Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

So, your husband, whenever he came to you, he said, hey, we need your email address. He said, I have one email. He said, I got two. He said, I got mine. Are we on? He said, which one do you use? Mine. And he's like, we're not. Okay.

All righty, we're about to go ahead and start. Good evening and welcome to the Bay St. Louis Planning and Zoning Meeting. everybody if they could silence their cell phones and pagers before we begin I'm also going to ask if you plan on speaking that you go ahead and sign up for us it helps with our bookkeeping and also keeps me on track to during this meeting let's see we're going to first move into a prayer and then we're going to move into the pledge allegiance so if you can bow your heads for me um dear god thank you for having us here today um at this planning and zoning meeting for the city of basing lewis we ask that you just allow us to make the best decisions and respect one another as we hear each case amen So I want to go ahead and approve the minutes for July 15th, 2026. Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Motion by Mr. Breland. Second by Mr. Agee. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Motion carries.

And then, all right, action items. I just got a phone call from the first applicant. She's on her way. So we're going to do Johnson first and not Mellon. All right, hold on.

All right, also want to make a quick announcement. Kenan is taking off the... Docket, Docket, and just like Jeremy said, Mellon is not here, so we're gonna move to Johnson. If Mellon comes back after Johnson, I will come back to Mellon. All right, so go ahead and share with us this information about Johnson, please.

Johnson, application for variance submitted by Mark and April Johnson. The applicant is requesting a variance of 12 feet 10 inches to the required 20-foot rear yard setback to result in a setback that's going to be 7 feet 2 inches from the rear yard. The property is at 7-0. one citizen street the corner which is the corner of citizen and old spanish trail the property is zoned r1 single family district so um if you go to it's it's a house on the corner um they have a site plan there but the front of the house is citizen street The Old Spanish Trail would be a side yard setback. In the rear of the house would be the one that abuts the house on Old Spanish Trail. They submitted complete plans for construction documents, but they want to add on to the house. They need to be 20 foot from the rear yard. They're only gonna be seven feet two inches from the rear yard. administrative uh recommends denying the variance and then just some of the facts about it's a corner lot but um and it's they're going to be just adding on to the dwelling uh in april of 2026 the applicants were here asking for an 18-foot variance larger one which was denied so they came back in a minute their plans so they will go and ask for a 12 foot 10 inch one and we do have in your packet a we should have in packet a letter of opposition from the neighbor or it's not your packet I will go read it and who is this person Oh

That is opposing?

It'd be the neighbor across the street on Citizen. So they're one corner, the opposite corner.

Okay.

But the applicant and applicant representative's here.

Okay. Well, let's hear the opposing right quick first.

All right, let me go and get it. Alright. This is Patricia and Chris Cheek. It was an email we got seven days ago. We're writing to express our opposition to the request for variance at 601 Citizen Street. The lot in question was created in a recent subdivision of property to the north, which divided into three lots. The house in question was built on this smaller lot. The code clearly states the rear yard needs to be 20 foot. For the city to reduce it to seven feet, two inches is not in the best interest of our neighborhood and devalues the existing houses. Older homes behind are non-conforming with little setback. At best, this creates an awkward situation where houses are occupied where should be setbacks, further crowding our property and neighborhood. Furthermore, we do not enjoy this situation same fire protection created by proper setbacks if any houses behind us catch fire then the property is certainly burned in addition the city should enforce the zoning code on the books when we buy property within city we agreed to buy by the prevailing codes why I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concern it's awkward to speak at a neighbor or to judge to judge the zoning request or other neighbors. Please enforce the code and stop printing variants. Thank you for the consideration. Thank you for our concern about the variance request. Sincerely, Chris and Patricia Cheek. And they are the neighbor across the street.

Thank you. Are you speaking on behalf of this case? Okay, come up and state your name to us.

Freddie Fountain with Fountain & Associates, 2318 Pass Road, Unit 3, Biloxi. I'm here representing.

