Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

control 147 lots, 65 of them to be cottages, 82 to be estate lots. Estate lots are an acre plus. So, it all abides by what we originally came in with the zoning on. So, I won't take up any more of your time and be available for questions. Matt, can I ask you one question?

Yes, sir. Um, and I heard a question about this. Um, I don't know if you have the preliminary plat that you can put up there. But on the on the norththeast end of the Madison Fields area, there's sort of a partially drawn road. Yeah. Uh that crosses the creek there. I I assume that Are you talking about this one? Yes, sir. That one. Okay. Would that one go on out and connect to Sanford on the right and then provide connectivity up to the golf course? It's a little confusing and I actually am meeting with the engine engineer again tomorrow morning. He's already drawn it in to show the connection that it does connect to Sanford. Okay. So, we have two in part of our zoning. We needed two gated entrances,

right? And so, that provides a Sanford entrance and a Helen Springs entrance. Okay. And will it continue on the I guess the southwest end. Will that continue on up into the golf course side? Yes, sir. We just didn't show any of the golf course, but that road continues down to the clubhouse. That's what I thought. Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. Just one quick thing. The uh the cottages um have to be 1500 square ft. The lot size for the cottages is I I was looking it's 16.17 or is any less than 16 or 17? Uh I don't think there are but uh we have looked at the minimum square footage and we are going to meet or exceed the minimum square footage in many cases exceed that. Okay. But each one's still detached. Yes, sir. Stand alone. Yes. All standalone detached. Great. Thank you. Is it twotory?

Some of them will be two store. We do have a height um maximum but you know we have the ability to go with a ranch or we can go two story. What would be the maximum on uh per the zoning? I think it was 35 ft. Um but it is written into our zoning. It was item number whatever the height requirement I guess. Yeah, we we maxed it out and it was item number 15 of the original zoning uh specifications and so it has a 35 ft mandate is outlined in the Madison County zoning ordinance. So of the 65, how many would be ranch?

You know, I'm not certain because depends on demand for the ranch product. Um most people will do a custom home and decide if they want a ranch or if they want a twotory. Right. Actually, I see on the first page of the preliminary plan, it says maximum building height 32 site information.

Okay. If you flip over um let's see, it talks about the fire and then the next page, sorry, it's on two pages. 32 feet from ground to eaves, right? This doesn't have anything to do with it. You said the name change was due to more to separate the two.

Yes, sir. It's two. It's, you know, the private golf club and then the community are essentially two separate. They're within the same property, but almost like two separate projects. And so, we wanted to have a distinct name for the community and a distinct name for the golf course. Matt, can you comment on the question that I posed to you earlier about um Commissioner Dosters's question to me about how originally the original reszone plan had all the houses clustered in one area and the inner and now you've got them intermingled? Absolutely.

That probably the the easiest way to answer that is I'm not smart enough to come up with a site plan we have before us. It took a lot of dollars and a lot of research and a lot of discussions and this came from feedback from uh real estate brokers, feedback from land planners, um feedback from the engineer and our ultimate goal was creating a community that was walkable and also we wanted the social aspect of the community. We wanted it to be like historic town where everybody knows your name. You're walking around, you're talking to people. Um, and we felt that if we were to put just the cottages in one section and the estate lots in another section that there probably would be more activity in one versus the other. And we thought that if we intermingled the two that we would get activity throughout the community and that's probably the simplest way to explain it. Um, but once we saw the site plan laid out, it we just didn't wrap our mind around that idea until we saw it and you know talked about historic towns and uh some new projects that people are probably familiar with or 3A in Florida. You've got Rosemary Beach and Seaside and Alice Beach and they do the same thing where they have smaller homes and larger homes and larger lots intermingled together and it just creates a vibrant community where there's people walking around and activity going on throughout instead of just a certain section. So there was nothing in the conditions that that you broke any kind of no sir or

the way the conditions were written were we would have 60 no more than 65 cottages. They could be up to uh six per acre and then we had to have 82 no more than 82 estate lots or we could have more than 82 estate lots but those had to be an acre plus. And so the the preliminary plan before you uh meets those standards. Okay. Can I ask you something? I'm reading this and I didn't know. Okay. About the rentals. Are these rentals the person's going to own their home and be able to rent? What is this rental? How is it going to be controlled?

