Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

[clears throat] That's all I say. Good evening to everyone. It's 6 o'clock. It's time for we'll call [clears throat] this meeting to order. It's our standard public hearing. And if you all will please stand with me for a word of prayer as we get started. Kenneth, will you please gracious father, thank you for all the blessings you have bestowed on us, oh Lord, just give us a comfort and peace and all tonight, oh Lord, we do your county business. Just keep us all safe on the way home. In your name we pray. Amen. Amen. First of all, my name is Canola Scott. I'm the chair of the planning and zoning commission. I'd like to welcome you tonight to uh our December public hearing. And I don't have any announcements, but I would like for the board to introduce themselves. Uh starting from my left. Good evening. Bruce Gandy, District 5, District 3.

Good evening. John Bradley, District 1, Vice Chair Lee Mitchell, District 2, and William Smith, District 4. Melissa P, zoning clerk. Tracy Patrick, zoning administrator. Mike Brewer, county attorney.

All right. Thank you so much. As we begin, I am required to read some uh public hearing statement. As a first order of business tonight, I'm required to read a few statements regarding the zoning process. If you have any questions, I will address them once I finish. Zoning directly affects private property rights which includes the right of the rights of property owner to enjoyment of the use of their property and the right of adjacent owners and the general public not to be unreasonably harmed by Pacific land use. Tonight is the first of two public hearings. A second public hearing will be held before the board of commissioners on, I believe, January the 5th at 6 PM at this location. Attendance is not required, but your attendance is recommended. Order of business. As to the order of business tonight, I will introduce the applicant and then the zoning administrator will give her comment. Then the applicant will come forward, state the name and address and state their reasons for their request. You may provide information on 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 the public hearing for public comment. Ample time will be given to those that may want to speak in opposition to the in favor of or in opposition of the resone 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 will be allowed time to rebut any concerns expressed by

other speakers. At this junction, no other comments will be allowed except by the board. 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 recommendations will be presented Monday night, January 5th, 2026 to the board of commissioners. Mr. Scott, I'm sorry. Um, it's actually the sixth. The sixth. Okay. I'm sorry.

I do apologize. January 6. Okay. Does any member of the planning and zoning need to recuse themselves from any of these requests tonight? Hearing none. We will now begin uh with our first order of business and that is to discuss consideration of the plant for Madison field subdivision. I'm sorry the wrong one. That's the wrong one. Miss Patrick, I'll turn it over to you.

Okay. First up, we have Brooke and Samuel Francis, and they are requesting to resone a 4 acre portion of their 27.33 acres from A1 to AR to allow it to be split for mortgage purchases and to reszone the remaining 23.33 acres from A1 to A2 to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. Property is located at 1653 Vineyards Creek Road in Commer 95, parcel 42 in district 4. Is Brooke or Samuel Francis present?

Please come forward and tell us what you'd like for us to know about this read request. Okay. I am Brooke and this is Sam Francis. Her address is 1653 Vineyards Creek Church Road in Comr. And like she said, we are just redoning for our mortgage purposes. We just built a house on that property. All right. Is there any questions from the board for these applicants? Not. Thank you much.

All right. We will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wants to speak in favor of this reason request? Hearing none. Is there anyone that wants to speak in opposition to this reason request? Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board and I will obtain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve as presented. Have a motion to approve. I'll second. We have a second. Any questions or comment? Hearing none, Mr. Gaddy? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. Uh we will recommend to the board of commissioners that this be approved on January the 6th. Again, there will be another public hearing and you're welcome to come, but you don't have to. Thank you.

All right, Patrick. The second application, Darlene Clavcan and Nolan Bulan are requesting a variance on their 32.19 acre property to allow to be made, excuse me, to allow a split to be made that will not have the required 150 ft of road fronting. Um, I do want to make an announcement that I did speak with Miss Clap Hounds yesterday and um, they are needing to withdraw the application due to personal reasons. All right, that being said, move on to number three.

Okay. Marcus and Deborah Hail are requesting to rezone their 16.08 08 acres from H1 to AR to allow the property to be split into two tracks consisting of approximately 8.79 and 730 acres each to give their daughters. Property is located at zero Cartisville Road in Calbertt about 58 parcel 88-02 in district 5. And I do want to make note that at the time of the application and when the packets had gone out, we were using a handdrawn site plan. Yes.