Okay.

He's an applicant.

Yes. Okay. You had stuff that you also wanted to share with us too? Okay, all right. Go ahead and tell us about your side of the case.

Okay, so as Jeremy said, we are here requesting a variance to get to a seven foot two inch setback. So the way the property's oriented, as Jeremy stated, it's on a corner lot, which it's addressed on Citizen Street. If it was addressed on Old Spanish Trail, it would technically be a side yard setback and we'd be requesting less than a one foot variance. With that being said, Mr. Johnson is a retired veteran from the military. He bought this house with his wife to move down here and enjoy his retirement in the Bay St. Louis community. Golf cart to downtown, have the social life that everybody wants in downtown Bay St. Louis. So, in purchasing this home, what he wanted was some outdoor living space. So, we worked with him to design an exterior porch and an office where he still works for the military from home a few days a week, and his wife wanted a craft room. So that's what we designed, and as far as the opposing party stating that there was fire protection issues, the International Residential Building Code states that anything five feet or more away from a property line does not require any additional fire protection above normal construction standards. while I understand there's not as much room to fight a fire, it still meets all the international accepted requirements for building construction as just a typical construction type. And the hardship for this variance is we could have located it in a different portion of the property, but on the north side of the property, there's actually utility easement that serves the adjacent property. that would not allow construction of this structure on that portion of the property. So it's an irregularity that was not caused by the current property owner. It's not self-inflicted. It's an existing condition that hinders the construction of this on that portion of the property. and the construction plans meet all of the city's adopted code meets the current international residential building code plumbing mechanical electrical codes all that has been met doesn't encroach on any other city ordinances or anything like that we're just asking for a setback okay

before because I do want you to say any other comments you might have before your name is Freddie okay before I let mr. Freddie sit down did anybody from the Commission want to ask any questions or anything okay all right you can have a seat mr. Johnson did you want to say anything

No ma'am, R Johnson 601 Citizen Street. Mr. Fountain has covered all the bases that need to be covered.

Okay, thank you. Is this condition space or it's outdoor kitchen? Combination, sir. Your office would be condition space?

Yeah, my office would be condition space and the rest of it's just going to be outdoor kitchen area. That's it.

Any other comments? Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All righty. I only had two people sign up to speak on this matter. Was anybody else in the audience wanted to say anything? Okay. All righty. I will entertain a motion.

All right.

I got a motion from Mr. Agee. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by... All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion carries.

And then the City Council meeting is...

It is August 18th at 5.30. So you still need to come to meet with us. And that is, what? Okay, you're good. August 18th at 5.30 in this building. But going forward, anybody else, if we hear your case, you still have a council meeting August 18th at 5.30. Sometimes I get carried away and forget to let you guys know. I'm so sorry. Yes.

All right. yes all right so we'll go back up to action on to melon application for variance to judging or instrument by mark and Nancy melon the request variance is for four foot from the is a four foot of variance to the maximum height of fences 10 Carroll Avenue it's zoned our to two-family residential district um so I mean this is a kind of a straightforward thing it's they have a house on the foreigner block Main Street have a six-foot fence now that probably needs to be replaced but they're trying to go up they would like to replace the fourth the six-foot fence where it's allowed and allowed to have a ten-foot fence I think they started working on so there's probably stop or coordinate right it now so there's no permit if y'all saw any part of it but administrations recommend denying the variance the request basically zoning limits um then other knows the construction the fence already begun so the city of Bay St. Louis issued a stop worker at the site So that's about it, but the recommendation was to deny, just because we typically don't support them.

A little bit skewed information. Okay, well, first tell us your name. Nancy Kimball Mellon. My husband Mark is in Denver at a 14, so he could not be here today. Okay, that's fine. So tell us a little bit, or do you know? Sure, absolutely.

