want to put something on it they have to come back and you'll have that same opportunity if that happens. But I wouldn't get up and accuse this board of not caring uh not doing their jobs or something wrong. Technology is so smart that I can put one address in and pop up the whole neighborhood, zero in and see uh single out a home, but uh we're trying to do a job and and we want to do it the best I at that we can. And we're not trying to do anything against you. You know, we're not siding with anybody. We have to follow our guidelines. So you are listening to everybody that's coming here, not just listening to these big corporations that are coming

by all means because it really doesn't seem that way. And I know I'm not the only person that feels that way. I'm probably the only person that's saying something, but I'm not the only person that feels that way. So we would appreciate if you would consider how we feel in that area out there, not just the big corporations because money is not everything. a lot of people, but it's not. Thank you. Anybody else? Anyone else? [clears throat]

Good morning. My name is Michelle Thompson. I reside at 323A Hawkins Thompson Lane in Kenton, Mississippi. And I know when we came when I I was not here at the last meeting, but I did review the video and I know there was two parties that was in opposition of this particular reasoning and I know it was some of these residents, but it was another party. So is is that party here to speak? I think Panther Creek had a representative here as well and just trying to see if Panther Creek is here to speak against or for

Okay. Um that was the the November 3rd. So the reason they're not here, part of the reason is and initially it the petition was for 600 and some acres which was east side of Calhoun, west side of Calhoun. Um east side of Calhoun is the area that we live on. West side is the area where which is closest to um through conversation with Mr. Diesson. Um I'm not privy to what that conversation is but from that conversation the east side the west side is no longer on the table is is uh be re the application was resubmitted from 650 something to the 350 only including the east side of Calhoun. Therefore, um, Panther Creek no longer had an interest or would be, uh, affected because they were in the in the process of trying to, um, further develop their north side of their development. And so, if I'm not mistaken, I think the gentleman's name of the HOA was Nathan Evans. And when he was here, he was just um he was concerned about the west side of Calhoun affecting the potential um homes and the property values. So whatever reason, that side is no longer a part and so that's why he's no longer here. Thank you. So from what I understand is that after they came up in opposition, the that particular side was taken out and it for for whatever conversations that Makita had with Panther Creek, that side was taken. Okay. And then the next thing I want to address somewhat is BMS because I came before this planning committee and I thank you all for allowing me to address you on today about a year or so ago about some industry that was coming very close to

my house and you all agreed to allow that organization to build very very close to my house and we they we we went through the burm and you all talked about putting up a burm and putting up uh vegetation and everything and that particular organization has built their building and every night their flood lights come through my bedroom. So, that burn thing is really not a a great uh it's is really not saying that it's going to reduce noise. It's going to reduce, you know, any any kind of uh problems that that building can have. So, you know, just talking about that burn thing, I I'll just let everybody know in the room, you know, you still will be affected by that building that's close to you. Those are the two comments I want to make. Thank you for your time.

Questions? It's time. I entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Response.

Go ahead. on behalf of Makita but addressing these fine folks objections. What what has happened here is that they used to live in a very nice quiet rural area in the county. They don't anymore. It's changed all around them. All of you are aware of all of the changes and it is changing and will continue to change. It's just a fact that that's going to happen with the way the development is going in that part of the county. What we have heard is a long list of those changes during the period of time that these folks have lived in this area. All of those concerns, as you well know, will have to be addressed when the site plan for any development, any construction is approved by this board and then by the board of supervisors. such matters as ingress, egress, noise, pollution, how close you can build to the lot line, water, sewer, traffic. All of those issues will have to be addressed when a site plan is filed to build a project on this property. It is we have met all of the legal criteria. We have heard some very emotional arguments this morning, but that is not the basis on which objections can be sustained to this reasoning and we would ask your favorable consideration this morning. Thank you.