But since then, a surveyor had submitted, Mr. Paul uh submitted a new flat and um the acreages actually changed to 8.68 and 7.4. All right. 7.40. So just a little bit. All right. Marcus or H.

Yes. Mark H. U just want to split the property for my daughter. I live in Hull, but the property cost. Okay. Question. Um, I do have a question. I know. Was you the one I spoke to? No, it was whoever was on the property in the brick house. No, brick house. My sister.

Oh, okay. All right. Um, this is going off of Cra Daniels, right? Yeah. Okay. Well, whoever I spoke to this in the household, his his house. Yeah. And that's where the um easement is going to come off. Yes. Okay. And he kind of told me that nobody was going to build. They just wanted to put something on here. Well, no. Uh nobody's planning to build just yet. My I have a one daughter that her family lives in Charleston, right? She she was thinking of having something there uh a place to pull a camper. Yeah. When the hurricane came to Charleston,

right? And it they drove through the last one and it was like now I would rather be somewhere else. Yeah. So, but there's no plans to build anything at the present time. Okay. Well, my concern is on the other property that also comes off that easement will come off that easement. Um the 16.08. Now, if that should be split because I know you don't own that, right? Somebody your brother owns that. So that would make what five off of

if I may uh interject here. Um so the current easement that is accessing the properties um accesses two tracks and this will be two more tracks which that is fine because um you can only have up to four homes on an easement. Um, the easement will not be required to be paid as it was platted in the 20, excuse me, 2003 prior to the adoption of the driveway ordinance. So, it'll be four parcels being used by the city. Yeah. But if the brother decides if we should we pass it, then they can come back and split it without and put uh

No, they they they can't put the 16. No, they could split it and they would have to pay the driver. Yeah, it would have to be brought to him, right? Yeah, that's what I'm saying. They have to go. But would they have to come back [clears throat] to us to split that? No, it it's zoned A2 um or A1 like this one. So, they would have to go through a resone. And the only way if that is approved, then that easement that's grandfathered in right now would have to be paid and brought up to county standards for that time. I don't know if they cuz if we already have AR there can just put it AR and then they have to come back but you're saying they do okay that was not

all right any further questions from Mr. H. Thanks, sir. All right, we will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wants to speak in favor of this reason request? [clears throat] Hearing none. Is there anyone here who wants to speak in opposition to this reason request? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, we might move approve this as present. We have a motion to approve. Second.

We have a second. Any questions or comments from members of the board? If not, uh, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. [clears throat] This we will uh present to the board of commissioners and recommend approval on January 6th. And there will be a second hearing. You're welcome to come if you'd like. All right.

All right. Uh Kyle Wood, applicant for Beverly Fleman, is requesting to resone her 36.81 81 acres from A1 to AR/ A2 to allow the property to be split into four tracks consisting of a 5.419 acre track, a 5 acre track, a 9.90 acre track, and a 16.491 acre track for to sale. The property is located at zero Harry Falls Road in Danielville on map 48 parcel 26 in district 4.

All right here. Yes sir. Please come forward.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Kyle Wood. I'm the surveyor uh that did the survey work for Miss Flemouth. Um she is requesting to split the property so she can sell. She lives in North Carolina. She just turned 90 uh just about a week ago. Um her and her son live up there. Nobody's lived down here. A lot of the family probably 50 years or so. They just won't be able to sell the property and um keep it in the same like type as far as size of properties in the area in order to do that to to resone it to set up smaller tracks to maximize you know her sale and just to use that money I'm sure to look after her as she gets older.

All right, sir. Anyone have any questions? Mr. would like sir. Thank you. All right, we will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wants to speak in favor of this reason request? Hearing none. Is there anyone here wants to speak in opposition? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve as presented. Have a motion to approve. Second. Have a second. Any questions or comment?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. This has been approved by this board and I will recommend to the board of commissioners that it be approved and there will be a second public hearing on January 6 right here in this meeting. Thank you. [clears throat]

All right, this point we'll move into old business. Adam Swan, applicant for James Burke Doll. Uh want to make a comment here that the public hearing has already been held. Uh, we will not hold another hearing tonight, but I will allow if any of the board members have any questions for the two attorneys that they may answer those questions, but we will not have a public hearing. Uh, Franc, you want to go over this?