We moved into our house over four years ago. The fence is hodgepodge at best. It is under six feet. on one side on the 412 property. It is eight feet in the back and eight to nine feet on the bay facing side of the lot. We want to stop it from looking like the Jeffersons. We need to repair the fence. We had an issue with liquid being thrown over the fence and hitting a 12-year Labrador, burning his skin. My two younger Labradors got out of the way. We have a fence contractor, not a regular contractor, who band-aided it. He put up three panels on the property facing 412. The height of those panels is 7.9 feet, as it stands right now. At that point, with that band-aid, we got the stop work order. entered the variance application, and we waited for our contractor to get back. He has been working in Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. He is back now. He is now fixing a window. So when I talked to him this morning, the fence height per code from the front-facing portion of a home is eight feet. And my fence that I put up, my Band-Aid fence, is under eight feet. We would like 10 feet to provide our neighbors, whose home is three feet from our home, their air conditioning unit and some kind of wooden affixation is within a foot to a foot and a half of our property line, to provide us with that same fire and privacy protection, we would like a 10 foot fence. We also have a generator, and I think they would appreciate the insulation. We have a pool. Privacy is a major consideration for us. We have a 20-something daughter who comes over most weekends. She lives in New Orleans with all her little college friends, and we would like to provide them with privacy, as I would. I'm kind of protective of her. So we put up a Band-Aid fence that was within the height So requirements, it would actually be a two-foot variance from the front-facing.

So your Band-Aid fence is six foot?

It's 7.9. 7.9, okay. Okay. What can I say?

All righty. Thank you. Thank you. All righty. Did anybody from the commission have any questions? Isn't it Ms. Nancy? Yes. Did anybody have any questions for Ms. Nancy? So, Ms. Nancy, do you mind coming up? Because our commission didn't have any questions.

I'm kind of a new kid on the block, so you all are going to have to bump along with me. No, you're fine. Once I figure out how all this works.

i drove by and looked at it okay and and i think i looked down the side and i saw some new wood material maybe is that the fence that this no sir that's not what you saw is on the driveway is facing the plushie's home we repaired a fence we are good neighbors we share in the cost maintaining our fences between ourselves we i removed physically with a chainsaw a dead stump and then had our fence contractor continue the iron fence and then he popped in one of those panels. He's also the guy that popped in the band aid if you would on the side of 412.

So this 10 foot fence that you wanna put, is this gonna be like pressure treated or cedar boards 10 feet long?

Yes sir, it's gonna be pressure treated. It's gonna be installed by our contractor who does all the work on our home which is 140 years old which I keep it all tight ship.

And I had a very similar situation in a home that I used to live in So but I had a six-foot fence and Because of what the view was from my dining room over that fence We put lattice up and grew an IV trellis on it and it gave us real good privacy and did that without Deviating from that now. That being said, the person who bought the house after the old man that I built the fence for, she bought the house and she thought that there was an invasion. So she came and talked to the city some kind of way and wanted me to tear my fence down and all that kind of stuff. but it was approved that it was vegetation, it was that. So now, I'm not trying to circumvent the rules here, but there's so much vegetation, I mean, it's hard to see your house in some spots. So, I mean, and I know bamboo is evasive, and once you got it, you got it. But, I mean, that grows tall, or ivy or something on a trellis. That wouldn't do your job?

No, I've actually tried it. I've planted... jasmine twice two summers ago on the fence and it was cut down and it was poisoned so it won't grow very well so now i need a higher fence exactly so now i need a higher fence so my jasmine can climb the fence because i would much prefer to look at jasmine and i i absolutely aesthetically agree with with your prescription. That would be beautiful. But if I have the higher fence, my plants will be protected. We have an existing fence, and my guys, Lopez and Garcia, that do all my work for me, they're just gonna pop the new fence in front of the old fence. And since it's all going to our expense, you know. All right, give me one. Oh, yes, ma'am.

So did anybody else from the commission have questions? No. Ms. Nancy, hold on. The commission has open forums, so they're gonna keep on asking you questions. So Mr. Agee has a question for you. Yes, sir.