I thank Mr. Journey for that. I would also like to mention this as as a point of consideration and I thank the lady for your comments. She brought out a very important point that when decisions are made you have to make economic you have to make weighty decisions here again you cannot take out the the component of people here is the thing the decisions that you make unfortunately if it is made in their favor in essence it really leaves us but no recourse but to accept that what happens if the burm fails if whatever whatever the issues are we're so the question is this like like we we make rules we put in covenants the covenant is in in in essence is only between the person buying the land the person selling the land the covenant is not between us it's not in an agreement with us yeah they can talk to us but we as residents once she has no recourse We can't go to that company and say, "Hey, this BM isn't working. What do we do?" What are our as as as citizens, as people who bear the burden? I understand. And it's easy to say that change is going to come. And I'm not being emotional. I'm being rational and I'm thinking through this thing because here's what we have to understand. It's easy to say that change is going to come when the change is not on your back. We the residents of that area will bear the burden of everything that takes place with those industries. That's not emotion. That's reality. That's not emotion. That's a fact. If

those if those if those companies don't adhere to the restrictive covenant, what's our recourse? Who do we talk to? Who enforces it? None of those things are clearly stated because the agreement is not between the business and the individuals because we're the one affected by it. And and and the the vagueness of that it pertains it it's ideal for for for industries that are not put near residential areas. It's ideal, but it does not work when you place those things near residents. you can't use the same test. So again, we don't have a problem with change as far as the economics and the development. We have a problem when the change says we're going to impede your way of life and deal with it. That's our problem.

Well, I think that's what we want as a group to protect you from. So what we what would be ideal is if we could compromise and put some conditions on this ahead of time versus just saying absolutely not because ultimately I think the point that's been made is what long-term could happen to this property. So if say we say no today this is going to come back up. So wouldn't the ideal solution be to put some condition or make some compromise where you could have some say in what happens down the road? They have already shown the propensity that that's not the way that things move in this county. We are not concerned or considered in the front end. We're not considered when those things really happen. The whole petition for this because they're already potential clients, potential builders, potential companies. This is driven. Again, the burden is the public need. the burden that they have that they've said that there is an absolute need for that property. There is not a need for that property at this time. Now, as you stated, if all other available resources are exhausted and that Jubilee property is the only property in the county in the in Madison County that has enough acreage to handle that, we'll deal with that then. But as it st as it stands now based off what the criteria for the approval of this and a public need like his words there's no more available dirt north that's not true there are landowners here now that like in this room that are ready so again I know you have a burden and responsibility to move but I say to you the need for this land now is not a necessity, it's a want. Thank you.

Andy, did you want to address the recourse uh recourse as far I do want to make one comment to Commissioner Myers's statement is you said that there seemed to be you maybe wish that there was some sort of conditions that you could put on. You can put conditions on

approve. Okay. Uh if you deny it, you you can deny it outright. Okay. You can approve it outright. You can approve it with certain conditions. Um for example, and only for example, I'm not suggesting this by any means. Um the burns, the vegetative buffers, the setbacks increased, uh the covenants that have been proposed, all of those are conditional zoning or conditional uh approval of conditional reszoning. If it is approved with those conditions, then those conditions become a part of the zoning and are um applicable and enforceable, I would say. And that kind of goes to what Reverend Manning was saying is that and listen close to me here. In general, the county does not Madison County does not enforce covenants. He's correct. Those are private contracts between um land owners, adjacent land owners and you know users of the property, I guess you would say. I have reviewed these specific uh proposed elements. They do specifically give the county the um the right to enforce those. Again, we do enforce those in that if it's approved with these covenants, then they become a part of the zoning. If there's anything done on the property that is in violation of our ordinance or even these u covenants or anything that you may approve, well then yes, we have enforcement [snorts] mechanisms for that. Um Scott and I deal with that on a daily basis for other matters. Um and as far as uh Reverend

Manny, you made made a statement about you having no recourse under the covenants. I did take a look at these um and and it it and I read in in your packet here earlier that uh these covenants do run with the land, but I think there was some concern that they could just be kind of willy-nilly changed or altered. Um these specifically say that there shall not be any change, amendment, termination um without the consent of no less than 60% of the fee owners of real property located within 1,000 ft of the property in all directions. I think that would certainly uh encompass um you all that are in objection uh and that it is enforcable like I said again by the by the county as I've just explained andor at least onethird of the owners of the real property located within a thousand ft of the property in all directions. So that that also would encompass you. That's just for your consideration. clarification. I'm certainly not advocating either way. Uh just wanted to clarify that based on the questions presented here today.