You want me to read the whole thing? Okay. Um, Adam Twine, applicant for James Bart, is requesting to refund a 4.4 4 acre portion of his 15.16 acres from A2 to R1 to sell and combine with the joining property 4038 for desired additional road signage. The remaining 10.72 acres will remain in the A2 zone. Property is located at 973 Floyd Road in Danielsville on Mount 40, partial 44 in district 2. All right, we postponed this uh until tonight to discuss because I think the attorneys had some questions that they wanted to talk about themselves and we had some uh issues that we wanted to have time to consider. So hopefully all that has uh gotten done. So I will hear from anyone that has any comments at this time before we take a motion on this technical application. I guess first of all I think you and the attorney heads had some uh that y'all wanted to talk about and

Sure. Uh, and I I'll start. I just had a couple of questions that that Mr. Gooff clarified for me. One was just what the intent was and and it is as as assumed was the case, but I just want to make sure that just to develop as an R1 one and a half acre lot minimums, not trying to go back to impose any conservation or uh requirements or benefits. Uh the other question was about uh that I had was about um the offered condition from the applicant to pave that portion that Eugene Hardman Road [clears throat] uh yeah up to the point uh of this parcel that would is up for reszone and would then be combined with the existing larger parcel that's already zoned R1. Um and so um Mr. Scott pointed out that uh the development impact fee law does say that it's it's not necessarily you know you cannot impose system improvements. You can only impose project improvements. Project improvements are things meant to benefit the the the property itself and the people who may use it. um the law says that if it benefits the general public beyond just that property uh more than incidentally whatever that means then it's a system improvement. Um so I I can see the argument both ways that that I can see the argument that that that Mr. Goff's offering for uh why that would be enforcable. Um it's untested. Of course, you could also argue, especially depending on how that I don't know how that portion of the road is used now, if it is used by the general public and continue to be used by the general public,

not just or not just primarily the residents of this new subdivision. That would be the counterargument that it is an uninforcable system improvement. But I mean, I think we fleshed that out between ourselves and I can see the argument both ways. question. You have any comments? [clears throat]

No, I would just u echo Mr. Puit. I I do agree with him that the law um at least as I [clears throat] understand it is not not clear on whether this would be a system improvement or a project improvement. Um, I I do think system improvements, at least the intent would be things like, you know, a county can't come in and say, "We're going to condition the resing for you to go pave like the entire road, you know, and so like I think system improvements are more like um designed for larger scale uh to benefit the whole community here. I would say I mean given just how small of an area Eugene Hardman Road we're looking to uh to improve as a result of this that and then the improve improvement here really is necessitated by what would be the development. I would say that that's um you know would put it more in line with the project improvement. Um, and that's just kind of that would just be my thought and that and uh and my client would be willing, you know, I'd say to do the uh to have the repavement and the improvements there on Eugene Harden Road done because recognizing that, you know, part of that would be an increase in access for for subdivision that would be needed. And so that's uh that's really the thought process there.

All right. Thank you, sir. I I do have a question that this resone is talking about Floyd Road, but it's also buts it als the road that actually you're talking about painted is part of Eugene Holland Road. Is that correct?

Well, the the area to be reszoned is not border Floyd Road. Um it's this track that you're seeing here is only um that's the whole 14 acres. only four acres of that is going to be uh reszoneed uh here and it's the I have um from the original application I can bring it up and show you the map of the site plan um here we can go to you might have you we don't have that

don't have Um, so the the parcel here is we can pass this around and I've got I think I've got some other copies I can bring everyone. Well, we have So, the the track um here

is the track um that they were showing. And to be reszone, if I'm going to mark it here is just this portion of the track essentially. Um, so like what they were showing the whole thing it it it'll be Eugene Hardman down to Floyd Road, but it's this little carve out here that's going to be reszoned along with the strip here that's needed to do the improvements. Um, let me see if I can bring I can bring other copies.

Okay. Does anybody understand Cynthia wants to see this? Okay. So they're on the last page. So you think you're just improving this section here for the entrance, right? That's correct. So the reason would be this?

Yeah, just this area. That's part of it. That would um would be part of the acquisition [clears throat] that my client is going to acquire from Mr. Ball if the reser goes through. And the reason why they're acquiring that strip is to um allow room for the improvements of using hardman to add a pull. Okay. Oh, so that will be okay.