So, there were some concerns about uh rentals in the zoning. And so the way we wrote it in there is that we would have no short-term rentals outside of anything that was going through the club or member-to-member short-term rentals, but no uh like BRBO, you know, we wouldn't just have the ability for anybody to come rent a place. they'd have to rent it through the club so that there's somebody facilitating the rental and somebody managing it and there's a proper process and it wasn't just a you know like a random VBO is what the intent was there in the zoning. Oh, so the actually the club house is going to be um have a rental management there.

Not guaranteed, but that's the way it would have to work to meet the zoning. If they had, you know, people came in and say a for some is golfing and somebody said, "Hey, we're fine with them renting it for a week." Then they could go through the clubhouse and potentially do that. But you couldn't just go online and like do a VRBO like you can throughout Athens, right? And just randomly ran a place. Yeah, I understand that. But what I'm trying to understand is the club is going to own these cottages. No, ma'am. So they're individually owned. Okay. So a person will own this cottage and be able to have it rented through the club. Is that what you're saying?

If they decided to. Um, that is an option we have uh under the zoning, but it's going to be individually owned. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Will you have a cap on rentals? Uh, no ma'am, but I don't see them really. I mean, most people are not willing to rent their house out. So, and a difference possibly in this development as well because it is private. Yeah.

This is not going to be open to the general public. So therefore, that would be a little different than like the way we would think of I think coming alongside with what he's talking about if it was in a traditional development. A lot of HOAs are capping the number of properties that can be subject to a rental in it because this is I mean the whole development's private. I mean it's going to be gated there as well. So I think what I'm not adding to it, but I hope that what I understand it is that was just an extra control that was put there. to make sure that everybody's underneath the same umbrella.

That's right. We wanted to make sure that we could police and control and make sure that people are following the rules and it's not a situation that, you know, the sheriff has to get involved because the neighbor's aggravated because some somebody from outside the community's rented a unit and is making a lot of noise and they can't get them to be quiet and they're not they know nothing about the HOA standards or or laws in the community and so we just wanted an extra element of control. Well, I know I and you I've known a lot of subdivisions that have fallen short because they have did not put a cap on rent and it sort of

it puts the burdens back onto the local to to be able to enforce something that was what could possibly be there, but that's not what's going to happen. Any other questions for Matt? All right. Thanks, sir. All right. We need to make a decision here tonight as to whether we want to go to this tonight for approval or to uh wait until our public hearing. But you won't have a public hearing on this. No, no, we won't have public hearing. It's

a matter of We can either hold on tonight or just wait until that meeting to vote on. Yes, sir. What's your pleasure? Ready to vote. I know you all just got your packets. Oh, I'm I'm fine tonight. I don't have like

Okay, sounds like a consensus to me. All right. Well, I will entertain a motion to uh approve the preliminary plat that will be presented to commissioners or to a motion. I'd like a motion to approve. Have a motion by to approve second. Second by me. Any questions or comments? I did want to ask Mike there were and there are a couple areas where uh the comment section do we need to address that in our approval or let's see

can you steer me to the page of the packet you're looking

uh this is page 15 I believe and there are three comments uh and there read the subdivision regulations require that a sewage approval must be submitted with preliminary plaque it kind of has some notes there to go along with that should We include that in our Right. So, yeah. Um, sorry, I didn't read that before. So, I think that's right. and it would be approved uh subject to uh compliance with items two and three which are the community sewer system approval from the health department and a traffic impact study. Okay,

that part of the motion yes that will be part of the motion that that be added. Can I ask something before? Because I did not read this and now you're bringing up stuff that I'm saying. That's the reason I get emailed to me and I don't wait on it to uh I try to get jump on it and look at it before I show up. Yeah. So, is this something we really need to vote on right now? Yes. The recommendation was actually to approve to do exactly that to approve it with those two conditions. Any further comments or questions?

We do have a motion on the floor to approve. A motion and a second to approve with uh the added text. Right. Are we ready to start with Cynthia? You're starting with me. We'll come through this. Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Uh it has been approved that from this board. So, we'll go to the board of commissioners on January 6.