So I'm confused, Jeremy, maybe you can clarify this, but we're looking for a two-foot variation because we have an eight-foot allowance already?

That's what I understand, from the front of the house, the front door of the house.

So, Jeremy,

No, I guess this is, generally speaking, I wouldn't say for the building department stuff,

Was this a pre-existing fence? Yes, ma'am.

So if somebody has a fence that started, you know, you have to go pop off a few boards to go replace the boards or whatever else. That's one thing. Once you start to have to go put a fence in it, you're going to go put... Put a new one, you have to abide. Right. Like, once you go start putting posts in the ground and stuff like that, that's a new fence.

It changes the, yeah.

So let me just ask my question very quickly.

So it would be six-foot fence, yes.

Okay. The rule is a six foot fence. We are only asking for a four foot variance We're not asking for a two-foot variance because it doesn't exist. The rule is six foot, right?

Yeah, so to get 10 foot, you'd need a four-foot variance.

And we are not putting in new codes. We are affixing it to the existing structure. It's the boards themselves that are failing.

So you have a non-conforming fence today?

No, we have a fence. We have a fence. Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, the rule is six foot. You have an eight foot fence. It's nonconforming. Is that right, Jeremy?

Yeah, it would be pre existing. But if you would add, if you would add two foot to a fence, regardless of even if it was a four foot fence, and you add a two foot to a four foot fence, the post in the ground would have to go in deeper by code. order to support it so support foot fence would only have to have posts in the ground that are probably 20 inches if you have a six foot fence the post would probably that'd be 24 to 30 inches yeah so irrespective what she has now is not conforming yeah right to be conforming she needs to be at six foot yeah

if it was repairing kind of just change out boards that's one thing but if you're gonna do the whole thing all right well I'm closing open forum for right now mr. miss Nancy you can have a seat I have a kind people who are signed up thank you all right so I have miss Susan is signed up to speak would you would you like to come up

from the beginning since last October. Tilt your mic a little bit. Tilt the mic a little bit so I can hear you. Since last October, she had two very big dogs. We cannot go in the backyard. without them barking. And they're so big that you see from their shoulders up over the six foot fence. No matter what we go out in the yard to do, in the front or the back. So now, off of the subject of the dog, well, to add on, she got a third dog. and he dug seven holes under the fence.

Ma'am, not to cut you off, but this is a public hearing to discuss the variance that's at hand. So unless the dogs have anything to do with supporting or not supporting the variance request, That's just what we need to stay on. We're really here only for the fence. No dogs, no kids.

Hold on. Well, and I felt like you were getting there, so I understand, but let's get to...

Okay, I understand. Well, she went and bought... some length of fence, whatever length they come, full length, this way and that way. And the fence, original fence is six feet, very rotten, wobbly, and they added it halfway up the six-foot fence. They made a 10-foot fence. Are you saying there's already a 10-foot fence there? That's what you're saying? The six-foot fence, they added new sections halfway up the old fence. Okay, okay. and the guys that were working out there, I said, do you have a permit for that? No, ma'am, you don't need a permit. We're not taking it down, we're just adding two. Well, they're not even meeting the sections. Not supported. One is covering my big windows in my sunroom that is blocking the total sunlight. One's blocking my sunroom blocking the total light. So we've talked to Ricky Ladin and Vince and back to the barn she brought up. There was no poison in the vans. Hold on. Wait. Okay, we're going to get there. All right, she claimed that I poisoned the vans.

Okay, so let's pause. So we can't accuse anybody of anything. If you're up here, we're not doing the accusing. We're just saying, hey, the fence... is doing this, so if it's blocking your son, and it is out of what our natural ordinance is, that's something we need to know. We are not into civil matters, so we don't know, we don't care who poisoned who, that is Bay PD, we're here for this. So what else took place when it has to do with the fits? Don't tell me about the vibes. Okay.