Yeah. So the the reason is this area here will be R1. It doesn't come into here. This is this remains what it was A2. There will be this strip here that comes down along Eugene Hardman. It adds 20 ft to the rightway. And the purpose of that would be to do the improvements necessary to repave the apartment up to this point and then bring access in here. Okay.

All right. So, uh, actually county can't make him pay it, right, Mike? It's up to him to pay it if he wants to. Well, that that's that's the question. So, he's offering that that he would be amenable to a condition that he has to do it. Question is whether that's enforcable. Um, and I'm not questioning Mr. Swan's, you know, truthfulness on that, but often, you know, properties change hands and the ne before they get developed. So the question is would if Mr. Swan doesn't do it himself voluntarily. Could we force someone else to do it? Are you widening

there? The widening um would be an option. Uh that's part of this. So there there is some widening necessary. It's pretty small amount. Um, so it would be a repaving, a widening to handle the additional traffic that would be coming off of Floyd Road into the um into the into the project. And it's right, we're we're not talking about going Eugene Hardman, you know, up further here or or Floyd Road improvements because that would bring in the system improvement type analysis. Um I think really what we're limited what we're talking about is limiting the condition to if this gets developed out of the subdivision under R1 which can happen anyway,

right? Um what we're trying to do is just allow an access here and an improvements here to allow for um that that sort of improved access for second exit out. It would be two lane, right? Right. Yeah. did two lane but but more um like yeah like a more improved pave wider with with you know yeah the um the survey shows that it's only Eugene Hartman only had a 40 foot ride of play so um

the the strip yeah like to there's there's a 20 acre um uh oh 20 not 20 acre a 20 foot um strip that's going to come down here. Um it's hard to see in this one, but basically says that um Oh, I see. to be added. So, you have it's to be so as part of u like the property my client has under contract to buy for Mr. Ball includes that 20 acre strip which which strip. Yeah, sorry.

Gotcha. Um, and the only reason that that is included is to allow for an increase in the rideway from 40 foot to 60 foot to the because I mean regardless of whether or not the um paving is made as a condition to this reasoning, it is likely going to be needed anyway if this gets developed as a subdivision through planning and road department and other requirements. So that's already being contemplated that that an in improved access and improvements on this road from Floyd to the access here would be would be done. Gotcha.

I want I want to just make sure everybody understand that's just from Floyd to the access not to the entire road. The entire road is quite long. So there's there's other properties or other houses or things on that particular road. So uh make sure that uh how about any comments from members of the board? I know Lee I forwarded I forwarded some stuff that you had sent out and also discussing with some members of the board of commission.

I was I was waiting to see what was said before I started asking questions. Okay. Uh I guess the first question would be and this might be a legal question that had been looming maybe it's been answered the four can the 4.4 acres be legally combined with the already R1 and I don't know where the conservation subdivision issue comes in. Can it be joined with the 58?

I think so. I I think we agree that when the conservation subdivision for overlay was repealed from the zoning ordinance, this became just a straight R1. That that that 50 acre parcel became straight R1. And so if this one zoned R1, they match. They can be combined.

Uh with that said, um if the intent of the 4.4 4 acre reszone is to gain access to Eugene Hartman Road. There's a lot more. It looks to me like there's a lot more property to be reszoned than what it would take just to gain that access. What's the purpose for all the rest of the property down there when it's not really needed for roadway? it it's just to allow design and development flexibility. Um I don't have I mean there's we're talking about um the subdivision here which 54 acres under R1 is a 1.5 acre minimum lot anyway. So adding the 4.4 really once you account for the access and all it may add one or two lots. I don't think that's the driving factor. Um I think it's more to allow for a more uniform um unless you don't have the end. Right now if you don't have that coming up in a more straight line then you have like a lot of unused area here and you know so having it come up this way just gives you a little bit more uniform and more design flexibility and it you know it may result in the addition of one or two more blocks. So it is it is more property that would be developable.