I think it was uh December 29th. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to correct you. I just December 29th. Right. Yes, sir. Last meeting of the night. Thank you. And just in case it comes up at that meeting, do you know what the I think on this says that you actually needed you need that approval on the 29th before you can get the sewer system approved. Is that right? So, the sewer system? Yes. I need approval on the 29th. I need to approve on the 29th to finalize everything that goes to the EPD. We've already met with the EPD on site. They said this is a good candidate, which is about as far as you can get with them, right? But we need to know that the board of commissioners is on board with the plat,

right? Then the final design is linked to the plat that they approve and then the state approves the u the community sewer. Okay, that makes sense. And on the traffic impact study, uh what's the timeline for that? So, I know it's underway and um I know that we're committed to, you know, based off of what the traffic impact study says is it's making the modifications as necessary and I think the zoning said that we'd have to be willing to do that. So, we got Okay. All right.

All right. Well, thank you all so much for tonight. U one other thing I guess I think several of us have went out there to see it. the rest of us would like same opportunity. Perfect. Perfect. We'll schedule time. Absolutely. Um I know we're the intent was that it was tucked away. That's why we love the property and uh I think there were some complaints in the zoning that people didn't want to see a golf course. And I said, "Well, that's why we chose this property." And so I'll be glad to take whoever needs to go out there and show them around. It's really looking good. It's a lot of progress. You can't see the You can't see the clubhouse from our road.

Oh, I'm sorry. I I remembered one other question. So, your actual footprint for the residential development ended up taking less area than the concept plan. So, that'll be less than the area reszone to R3. Uh yes, sir. I mean, we were just intending on uh still having that as common space. Okay. So, that'll still remain in the R3. Yes, sir. Okay. That's that's fine. Just curious. All right. Thank you. We'll get in touch with you. Sounds good. Talk soon. Yes, please. These things cost $30 now. So, do you is it already is it gated? Locked up that you can't go.

Well, we do have gates with locks on it, but they're temporary and we've already positioned where the future gates are going to be and we're waiting on this hearing in the 29th and then the contractor's ready to start installing the permanent gates. Don't we have to contact you just to go? Well, I would prefer that. Yes, I'm sure I'm sure you have authority to get out there, but give me a call. Yeah, you don't want to walk. You much rather ride in the side by side with the windows up. Thank y'all. All right. See you soon. Thank you much. Who's is this?

I love it. I b him to death. He's sound asleep. He's in good He's in good shape. All right. Uh item two, discussion of zoning applications for the December 16th, 2025 public area.

All right. Brooke and Samuel Francis are requesting to reszone a 4acre portion of the 27.33 acres from A1 to AR to allow it to be split for mortgage purposes and to reszone the remaining 23.33 acres from A1 to A2 to bring the property into compliance with zoning regulations. The property is located at 1653 Vineyards Creek Church Road in Culmer on map 95 parcel 42 in district 4. Anything special that we need to know? It is in the rural conservation area, so it is consistent. All right, any questions.

All right, let's move on to number two. Uh Darlene Plebkin and Nolan Boyskin are requesting a variance on their 32.19 acre property to allow a split to be made that will not have the required 150 ft of road frontage. It will have 128.52 ft leaving a 21.48 ft deficit. The property is located at zero jot down road in Danielville on map 10 parcel 61D in district 1. So I do know this one got brought in as to have the plat recorded and then it was caught that this track down here wouldn't have enough road frontage and it would require the variance.

Thank you for sharing that. Okay. So the no that that that excites me. I do business in six counties around and I'm amazed at how much never gets caught and that that does my heart good. Thank you for sharing that. What is the reason for the mention? She if I'm not mistaken they are splitting them to sell them. I think there might be one track they keep but the rest they're selling. The other two meet the 150 ft. Yes. So all the other tracks meet the 150. I will say track two down here will be accessed through an eastment

because it's going to be landlocked. This one didn't have enough road frontage. So the eastment's going to come through one. Yes sir. So actually I think if I read it correctly um so it's one lot one track going into three and they all meet the minimums for the A2. They're already zoned. Yes.