I've been told that you can't go over six feet. Okay. And we got that. She added the new section. Right. Halfway up the old one. Okay. The first wind and rain came, they were wobbling back and forth. Okay. There's no real support. Okay. Outside of that, what else happened? That's it?

Well, blocking the sunlight on half of my house. Okay. Well, I'm just making sure I got all the points. So, okay. All right. Is that it?

Well, in one of her texts, she claims that once this ordinance is not when it's final, she's gonna continue putting them up.

Okay, well, and that is also, the text messages has nothing to do with us, because we can't dispute all that. But we get the basis of what's going on and whatnot. Is there anything else you would like to share with us? Okay. All righty, thank you so much, Ms. Susan. All right, I have Mary Poles Piles. State your name for us.

My name is Mary Piles. I live at 403 Carroll Avenue, and I've lived there since 1993. I just came to mention that the whatever the condition of that wooden fence separating the two properties it is it's irregular and it is well over six feet it's closer to nine or ten feet where this has been parts have been attached and the proximity to the house of Ms. Schwenkert Susan is is within five feet but that could be I don't know anything about that In light of the fact that any fence over six feet is illegal, the fence should not be there at all. And if the neighbors wish to establish a higher fence, they should put in a request for a variance. But as it is, the fence is illegal. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. All righty. I just had those two people sign up. Was there anybody else from the audience that wants to say any final things before we move forward? All righty. Did our commission have any other questions? All righty. Miss Nancy, do you want to come on up? All right, did you have any final things you wanna say before we move to a motion?

No, the Band-Aid that my metal fence, my iron guy put up is only 7.9. The two panels that I got from that, that they secured up there, they're still there. They don't . And the fences, the other neighbors are all in accord. We have another piece of property on the back of our property that's 110 feet wide, 10 feet deep, that no one has ever incorporated into our yard. And we're going to take out the chain link fences that are probably a century old and continue the fence back there. the neighbors on the other side, the Ploshades, and Janice McArdle, who owns the rental behind us, are both in accord.

Do you have anything from them?

No, they're all just like thumbs up. Like Hank, I can send you a text where he said, thanks for taking out the trunk, what do I owe you? And I said, no, it's just me and my chainsaw. And when I put the new fence back in, replaced the panel, he was like, all good.

Okay, all righty, thank you. Thank you. So we are gonna move to a motion. Do I have... Do I have a motion to deny or approve?

Motion to deny.

OK, I got it. OK, I have a motion to deny by Mr. Osborne. All those in favor?

I have a motion by Mr. Osborne, a second by Mr. Agee.

All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes.

All right, so we do have a council meeting. It's gonna be August the 18th at 5.30, and they'll have the final approval or denial. All righty.

All right. So our next one is Fee Insider Investments LLC, applicant for a special use district. The applicant is requesting approval for a special use district to allow a private seven cottage residential development on the property to likely be recorded on a condominium plat. The property is located on the 600 block of Third Street. The property is owned are one in our two it So this property came before y'all Think in May or June this

I think it was June. Well, no. It had to be May because we didn't have a meeting in June.

Yeah. So this property came before y'all in May to get subdivided. The applicants, they have over five-acre pieces of property off of 3rd Street, all continuous. What they were going to go do was use our subdivision regulations and make seven home sites, legal-sized lots, with a road that was going to be up the city, using our city infrastructure standards of sewer, water, gas, but, you know, main lines, and then build a road to city specifications, which would be 20-foot wide, you know, 6-foot asphalt or concrete roads. um and that was approved to allow seven home sites on this piece of property well um july they came and um the family that owns this um wants to try to do a different plan to get the seven homes and instead of creating making seven individual lots on the cut the property into seven individual lots they would like to keep the property together and just put the seven homes on one lot and if you put it on a condo plot basically you own sheet rock to sheet rock um so the special use district is to allow seven homes to be developed on this site um they have do you have the big plans with y'all did she has the I guess it did not get uploaded in here. Oh, because it would have been hard. But I'm going to let him show you all that. But basically, instead of having a public road, instead of having a road that's built to city specification, they're proposing the road that was going to be there basically be a private drive. So it wouldn't have to meet our city standards unless you all go do it. And instead of having the... two inch water lines and the sewers sewer pumps and the gas lines in there they would be able to use service lines from third street instead of putting in complete infrastructure now the deal is it's not going to be seven individual lots it's going to be one large lot which at maximum seven home sites on there okay um come on up and state your name oh and then just for one thing the special use district what it does is basically y'all will be granting this individual piece of property to have the rights to have seven homes on it probably on a condo plaque and that's more of just a form of ownership but the only the maximum amount of houses that would ever be allowed on there is seven they would never be allowed to have eight perpetually like it's only going to be seven