It is more that could be used, right? Okay. The reason I ask that is I know back when this was reszoned to R1 20 years ago, the 50 acres u was under a totally different comp plan if there was any. Our comp plan today puts this in a rural conservation area. That's why I'm a little I can see that gaining the minimal amount of property to get some access to the road, but taking in more than that if we were reszoning a piece of property by itself

that's not associated with this, it wouldn't fit the character area. It wouldn't fit a rural conservation character area which this fits in. So, I'm just throwing that out. No, I understand. I I think there was it's I would say just a minimal um addition and again I don't that was a negotiated um line between Mr. It could have been driven by Mr. Ball who's selling this wanting to at least you know if he's going to sell that and give up certain access maybe he wants to sell it enough to make it worth his while. Um, I'm not sure how how that is done, but you're right. The the end result is that it may act it could result in the addition of one or two more houses, but

and the access point back there, the county has not been approached in any way. I'm trying not to put the cart before the horse. It seems to me like if we reszone 4.4 4 acres and without the county giving some reasonable assurance that that could be used for what you're purchasing the property for. [clears throat] Um we we don't know what the county would be willing to do to allow that to be allow the road to be you know paved and and all you know what your offer is. It looks to me like the county might need to be approached first to see if that's an option before we reszone a piece of property to give you access.

That's an excellent point. Uh and actually just something that's never been implemented [clears throat] in Madison County, but in in in larger counties, uh a reszone goes through all the departments, uh including the road department for comments like that before it comes to this point. Um, I guess we still have a couple of weeks minus Christmas before the board of commissioners takes us up that that could be explored. Okay.

I think I asked this question at at the other meeting 30 days ago. Um, this access back there is a desire. It's not a necessarily a necessity for this to be developed. I mean you do have not knowing how it would be set up but there is a point of access down here already. That is correct. Um rack there's Raken Hollow and Wood Becker Point. There is a subdivision that exists here.

There's one area of access uh into there. And so you're right. It's a it's there is a point of access to this property could could do that. um what ends up happening or I guess what one of the concerns we're trying to avoid is that um you know emergency stuff like what happens if there's some um issue with the road there some emergency um you have this which is a lot easier to have two two points and I know in preliminary discussions with uh that my clients had there the county does like to see two areas of access in development. And so that's one of the reasons why um he has gone towards um to this point to try to get the property under contract to allow an option for a second.

I guess my last point, my last question would be this. Have there been other access points through this existing subdivision that could be I know there was a lot of conservation some property that was conservation property conservation acreage in the existing subdivision down here. Is it is it even possible that another road could be routed through this end instead of that end?

I don't think that that has been um specifically evaluated given that this seems to be the most um ideal or and shortest access road. And I would also um I guess that would be something we would need to look at. But I I I am not certain that that conservation area that's the purpose of that is to designate area as green space and to be undeveloped. And I'm not sure that under the old conservation uh

easements that it would and I would probably not like the recorded declarations establishing those as conservation areas probably wouldn't allow roads or traffic through what's designated to be conservation areas. So I think it would go 10. I don't deny that having access out that other way would be a good thing to have. It just looks to me like we're putting the clock before the horse to reszone property not knowing whether the county would be willing to do that. Huh. Okay. Anyone else? Yes. Can I um because the back part is already residential? It's already going to be developed. It's residential since it's already residential. It already is developed. Okay. Yes. So what we're talking about and you want the extension for the road,

correct? Oh, not the top. Okay. Yeah, that's what I'm talking This is do y'all have this f this survey that this is final plat for the for the phase one. This would be helpful to you if you had it. Um so um so you see the develop part there and then you see the the diagonal line right so the 50 acres we're talking that yeah what what Tracy just highlighted that's the that's the phase two that this addition of four acres to the on the southwest side of it that part would enhance would would give that extra access right

the phase one is that part below it where Tracy's showing you and so that's so That road is Raccoon Hollow that comes down through there. It te it TE's right there and then it splits and there actually are two uh access points there out to Rogers Mill Road. That's what is showing. So that one is already going to be developed because it's R1. Yeah, phase one is already Yeah, I mean phase two. Phase two is going to be developed. Yeah, it's already definitely given. Okay. So what I'm showing I'm going I can understand why you need access because how many would go

uh roughly 30 30 so having 30 more added on to that. So the little section that is in front of what you want to reone um your your future is to purchase that right? No, this right here. There's no there's no um intent to purchase that. Oh, I thought you said you was attending I mean you wanted to purchase that too in order to No, only the um the area that Okay. Only this this area is is under contract to be purchased. So if it could be reszone, yeah, this would be bought

so that it could have a you know a straighter line and more access along with the strip to allow the improvements along the road. That's what's what's under uh contract. But you're saying that William I mean you're saying that the county has not approved the conservation of change resing. No road department has the road department has has okay have given permission to do something to the road to upgrade the road. Even if he is offering to fund the road, that doesn't necessarily mean the countyy's gonna accept.