So, the only thing they need is the variance for the road frontage for the the top lot. Then I think the one on the bottom left is going to be served by easement through that top lot. And the one on the bottom right is going to be combined with other property they own next to it, I believe, is what he said. On the bottom, right,

uh, it's the 12acre track that's going to be combined. I'm sorry, I may be saying it wrong. This says track one is 10 acres. It will have the road frontage. Track two will be accessed by 30 foot easement through track one. Track three will be combined with a portion of their adjoining A2 property that is shown as track four and that will give them 150 ft of frontage on Black Creek Church Road. Yeah. So track three by itself didn't have enough road furnishes. But here's what he's talking about. Okay. I could Okay. So that that one doesn't matter cuz they're going to combine it and make the other 50 ft. Yeah.

The other one down there is coming off of what road? Uh jot them down. Jot them down. And it's only got 128 instead of 150. So that's that as Yes, sir. And then track two back here will have an access ement. And is that uh 30 foot easement it coming off the 128. So that means you cut down to what 90 90 something big road 98.52 roadage would include the easement right you're not you still have 128 road

cut down just using both of At what point does something become a minor subdivision? Uh creating more than five lots within a rolling three-year period. So would the one that they're giving the road frontage to to make that would that not be a fifth lot off of that parent parcel? Well, they're actually but they're so you're not you're actually combining I mean it's a new lot of record but the total number of lots isn't changing right

because it's being combined into a total of three splits for a total of four parcels without it going into subdivision three for a total of four they own track four Six and seven. Five, six, and seven. That is that be Well, but they're saying it's two part two adjoining parcels. Two parent parcels. One's being divided into three. One's being divided into four. But they're both Oh, I didn't realize there were two parent parcels involved. I'm just focusing on one. So, yeah, that would be a subdivision.

Well, but it's out of the same part parental. So there are more than there still are more than five lots being created out of any given parcel. So two different parts. Oh yeah. But then I mean just looking at what they own it can be a little sub that's what they're creating. Well that's that's just call it man but technically I know but the road furniture that is being given from track

4 to track three is coming out of a different it's coming out of let's say parcel A and giving to parcel B. So parcel A is one two three four five. I'm sorry I haven't focused on it yet. I can tell you from past experience when when you have two or more parent parcels

and um and you're redrawing lines so that you can't match all the resulting lots to just one of those parent parcels. I've talked to planning directors in other counties that have similar regulations and they tell me you just they just add the two and make sure so in this case make sure you don't come out with more than 10 and I think that's probably the only practical way to do it. Okay. I think our three split for 124 parcels as long as they don't like

but they are coming to us asking for a variance. It's not as if it can stand on its own with the two parcels. They're coming to us in order to get those extra splits passing for us to allow a variance on those.

Yeah. But so variance is part of the zoning which is separate from the issue of whether it goes through the major subdivid subdividing process which requires both preliminary and a final flat and all the things that have to be on both versus the minor subdividing process. Um I mean you can you can have all sorts of variances and reszones and whatnot. It still be a minor subdivision. Correct. The way I way I see it right now, if they did split that, it's still nonconforming because you don't have the 150 ft.

Well, that's why they as I know if it did split it, that's what I'm saying is if one complete track one, two, and three was one complete track. They still wouldn't have had the 150 split foot, would it? Well, they have it off. Yeah, the other one. No, they took track four and and uh added that into it right now. But if they hadn't done that, added track four part of track four to it, it still wouldn't have been still been non-conforming because it would still wouldn't have 150 ft. No, track three would still have 150 ft. So track three would be part of one, two, and three, right? So it still have

I think you just making the point that no nonconformity is being created or increased here. Nothing's being made worse. Is that right? It's nothing nothing worse. It just if anything number three on Black Creek Church Road where it says 150 where they're getting it from track are actually making the deficit better. Yeah. But then on Jot them down you still have a deficit.

Yeah. Exactly. more questions. Three weeks to think about it or two weeks whatever before trying to me not to show up. So that's to sell all these tracks. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. No, that's different. That's we ain't got nothing to worry about. I know because they already split. They can split that without they have enough.

Yeah. The definition of major subdivision section B is subdivision of a parent parcel where five or more lots initial lot plus four new ones are created within a three-year period. So seems like we're well under the limit here. All right. Anything else? All right, let's move on to number three.