Can you state your name for us?

Yes. My name is Sean Burks. I'm with J.B. Burks & Associates. We're the engineer .

Is that something we can look at that you have?

Yes.

Can you tell me what am I looking at?

It's basically the same layout that we had instead of having individual lots. We just have like a pad for a house, pad for a house. The exact house hasn't been determined yet what's going to be there. This is the gathering house that they plan on building right now. Then a house, house, house. So we kind of have it roughly placed. is what it is and then the next step that we if we get approval then we would be turning a full set of plans for engineering and everything as we go forward but we would be building one house now and then each one of these is for a family member so where is r1 and where is r3 is that what this line is here no i'm sorry that's the flood zone is there a zoning split on this yeah it's

I thought it was down this way.

No, so is that the... That's probably where it splits on it. So this property over here is R2. This back here is R1.

So by right, what can they put there?

A duplex.

A single duplex.

Or, yeah.

I could go through the whole thing so everybody can hear, but the intent is just a family piece of property. Mr. Schmidt is 90-something years old, and he'd like to get the gathering house built. That's my understanding, but I don't know that for a fact. I don't want to lie to you. Well, isn't this the one that we approved? Yeah. So right now, they're not going to be using it.

Yeah, so right now they approved the road, but the road was going to be city standards. I think if you do it this way, it's they have other plans that are not these they were going to note it's going to be you know concrete going here but they were going to as long as the fire department allows it i guess you know use a hard gravel surface or something like that and instead of if you go do sewer lines you'd probably have to go do sewer lot you know 900 feet of like city sewer grade lines for here you basically have to you could get service lines down here No, so this is a special use district now. If this gets approved, they would still have to come back before y'all with the actual plat of what would go there.

Can special use allow VRBOs and things like that back there?

I mean, do whatever you want. You're asking for the seven houses on one lot. That's what you're asking for. That's the question.

All righty, thank you.

Can we leave this with you? My name is Sean Burks. The intent of this, the intent has not changed. We wanted to do seven houses before. We still want to do seven houses. The reason for the change is kind of trying to fit what the family wanted and what the Bay St. Louis ordinances are. Whenever we went through and it cost out what a 24 foot wide concrete road, and all of a sudden we're spending more money than we would on many houses, just put the infrastructure in place. So because we're not doing a full-blown subdivision with 50 lots or 60 lots, we can't spread the cost out over a lot of lots, so it just makes it very cost prohibitive. Also the benefit of doing this type of format, the intent we were looking for was more like a townhouse where people would own the entire structure itself, but all of the maintenance would all be done under like a shared ownership. So the maintenance would end up probably being taken care of a little bit better since it would all be family, but would all be part of the . The other thing is, we were proposing a crushed limestone road, but you can compact them down and make it a pretty good surface to ride on top of. That's kind of what the intent is. If y'all have any questions, I'm just here.

I mean, so necessarily, you don't have to know what the maintenance would be up until now, but to have a special use district, just considering, so are they aware of how Thank you.

Sure. It was, you know, whenever you go from concrete to limestone, you are going to have more.

Well, no. So just what, okay, like the common, so they're aware of what the maintenance cost would be for the common areas now.