Looks to me like that needs to be done first, then resone the property. Well, what's in our um building requirements? Isn't that is that required for you to do that? No. No, because this is already a public road. You see, this is all under the interior road that we usually deal with. No, you really didn't have to.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Okay. I I do want to remind you all even though we're not having a public hearing tonight to look back at the public hearing to remember what the uh people that live in that area or the opposition to this particular reason request. Uh before you decide as to what you want to what your vote will be tonight. So, [clears throat] Miss Patrick, do you have any any particular comments on this one? All right, that's the case. I think we have heard from both attorneys. We have gotten some of our questions answered. Uh I will say that I went and looked at the property. Uh I myself am concerned with the layout of the flooding possibilities of that area. Uh but I don't have a vote. So uh at this point I will entertain a motion uh so that we can present to the board of commissioners uh if we want to add conditions or approve it or disapprove it as presented. Not everybody want time. I move I move that we deny this request.

Have a motion uh from Lee to deny. I second.

Have a second to deny. Any questions or comments from the board? Just a quick question. this denial won't be revisited if the county grow department said something about this is that that line of endeavor no longer applicable I don't I don't know how to answer your question uh Mr. But I I I think the motion is saying that uh this is denied and if the board of commissioners want to take it further,

then they have the opportunity to do so. Understood. All right. Any further other comment? All right. Uh I believe is yes. Yes. Yes. Well, I'm saying no. Yes. All right, we have a 4 to one. Can I give four to one? We'll finish the motion. Then you can I'll allow you to talk about it later. We have a 4 to one [clears throat] recommendation to approve recommending to the board of commission denial.

Okay. and I will do so. And I will say to the applicant that there will be a second public hearing before the board of commissioners on January the 6th. And we are a recommended board only and uh we will recommend denial to them. All right, Cindy, you if you want to have your explanation, go ahead.

Well, I want the Monday. It's already going to be developed residential, but we already know 30 homes are going to go in there. I know the flooding was considered further down on that main road, the other road. That's where they were considering where the flooding might take place. And there I'm saying safety wise, as he said, have 30 in there, you need two access. and he and they're saying that he did not need the road to come in there or approval of the road for them to go in there and have access and approve. But I just don't see why they would not approve the road. But that's just my comment that that access was that access probably need to be going [clears throat] home. Okay. All right. Moving on to number two under old business.

Okay. To discuss recommend to the board of commissioners proposed text amendments to the zoning ordinance requiring setbacks for auction bars and livestock sales pavilion.

Okay. [clears throat] Uh this was brought up by me I guess to begin with. We had a lot of discussion on it. Uh we've gone back and forth. We've had different opinions and different things but uh from my point of view I'm ready to move on. Uh so at this point it's open for discussion. I want a question. I guess it goes to our attorney. Um I guess we were sent over are we voting on it the adding on or what are we supposed

right now? We're in discussion but we will we will at some point we will vote as to whether to take it to the board of commissioners or not with the add. Yes. Okay. Okay, I just have a question and um where they have agricultural uh prevailing is that um I just was wondering why this is something that can be open or closed. Well, and I sent comments and I see here I didn't send it to I guess I sent it to Mr. Scott and Mr. Mitchell. I didn't send it to everybody else. Uh I forwarded it to everybody else. Everybody, everybody got I forwarded that message.

Okay. He's talking about my comments. Those text that you're looking at there, right? I forwarded your comments to everybody. Oh, this is all I got. Was this the licensing from West Georgia and this proposed that's I I I don't know. I do know how far I get. I got it. I got it. Well, I just wanted to know um under that if we're going to add that on, does that not does that fall under the same as the livestock option market that it will be under the federal and state law?

So, yeah, it'd be hard to read the whole email here, but that's that's why I brought that up. That's a lot of what I was talking about in my my comments that um these two terms we're using here, livestock sales versus market versus liv or livestock auction market versus agricultural sales pavilion are not well defined terms and so um that's I guess my primary concern with it as it's presented now. Okay. So yeah, I was wondering why they don't fall under the same guideline. Right.