Yeah. To that point, no, it does help. And to that point there, if those were the options, you would rather have correct some conditions rather than just a flatout approval. That's what I think we hoped that meeting would have cleared up so that there could have been some conditions, some compromises made. And now we're here. It's just both part have their feet pretty dug.

Well, I think those conditions are a part of the application. So, those are already there. Uh, when we were here last time, we were asked to go back and see if there was anything additional. As you can obviously see, there was nothing additional that we could add at this point. We attempted to add things, and if I sat here and tried to defend Mr. Diesson for everything that was said, you know, I'd be here probably two or three hours. uh whether it was misinterpreted or whatever. But I'd like to remind the neighborhood and the board as well that I think approximately almost 180 200 acres adjacent to their property to the east has already been reszoned I2 heavy manufacturing with no restrictions whatsoever. Okay. So what we're proposing is a technical industrial park. Everybody keeps talking about it's a heavy manufacturing. read the application and what we restricted. We restricted almost everything humanly possible in there. Every manufacturing operation is going to be self-encclosed. All state laws, all local laws, all federal laws will be followed. And when that change was made to the application, that's when the west side of the parkway went away because when you do I2, it included C1, C2, C3. I I can't buy that piece of property. I also can't handcuff the land owner or the owner with that restriction. So, when I made those restrictions is why we got rid of the west side of the parkway. Uh there again, I ask you to look at the facts and please vote one way or the other.

I entertain a motion. I have one more question. Go ahead,

Andy. I have a question for you based on the packet that was submitted by the land owners, I'm sorry, by the opposition. Um, it's here and I believe it's the it's in the second paragraph. Um, that they assert that the Madison County Economic Development Authorities petition for reasonzoning and reclassification is not in compliance with section 806. And they quote the amendments um based off the zoning ordinance from 2019. and they quote the subsections. Um, I think this was touched on in the the last meeting that we had, but I just want to go through and just hear your opinion on what this and maybe even Scott has to chime in here, but was there a mention of an ordinance that was actually updated or was this the correct ordinance? This is the ordinance that we're traveling under. The is the 2019 is the last time that there was a

brand new ordinance adopted. December of 2019. So their opinion is that it's not in compliance with section 804 dimensional variances of the zoning ordinance from 2019 subsection 80401 requirements for granting variances.

I I read that to mean that they don't that they do not agree that the criteria has been met for reszoning or uh the variance as they kind of meed out and fleshed out here today. I don't read it to mean that there's an allegation that we're traveling under the wrong ordinance. Okay. A different different version of the ordinance.

That's all I have. I entertain a motion. question. I'm sorry I missed the last meeting so I am not up to speed on this. Are we not addressing any of the land in our motions are not addressing any land on the west side of town?

No. U as Joey just mentioned and um I think I addressed that a little bit in the last meeting. So the original application was for 650 some acres. Okay. But when and and Makita has a contract to purchase 350 or 359 of that 650. Okay. Does that make sense? when they have an option on the resident, right? Well, they can't or they only, I guess, have the funds to purchase the 350 on the east side of the Parkway. So, when the restrictions came in with the the BM and the covenants and all those types of things when they when they agreed to do that, well, they're not buying the entirety of the property. So the current land owner Jubilee is not going to allow covenants and promises and all that that Makita is not intending to purchase or is not 100% ready to move forward purchasing now. So Makita said we'll hold off on that and focus on this 350 that we can and will put covenants and burns and all that types of restrictions on. Is that correct? Yeah, for for an example, when it was originally I2 and we had always intended on putting restrictions on the property because we wanted it to to gel with what's across the street, but when we went from I2 and we put the restrictions in, it prohibited things like C1, C2, C3, residential, it took all th those things and those can't be built on the piece of property that we're buying. But I couldn't impose those restrictions on the land owner because he's about ready to develop it all. He you're they're going to be back

here with the three three with the new road that's being proposed and under contract and construction is about to start. He's looking to sell all that property. So they will be back here soon, very soon. And Panther Creek was looking at me, can't you go ahead and buy it because they would prefer that I put the restrictions that I have on the east side on the west side, but I don't have the funds to buy all of it and I couldn't put the restrictions on the land owner. So, if Panther Creek is ready and want you to buy their side, why don't you buy their side and then we can come back and address the opposite side later. If you saying they want you to buy their side, put all the restrictions and everything that needs to go on their side to protect them and then you can come back and address the side where the people are opposed to it and concerned about it later. To me, that would make good economic development sense to me. Thank you.