Marcus and Deborah Hail are requesting to resone their 16.08 acres from A1 to AR to allow the property to be split into two tracks consisting of approximately 8.79 and 7.30 acres each to give their daughters. The property is located at zero Cartville Road in Calbert on map 58 parcel 88-2 in district 5. pretty cut and dry. Anybody have a question? I have a question on this one.

This is a 60 foot easement from Copper Danielsville Road into the affected parcel that we're talking about. 60 ft in. And when it gets to the end, it bumps down to 30 feet to to each of those pie pieces at the end.

Um, so you've got you'll have two parcels being served at the end once this is split. And then the 610.8 acres is a third, the 11.08 08 acres is a fourth. And then the 5 acre one that actually has some frontage on Cover Daniels also uses the easement to serve their home. I was out there today and I went I went and looked at the I think we had one of these not long ago on Fred Goss or Gosseline or something

um that we had to deal with. It says it says serve a maximum of four lots and serve is defined at the bottom that traffic uses any portion of the private access drive. They're using the private access drive even though they have road for each. So is that counted as five lots or four lots using the east? Does that make sense? It does. There is a hole in that five acres, but it it ties into the

Can you tell me on the section you're looking at? Um 8.2.1.

Okay. 8212 says survey maximum of four lots for private drives and easements. And then down at the bottom it gives a definition for serage where it touches the road there 113 ft. So I'm not sure how that interpreted. So all those are going to be served off of

So where is the fifth lot that's using it even though it doesn't need it? That five acres that's actually the first lot you come to as you go down the east. Gotcha. Oh, okay. Okay. You said that five acres has 150 ft. It's 113 ft counting the easement. Oh, on on call Daniel the easement is 60, but the total frontage is 113.

So that's interesting. So they don't have enough. I was thinking when it said, and I can see how you can read it both ways, but I I was thinking that when it says using a portion of it to travel between a public road and the lot, that wouldn't include the lot that's on the public road because it's not it's not it was only talking about if you're going through a different lot to get between the public road and the lot. other than the one that we dealt with not long ago on crossing or something. I can't remember him.

Yeah, I think so. In that case, they had frontage on 172. Remember how around there? So, it was a new point. So, anyway, I just bring it up. I just not sure how we've done it in the past or the interpretation of it. This is just me talking. I don't know how Tracy interpreted this one, but I look at it the way Mike does. Like the first lot may have already had the driveway established and then the rest have to use it to get to the lot.

That's that to me is that's the between part. It's not just using it as your driveway. is using it as an easement between the road and your lot, but they don't have any road. So, they have to use it.

Yeah, they they they do have that that's what that's what we're talking about. If you count the lot that has the frontage as one of the ones that's used using it to serve as access between the road and the lot. You know where the easement and the existing road fun is put together. They're using part of for that five acres for the rest of it to access the rest of Well, I mean, so

the basic thing is for the for the servant lot, which is the one they're using over, they're not using it as an easement. It's just the driveway. They're the servant lot. The others are the dominant lot. They're using real estate law terms. So you're saying we shouldn't even count that one in because it's it's the main block, right? Okay. So actually you have four four lots that will be served by appointment. All right. Any further questions on this one?

All right. Number four, Kyle Wood, applicant for Beverly Fleman, is requesting a Sorry, before we leave, number three. Um, so the application says they're only going to have two resulting lots, but of course, 16 acres at A4 could have as many as four resulting lots. So, if you want to limit it to the two they're representing, that would have to be a condition in your motion. Sorry about that. Okay. All right. Where was that? When it comes down to where you said two lots. Yeah. Weren't they only proposing two lots? Correct. Yeah. But they could if you just reszone AR with no conditions, they could do up to four. I'm with you.

Yeah. Our condition if we condition it should only be two, right? That cannot be spread again. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Now number four,

uh Kyle Wood, applicant for Beverly Fleman, is requesting to resone her 36.81 acres from A1 to 8 R/ A2 to allow the property to be split into four tracks consisting of 5.419 5 acres 9.90 and 16.491 acre lots to sell. The property is located at Zero Harry Paul's Road in Danielville on map 48 parcel 26 district 4 questions comments. So the smallest AR will have been five.

Correct. Three ARs and one A2. And this is another one that 9.9 AR could be further subdivided. It's just a straight AR. So if you want to prevent that, you'll need a condition on this one that um the plat substantially comply with the site plan and that track three on the site plan can't be further subdivided.