Anybody else?

I did. I did. I volunteered to author this. You your ownership. I volunteered to author this to put something together because I I knew what was trying to be accomplished here and and I had, you know, sent it out and got comments. got a lot back from Mike. Good comments. Um, and if I had honestly if I had known then what I found out later, I don't know that I would have put all the effort into it and meaning this that it's been really frustrating that our UBC has gone on this long and we still don't have it approved. But this very thing is already addressed in our UDC. Our livestock sales pavilions is set at 100 ft which could be adjusted and it's still not a done deal but it is addressed in there and you know had we moved and gotten UDC done this would be a midpoint it would already be done but it's not and if you want to push it on up to the point commissioners what has been drafted here fine but I just wish the UBC had been approved by that it's and and I don't honestly I don't know that it's going to be approved anytime soon. I know the desire is there, but I don't see that happening.

And let me say I don't mean to take shots in Lee because I sat on my hands when the question of who's going to take a shot at this came up because I guess I vaguely knew what Lee found out. It's impossible. Well, I guess from a chair standpoint is that I I've been part of the UGC discussions. Uh we met I guess last week and I am like Lee. I'm not jumping up and down that this is going to happen anytime soon. And I think that [clears throat] I am asking that this group push it forward to the commissioners. If they want to delay it and and and wait on the the plan that may be presented to them in the next year, uh that's fine. But I want to uh get it out of this committee's hands into their hands. You mean pushing this what written?

Yes.

Well, that's what I'm saying. Um, you have two different additics. One is livestock option market and one is the pavilion. Those are two different things, right? You got two different definition. So, I'm saying would the pavilion still would that fall up under the federal state requirements? it the problem you you've got the right problem but it goes so much deeper than that because so livestock first of all that with that reference to OCGA should be Georgia comp regulations that's a state reg statute and it actually doesn't really define what a livestock auction market is very well um second thing is there's nothing in any law anywhere or in our ordinance that defines what an agricultural sales provided is and how if at all it's different from the livestock option market.

The term livestock sales pavilion was only put in there and attempted to be dealt with because

the livestock the auction barn that was approved for commerce road that term was pulled out because it is a permitted use. It was pulled out of our ordinance and basically called a livestock sales pavilion um to give him an approval to operate. And so it's in our ordinance is listed as a permitted use on the chart. Uh it was used to give him permission to operate. So I felt like it needed to be defined somewhere. Now in the UDC it does it's not mentioned at all. They thought, you know, a pavilion would fall under a an agricultural structure.

Yeah. Because like a pole bar or whatever. But I mean, a pavilion when I look at it, it can be no walls or it can be walls with whatever circle inside. So that's why I'm saying it should fall under both. I don't know if it's regulated by federal and state. You could, you know, you could have you could have sales in a in a in a pavilion, but typically, at least to me, a pavilion on a farm could be used for um you know, educational events, shows, you got bleachers. I mean, you just But every now and then you have you have cattle sales as well.

So, it's only going to be in A1. That's only A1. That's correct. So, that's what I'm saying. And so why in our wording it's not fall under the same guidelines as the state and federal and also have the same um setback. So the Brazilian only had I think 50 something had only 50

because I guess to me it a pavilion is not used for a regular auction li livestock auction facility. It's it's only by, you know, it's on private property. It's on by invitation only. It's typically a rare event. Uh at least that's the pavilions that I' I've seen. Well, see, that's what I'm saying. But according to what I looked up, pavilion could be I think I think ideally it just needs to be eliminated. Okay. My opinion, the new UDC does that. It just doesn't even mention that. All right. That was my concern.

And it sets the setback for a livestock auction market or livestock auction barn at 100 ft and it's there. I mean it it's there and my but let me say this too. the time it's going to take. I don't know how long it take to get the UDC done, but the time it's going to take for this because this this would have to go to the commissioners and if they approve it, it's going to have to come back to us for a public hearing and then go through those motions. Then it'll have to go to the BOC for a public hearing, go through those motions. So, it's months down the road. Now, whether you see it, I don't know. Well, let me let me make this comment. I I personally want to see the UDC completely take it out of the conversation. Want to present it to the board of commissioners. You know, they want to wait on the UBC or to put it on the UBC or to adopt whatever they going to do. If they ever adopt it, then so be it. So, you know, I I either want to proceed with it or kill it and be done with it.