Yes.

Yeah. I mean, that's, they were going to be maintaining it anyway, but instead of having seven different entities do it, it's going to be one entity doing it. So it'll just be easier.

Okay. Did anybody from our commission have any questions for Mr. Burks? No? Okay. I have somebody signed up, so I'm going to let them speak, and then I'm going to call you back up. All righty. Mr. Cliff, can you come up, please? Did anybody else want to see this map?

good evening cliff rabble a 702 3rd Street I think we just heard that's why we're changing I'm here this application is to rezone let's not mistake anything this is a request to rezone a residential area and into a special use district it's currently a residential use classification and it was recently approved to have a private subdivision not to be a special use but they're asking to rezone it to a special use district I'm opposed to it I've got a list of people who call me today that they're opposed to it I think some of y'all have gotten phone calls special use district cannot and should not be used to circumvent the existing zoning regulations which is because it costs too much we don't want to do it the way y'all city wants the regulations to do it that's what I just heard it being a special use district however does not remove the requirements for infrastructure so you still gonna spend that money infrastructure you still got to put in roads in the special use district you still got to put in water sewer electric power and possibly gas put in a limestone road just a small portion of the cost of road I understand that nobody said the money but I can tell you from having done such that road that they had originally proposed should have been 1.2 million dollars I don't know what the estimate came back at But if they came in under 1.2, they ought to be thrilled. The special use districts in this city have typically been used for dense housing developments such as Chapel Hill and certain areas of Shieldsboro. not where we're at on Third Street. This application is requesting the area be rezoned as a special use district and is not an appropriate use in that area for a special use district. This is not an area that we're gonna have dense housing development. The only thing we could see in the public was a request to allow a private seven cottage residential development on the property to be recorded on a condominium pallet. They already have an approved subdivision with seven parcels. It's already been approved. Being a special use district, again, does not remove the requirements for roads. Roads still have to meet the city standards, unless they just have them all right up there on Third Street, which if that's the case, they can put seven houses on Third Street. It's unsure if this request is made to make the road a private road, and is this gravel road gonna be a private road? So we're back to being a private subdivision. Thank you, sir. Utilities being a special use district is that houses or cottages to be built do not have to meet some of the zoning requirements. That's why you asked for it, so you can get around the zoning requirements. The minimum house size, minimum yard size, minimum road frontage setbacks other criteria now as a special use district this is that would be at the discretion of the developer as to what that criteria needs to be there's a concern about allowing a condominium plat in an existing predominantly r1 partially r2 area the future will bring more than seven cottages they have to do is subdivide that we got swk right next door trying to do that for last since 2017 but since it's a special use district it's got immunity from the planning and zoning regulations residents of this area have consistently been opposed to high density developments and allowing this area to be rezoned as a special use district would open the door to just that we're setting a precedent would be a high density development for no allow hiding for no good reason further noted from the public standpoint there's no proposed plat of what's actually being resisted has been provided I went online it's not on there y'all got to see it tonight I haven't seen it well it wasn't on there this morning Well, y'all must have access to something on the city website that's not on my computer.

All right.

Let me finish. I'm almost finished.

No side chatter.

Yes, ma'am. It's further noted, no broadcast. I already said that. The cost was what's driving it. If that road was less than $1.2 million, they ought to be tickled to death. In closing, I'm opposed to this request. It's an inappropriate use of a special use classification or rezoning. cannot be used, should not, cannot be used to circumvent P&Z regulations, infrastructure costs, the costs still exist, but the only savings, the only savings is by building smaller, cheaper, and closer together, which the special use division would allow. It's commonly referred to as dense housing development. Recording it as a condominium plat is opening the door for further high density development. We already talked about the documentation, which I'll say is there. I can tell you it was not there at noon today. The entity who is asking for this has already got an approved private subdivision. It's already been approved. It was recently approved by both this board and city council. And there's no reason why that approved subdivision needs to be revised to allow a special use district. I'm asking and recommending that this application be denied. Now, because I get phone calls and emails, I have a list of other residents along Romanita who can't be here tonight who have expressed opposition. Ms. Julie and Mr. Brian Clark, Ms. Marilyn Midier, Glenn Uretta, Brian and Sabine Savoy, Craig and Melanie Tetrick, all on Romanita Street. And John Malone, did you sign up, John? He's a resident on Romney Street. He is also opposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cliff. Would you like to speak, sir? No, wait. Can you state your name for us and your address?