That make sense? Mhm.

So a future person that buys that lot a 9 acres they don't have the option then to split it in the future that if yeah now on both of those you don't have to make those conditions I mean you may not care that it be further subdivided as long as it's you know within the AR rules in which case ignore everything I But a lot of times I know especially at the board of commissioners level um I still struggle to get through that as presented is not a shorthand way of imposing conditions. You can't. So if you want if you want to make the representations behind you have to do it as a condition.

So you're only looking at the third acre I mean number three. Exactly. one minute because it's it's now 49. Yeah. Now, what if they come back and do the A2 and that would have to be res. Yeah, I know that has to come back.

Yeah. So, um Yeah. Again, I mean both number three and this number four are uh in the in the rural residential or ARS. We generally think ARs are fine. So, you may not meet those conditions. I just pointed out because it is in the application. Okay. Any further comments or questions? Not move on to discussion the appointment of positions of chairperson and vice chair for plans to be voted on at the upcoming December 16th meeting. Open for discussion

hearing none. We'll I do have something on that. I was going to since we have changed the configuration of the board as it's man. Do we need to define what it is that the I mean because as it currently states I mean the chairman's not fulfilling the same role that it was before because it was a voting member right I mean now that we've changed the configuration of the board itself. Well, you went from seven members to five or I guess to six, I'm sorry, to six. Five voting members and the chair.

Five voting members and the chairperson. But the provision in the bylaws about how you elect the chairperson is still the same. You do it yourselves for the new year beginning January chair. But what I'm glad you brought that up. What as a what if? What if Konova says I don't want to chair any longer? Would would he would we choose a new chairperson among these five and then Canobas would take that spot or and then that person moves into the chair.

As I understand it interpret the way you get here is separate from the way you govern yourselves. So, um, canas isn't chair just because the board commissioner's chair. It happens to be who appointed him. His chair because y'all elected it. So, um, you know, and I guess that goes to the are you representing your district, you know. Um, another one I've struggled to explain for 25 years. Uh uh, of course you're appointed the recommending body. At the elected level, no commissioner has any power except his vote as one member of the board of commissioners. So you don't represent a district. You represent the county.

You mean you mean every So why are we divided into simply how you get that's how you get appointed. And and so the reason that The board of commissioners is divided into districts. Uh it goes back to 1965 and the voting rights act because at large representation in a majority white county will result in all likely result in all the commissioners being white. Whereas if you divide into districts, minority representation has a better chance of getting on the board.

Correct. But that doesn't go for us. Well, but once you're on the board, you still represent the whole county. Well, the the difference between this board and the county commissioners is that the chair is elected separately by the citizens. this board, your chair is elected by the members of this board. Exactly.

Exactly. So I I think where you're and I'm making some assumptions. I think where you're going with question Lee was if Cynthia becomes the new chair, which district does Canas represent? And what I'm saying is nobody represents a district. That's just how you got here. And we have a situation right now where we have a person out of their district representing well then I don't really represent the district. Nobody represent everybody. That's what that's his point. That's his point that nobody really represents the district.

But that's the way you get here. Well, the way we get here also is we're appointed by county commissioner who supposedly represent the district. He's elected by districts in the interest. He's charged with making decisions for the whole county

and that's why it probably should be different for us to be because that's why we can never get people. It is well we have a fail safe in that and it's been there for quite a while I think going back to 2007 um if uh just well leaving so uh the commission the district 5 commissioner Derek Dster has 60 days to nominate someone from this district to fill this seat. uh if he can't find anybody within 60 days, then any member of the board of commissioners can nominate any citizen of the county. So that goes back to me cuz I'm just filling in until whatever. I don't know. He find does he have to still find somebody cuz his 60 days is over.

I know his 60 days hasn't started yet. Bruce is still here. No, no. When I took I filled the position. I think you were appointed though to complete. You were appointed by him. That's what I think. Yeah. Thank you. I was getting lost there. So, he you're not filling in. He can't appoint anybody else at this point until your term is up until the term that you were appointed to is complete. at that point is when a 60-day process would would be initiated, I believe.