I was just trying to explain what I understand. I mean, I'm not I'm not where I was going with trying to create this thing. I wish I hadn't volunteered and I understand I understand this point, you know, but you guys can vote. Yeah, that

we could I mean Lee makes a good point here that I'm thinking about. Another option to amending your existing ordinance would simply be to lift what's in the UDC which basically says selling livestock is a conditional use in A1 and A2. And if you get the conditional use to do it, it can't be done within 100 ft of a residential zone. Period. more than 100. Is that what we Well, that's what was mentioned. Yeah. So, how come we can't do it with changing that 100 to 300? Is that Well, the the 100 has not been adopted.

No, that's what I'm saying. So, how you going to change it? You can't change. Well, I mean, going by what he said, we can just do the unique way to go. Yeah. We're going back down the same path that poorly was trying to make everybody happy. Bless his heart. I knew he was impossible, but I didn't try. [laughter] We really truly appreciate what I

Okay. [laughter] Discussion. Yeah. I'm going to open it up for a motion to proceed or to proceed from whatever your pleasure at this point. Everybody speak one. I don't want it delay. I'm gonna make a motion to deny this request. [snorts]

Okay. Okay. We have a motion and a second to I guess to not recommend this to the board.

To not recommend to not recommend this text amendment to the board of commission. And the reason for that is because if we do send it on board, it may take six months to get back through it would be a festive recommen. I I I guess well let me let me tear this off then I'll comment. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. It has been motioned second and approved that we uh not present this to the board commissioner uh as a text amendment. Uh I do believe that I'm committed to this and my next move will be once the UDC ever comes out to have public is to to to amend it to more setback. So moving on, uh number three,

we are to vote to appoint a chairperson and vice chair positions for the planning and zoning commission.

Okay. With that being said, I would as chair at this moment um ask Mr. if he would uh conduct appointing a chair any vice chair be glad to see if that's everybody's okay with that. So, uh, so the way this works under honorous rules, it's a little different than the normal motion. Second vote. Um, first we'll open the floor to nominations. Once n anybody who wants to nominate someone has has done so, we'll close nominations. Then we'll start voting on people and the order in which they were nominated. The first person who gets a majority vote, that's the chairman. Then we'll start January one and we'll repeat that process for vice chair. Does that make sense? Okay. All right. So the floor is open and by the way you can vote for yourself. So floor is open for nominations for chair of plan zoning commission for 2026.

Motion vote is chair. Okay. We have no a nomination for Scott. Any other nominations? Going once, going twice. Nominations are closed. All in favor of Canola Scott, raise your right hand. All right. Uh, all right. So, Mr. Scott will remain. I assume you're willing to do this. Yes. Thank you. Uh, all right. So, now we'll open the floor for nominations for vice chair for 2026. I think Mr. Bradley is your current vice chair, correct? Correct. Okay. So nominations Mr. Brad.

All right, Mr. Bradley first nomination. Any other nominations going once? Going twice. Nominations are closed. All in favor of Mr. Bradley. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh was there something about meeting we need to go to meeting dates? We do that. You may want to announce

I will I will okay the uh and I that was my next thing before we close is that I think tonight is Mr. had his last official meeting. Uh I personally want to thank him for his commitment uh to this board. Uh and you know I personally tried to talk him out but guys I wasn't successful. So, I'm sure he he has his his his reasoning, but uh u personally I want to say thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. We've done done a fantastic job and I you know say it's been an honor and a privilege to be associated with people being so conscientious. Once again, a tribute not only to members of the board which are essentially volunteers but also the staff that does an interacting with public. So, thank you. Thank you for your wisdom and Colonel and his family have done a lot for the county and continue to do so. [laughter] All right. Anything else? Uh

not u mot. Thank you.

That's why I got your email. I went back and pulled up the minutes from sir.

Yeah. Can always be done. But they got to go throughcess. [laughter] [laughter]

Thank you. Thank you. Whoever did this You're very welcome, sir.

Y'all have a good one. Merry Christmas. I told you. When do y'all close the 24th? Yes, ma'am. And then we had the option. Would you like another piece of paper? Yes, sir.

Okay. All right. I appreciate it. section that they will not add to this purchase.