As it was mischaracterized, Mr. Dies said there's no more land up north. What I've stated was the further north you go, the less infrastructure you have. You got to have water, power, sewer, and all the infrastructure to make a successful park like we've seen. That's what exists on the east side. You're bound by a four-lane road, Nissan County Parkway. You're also bound by a threelane, and you have water, sewer, and power on nearly every side with a red light. On the on the west side, you don't have any of those, and it's additional cost. And as a citizen of Madison County, you got to take into account the cost of the property, the cost to develop it, and there's about another 120,000 people that I think we represent as well.

Good morning. Morning.

I'm Joe Hardy. We own a property. My aunt Rita Graham owns a property at Val and O Yazu City Road. My father owns 207 acres on on the opposite corner of Vali Road. Oh, Yazu City. They're running power, water, sewer, everything out there. Right now, we're just down the road from uh Canton School, Canton Elementary School of Arts and Sciences. So you got infrastructure run down to there. So um using infrastructure excuse is not a good one. The concrete plant is directly across the road from my aunt's house. And uh so I just want to verify that there is plenty of land. The bowels have some I think a 100 acres or so right down the road from us. So there's plenty of property in Val and Oakant Road. There's plenty of property on the north side. You can go north. So just wanted to address that.

Thank you. Thank you. Look, I don't think we're here to defend economic development development decisions. But those properties have wetlands, streams, and jurisdictional wetlands all over them. I could go to Bear Creek and buy land very, very cheap, but you can't develop it. It's not usable. There are reasons that these decisions are made and these parcels are chosen because it's quick to market, speed to market, it's costefficient, and it benefits the citizens. But again, it it should not have been looked at before it was zon. It's already zone I

all these lands he's talking about have come before the planning and zoning and have already been zon because they were because these are people who have land who had the understanding that this is coming. They said we welcome it. we want to be a part of, we have the land for it. So, they came before planning and zoning to make sure that their property was ready to be included in this type of growth. So, I think all those things should have been considered. I mean, so if it's available for I don't know all the specifics, so I can get into that, but it is I2. Whatever has to go into that, I'm done. Thank you'all.

That that's a great point, Pastor Manning. And that's why Makita's here representing the land owner today trying to get their property zoned out uh I2 with restrictions. I'll put forth a motion to deny. A motion on the floor to deny.

Second. It's been motion properly. Second to deny. All in favor? eyes. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Well, I need to record the vote. Rem, you were a a nay. Amanda,

wait. I to motion. I'm sorry. I'm voting I to motion. Yes. So, it's 50 to deny. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. We're gay.

That was denied. [clears throat] If y'all would uh we are live.

Take the conversation. Am I about to be shot? [laughter]

I guess I need to wait till everybody gets back. Yeah, we'll wait on Okay.

Yeah. behind me.

Go ahead.

Okay. My name is Phil Lafrey. I'm city manager for Dr. Horton in the Jackson metro area and we're here to request a reduction in side setback for Woodgate set of vision on uh some listed lots. And what this will allow us to do is we've had some interest in um our bigger houses for sale that we have in the area versus the some of the smaller product that we have. and the reduction in setbacks will allow us to add a a few more plans that fit better with what other people are looking for in the area, such as a couple of courtyard entry plans, some wider plans that will allow us to increase square footage and not encroach on rear setbacks or anything like that. So, it's an opportunity to uh increase house size at still keeping an affordable price for homeowners. And it will kind of separate us a little bit from what our competition is doing because they seem to limit out it as about 2,000 square ft whereas we're having a little bit more success in the 24 to 2,800 square foot range. And we would allow it would give us more opportunity to build some bigger houses in in Woodgate.

How to what size? allow you to do what?

So, right now the the lots are 75 ft wide with a 10 foot side setback. So, our maximum width on the uh on the houses is 55 ft. We have about five plans that we'd like to incorporate into our lineup there that are 60 feet wide. With the reduction in side setbacks, we could put a little bit wider house in there and increase the square footage and also add a couple of courtyard entry plans that that are very popular in the area. Right now, you've got three sales. You have three sales out there right now and they are uh pending and the average size is 2,300.