Yeah. Assuming you don't want to serve or your district your district your four, I guess, right? Doesn't want to three. Okay. Doesn't want to appoint you. So, what happens to my term? Cuz I was still fulfilling my own terms. No, that that feed went away. Okay. So, that went away. All right. Any other discussion on this? Thank you. I just want to entertain that because I I still didn't understand everything and how that went down as far as the board and what we did and how we did it and stuff. So,

your law say that you elect the chairman effective every January one. Uh, and you can elect, you know, I don't know. Do y'all do the black chair? I think you do. Yeah. So, you do a chair and vice chair. So, we will do that uh next week. Yes, sir. All right. U number four. And I'm sure you have a I see it there. Yes, sir.

Does anybody have any problem with those dates? Are these all the usual first and fourth? I mean first and third none of them had to be there's one or two weeks that had to be adjusted the the days but okay that will also be voted on on the 16th um I haven't to take a vote tonight on it oh dramatic

I'm only as so that I'll notice actually look at the date first and third recurring. I make a motion we accept a second. Okay, it's been moved and proper second that we uh approve the proposed meeting dates for 2026. Any questions or comments? If not, yes. Yes. Yes. This Yes.

All right. Those things have been approved. Old business discuss recommendate recommending to board commissioners proposed tax amendment to the zoning orders requiring setback for auction bonds and livestock sales provisions. Uh first of all let me thank Lee for his hard work and trying to put this together. I understand there's still some uh questions as to the text and where CPR comes into 40 and swift there at CPL.

I mean CPL maybe I've heard that too. And I'm not I'm not sure as I said before that we need to wait on them. Uh although I was tonight that that there's a meeting tomorrow.

I did the best I could with the draft, but as luck would have it, we received emails today and I on the the committee uh that there will be a meeting with CPL tomorrow to talk about final pushing this over the the goal line. Okay. at 10:00. You aware of that?

With that being with that being said, this is just from my standpoint. I've been we've been waiting over a year for them folks to come through and I'm not sure that that's going to happen tomorrow, next month, or next six months. my standpoint, I think we should follow through. We try to get this text amendment to the board of commissioners and then they if they want to can say enough, we're not touching it. We're going to let CPL get involved in this. But from a planning and zoning standpoint, Mr. Chair, I'm asking that this move forward to get presented to the board of commissioners and then they can take it from there as to whether they want to approve it or delay it or give it to the uh company that's been hired to.

And you all have not seen the the final draft. You probably saw one along the way, but I was working on this as as far back as the Friday before Thanksgiving week and then Mike had to go out of town and so you haven't actually seen the final draft. So if you want to send that out for comment or knowledge or whatever is is there. So we get the final draft. We can vote on it. What? 16th 16th. Miss Tracy's got it to be voted on tonight, but we we're not ready to vote on tonight. That's perfect.

So, I'm looking at the EDC graph. Uh, and it simply says no livestock sale should be allowed within 100 ft of a residential district. That would have been pretty darn easy, but it wouldn't have gotten to the desired result for the unique situation. Correct. I thought that I did the same thing. I looked it up and there it is.

And every time that every time that we come up with a recommendation that we have to present to them, it's like they start all over again. you know, and I don't want to I don't want to go through all that again because I mean, you know, because I stood before the board of commissioners and said when this came up that we're going to address this as a recommending board cuz I want this want to see this change because that changing the livestock or what was that from camels to whatever they kept talking about,

but uh I didn't want to see that ever happen again. And I think in order to do this or in order to get this through that we need to go ahead and do our job and then put it on them as to whether they want us to change the recommendation to the other group. So, I would like to I would from my standpoint, and I'm not a voting member, but I'd like to move forward with our text to give to the board of commissioners. So, will you for their approval or disapproval? Will you send out the final? I'll send it to

since Miss Tracy has it as a vote. Can we make a motion to postpone it until 12:16? I will entertain that motion. I'll make changes. Okay, we got a motion in a second. All right. Uh, any comments? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. that will be voted on on 1216 and the final le's final draft will be sent out tomorrow. Okay.

Okay. Uh anything else? Not have a motion to adjurnn. Mr. Chairman, I move to this meeting. Uh second move proper second that we're all in favor. We are what? Yeah. I'm glad I got every six months. Okay.