I have three closed houses. I also have three additional sales. I have three under construction right now that are sold that are sold. Right. And the one that closed was 2,000 square feet. One that closed was 2300 feet and one was 2,800 square feet. The two that are sold right the three that are sold right now, two of them are 2800 square feet, right? And I think the other one is about 2,400 feet. Now, how you making that work?

Those are front entry garages and they're threecar. Uh not everybody wants a threecar garage. Um and we do have interest in courtyard entries. Um, but that we have plans that are already drawn for up to 60 feet wide because we it's a lot easier for us to work on stuff that we already have drawn than start from the drawing board and and come up with new plans. And the plans that we would like to build there are stuff that we're building already in other parts of the Draton metro area. So, with this run, I see how it's separated here, but it'll run one through 42 essentially.

Yes. The U there's the main boulevard going into Woodgate is u is where we'd like to do some of these bigger products. Um the areas that we have are smaller houses that are about 1,800 to,500 square feet are kind of in a little horseshoe type thing. And we have a new street that was just recorded not too long ago that runs parallel with Yandel and we've requested a side setback variance on all of those lots so we can put a bunch of bigger houses that are more visible from Yandelle as you pass by. Are these primarily front entry or rear entry homes?

Most of them are front entry because with a side setback of seven and a half, you can't do or even 10, you can't do a side entry garage. And with a 75 foot lot, it just is impossible. And none of them are alleys. So that a rear entry is also impossible. So as of right now, we're doing a front entry on the majority of our houses unless it is a pie-shaped lot. Then we can do a smaller product with a side entry, but that doesn't seem to be as popular as our bigger product. So all the yards to the back. Yes. Any other questions? I do. Yes. Scott, have we done this before?

It's in a

just housing density. [snorts]

Any opposition? I entertain a motion. I have a point. All right. Um, best I can tell, three of those are corner lots. And on those corner lots, one of the side street setbacks can on a corner lot, the front is decide is is determined by the front door on the street. So on the other side street that set back has to be 2/3 of the front which is 20 ft. That's right.

Okay. So if you have lot those correctly. So you have three of those lots in this in your plans.

Yes ma'am. Secondly, once you grant a variance to a rule, especially in development, you pretty much have destroyed that rule for in my opinion only going forward with every other developer who comes in and wants to do the same. So once you set a president, it's really hard to go back from that. I'm just making that point.

Motion to approve it. It's been moved and properly second to approve. All in favor? Um I need to amend that. Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna vote nay anyway. Okay. But you need to make some uh on those three lots on that side. You need to point that out that that it cannot be seven feet from the right away of the street. That that side has to be at least 20 ft.

Scott said those other rules are in addition to the seven What are you looking for? Because you don't want those houses. Yes, ma'am. Normally the corner lots are are already designed wider to accommodate for the side setback on a corner. So that wouldn't be compromised.

I think it needs to be just clarify. So you want to amend your motion that the variance will not apply to the street side on a double 36 77 and 82 are there's three of them in it 77 82 and 36 36 77 and 82 right 77 so it would only be on the the side adjoining another side. Correct. So is that the amendment to the motion?

Sure. But just so I understand, I thought there were already conditions in place for those there is. So this seven foot would be an addition to the conditions that are already there. Correct. No, I understood it to say that it would it would replace it. So yes, in that case, yes, that's the amendment. Okay. All in favor? oppos I mean n I'm sorry eyes have it so zoning audit amendment

thank you what I have for you today is the an amendment to the zoning ordinance uh current language in 253.01 and this has to do with the I2 industrial zoning. Maximum building height no structure shall exceed 40 ft or three stories in height. What we are proposing the change to be would be maximum building height to be determined upon site plan review. So unlimited, it's whatever's approved in the site plan.

Yes. So So we're [clears throat] saying case byase basis. That's correct. Yes.

Um Scott and I have been talking about this for I don't know, probably a year. Um just so happens that that it literally just so happens that it came on the heels of some argument against it today. That's pure coincidence. But yeah, so some places, you know, 40 feet just in general is that's that's pretty short. That's pretty low. I mean, you got some, you know, twotory houses that are 35 ft tall. But yes on a case by case site plan analysis you know some places what's reasonable 50 ft probably 550 ft probably not you know um so we've been talking about that for quite some time to just make that um adjustable I guess and based on the site plan for the specific site where it's specifically going and leave that up to you guys discretion looking at the bigger picture as opposed to just

could that create a little more chaos or stronger argument when we're dealing with those situations if there wasn't some sort of limit like could we like would there be a min max that we could review in every case like would it be min max where we know what we're looking at I mean I guess it could create some and I mean look you guys can do what you want to I'm just I'm just th it out. No, [snorts] I definitely agree with you that 40's short, right? And that it should be on a case by case, but I could just see in another situation like this them saying I mean they'll build something to your point 550 ft and it just cause more chaos [snorts] up front if we could put a like change the amend it but just still have some kind of limitation.

Yeah, you could do a I mean you could do a not to exceed. Yeah, I like that. 140 ft or you know as opposed to 40t. thrown out and then it would require variance. It would still require variance if it exceeds a certain height. Correct. So, what what we're really trying to do, I guess, is eliminate that.

Eliminate the the variance because it is so low uh at 40T. Now, if you want one that's 42 or 45, you got to come get a variance. Well, that's just seems like an extra step. It's not really that logical. So why not put it subject [snorts] to the site plan? If something comes in here and it's absolutely ridiculous, like you said, it's just some monstrosity that's probably not going to fit anywhere. Well, that's site plan review. So you say, "All right, your building looks great, but instead of being 300 ft tall, you need to cut that in half." Well, I agree with that except for that's what a lot of times when they're bringing this to us like for a change,

we don't know yet what that looks like. And that always seems to be the argument is we don't know what we're getting into and we say I guess kick the can [snorts] down the road and say that's a site plan. Correct. But that's that's the exact point. You don't ever know what you're looking at until you get a site plan. Yeah. I still kind of like the not to exceed even if that's 80 feet or 100 feet. Just something to say. What we know is it can't be this. I do too. Up to y'all. That's that's y'all's determination. Y'all decision. Dean, what do you think? How big is just just for information? How big is how tall is the Amazon? What did we go to? One I'm not I think we made that uh based on site plan, did we not?

No, we did an initial we did an initial variance. I think maybe it was 150 or 140 150 I think is what it was but it was sort of this kind of same discussion is uh and I think this was maybe at the board of supervisor level I don't remember they were like well let's just put it you know almost kind of like put it where it's not a problem where you don't have to deal with the varian right so let's just say if it's 140 or 150 if it's 80 or or even 100 or anything less. No problem.

Anyway, that's that's pretty y'all's determination. So, I'm kind of with Gina in the fact that I'm I guess ignorant to how tall a building might be on average. So, would staying 100 ft be reasonable in I guess kind of eliminating that constant need for a variance? I'm probably the wrong guy to ask because I'm challenged on that too when I look like I don't have any idea this business. My depth perception is not the greatest. But let's say if 40t could be a twostory then

40t I think could be three according to 86 maybe. So 100 would be an eight story building. I mean, I think that if we said 100 ft, it seems like that might take care of most. That's up to y'all. I don't I don't I really don't have any idea. Scott, you may have a better I mean, if we have where you don't have a minimum a maximum, excuse me. Do we have any zone where you don't have a maximum height?

Okay. Now you think of trees uh you know probably some of the tallest trees you'll see are like 60 80 feet that's probably it. Oh wow. Then maybe say 80 note the height of the tall and that's a tall tree pretty much. I'm just thinking about future arguments. You know if you could say hey there's going to have to be a variance if it exceeds your treetops. You're not going to this place, you know, over a tall tree. I'm just thinking about what's coming, what we'll hear down the road. So, can we say 80?

It's entirely in your hand. Again, that's 100% y'all's y'all's business, y'all's decision, whatever. I say 82 motion 80 who second that move that properly second that C 80 let's clarify this that the the language is going to say maximum building height 80 ft Yeah. Not to exceed 80. Whatever. We need to put a number of stories on there because

all in favor building eyes have it. Motion to close public hearing. So motion move properly second. Uh motion to accept uh seconds uh Thursday in February 12th. Probably motion and second. All in favor? Motion to adjurnn.