John Mahoney, 209 Romanita Street, Bay St. Louis. That property butts right up against us. We think it's a good thing for development. We're opposed to this new wrinkle because they've already gotten approval and they should move forward with that. We've already got issues with sewer and drainage and stuff along Romanita. They're still working on that stuff, the lift pumps and stuff down at the end of the street. So there's a lot of that stuff that I believe in the future the city would end up picking up. I'm just opposed to that. I think if we're gonna develop property And they should follow the rules of print planning and zoning and the standards here. And because you just see it time after time where a developer walks in, they develop, and the next thing you know, the city's picking up pieces, making sure that connections and those kind of things. We had low gas pressure. In that area, every winter, there's low gas pressure, and like I said, sewer, and then drainage on that property. That's another problem that the city has continued to help us with, keep the drainage from running through Romanita Street and down the street. So I'm opposed to it.

Thank you. All right, Mr. Burks. Before you say anything, did our commission have any questions after the comments that they've heard or any questions that they might have for Mr. Burks right now? Okay.

I guess first of all, and I'm telling you the intent is for seven lots, and it sounds like from people in the audience that there's been a lot of distrust about what people say. So if you would like to put a restrictive covenant, if you would like to put something where you can't have any more than seven lots on it, we could tie it to a deed so that it's legal. But my understanding is, let me ask you this, if we have to go, Jeremy, to

if we wanted to say eight lots 10 years or eight houses what would be the process under this district for that to happen i'm assuming you would have to go apply for a special use district again to rewrite the rules for the district but the if a special use district is granted this parcel would only be allowed to this parcel would only be allowed to have seven homes like seven homes on it

So if we wanted to come back and let's say we have a different cast of characters. Everybody's died, we got brand new people living there. They want to come back and they want to add another block. They would have to come back before this board to ask for that.

If somebody wanted seven individual residents there and they just have one, they're like, you know what, we're going to build a little tiny mother-in-law-like cottage. That would be it. You don't even submit plans for it. It's just no. It's not allowed.

Okay. So by us saying seven houses, it's seven houses. It's not high density.

It's seven. And we just stapled to the wrong. Y'all have the stuff. It's page 23 is where, or I'm not, sorry. I stapled it to the package. 21 is where the letter is. It's 20 is where the... the exhibit that they did. It's not the site, it's just their exhibit they submitted with it. all right so um but this is for this special use district right y'all would all see the actual approved site because special use districts you have to have the site approved like this is what we're actually building there and I think y'all would probably have or anybody has something he says the your these are the rules we want to make up y'all approving you say you know what fire department says I need to have three three fire hydrants there like well by code if it's this close like well we say three you need three or you know what i know you want to have a gravel driveway but it's still going to have to be it's going to be the discretion of that sure

All righty. Did you have anything else that you wanted to share with us?

Yes, and one of the things that was brought up is that we're doing this because of cost, and that's true. I mean, the real issue that we have is we would like to have a crushed limestone road. That's the biggest expense is going from concrete to crushed limestone. So that's really the biggest cost expense. The other issue is that from a practical standpoint, and this might not be consideration of the Planning Commission, but to be, just to kind of throw all the cards out on the table, all of this cost is being borne by the first person going through this, even though this is all a family compound. This is not a developer, and this is not we're selling lots to all these people right now. This is one man who owns the piece of property who wants to build a little gathering house for his family. And then he wants to be able to have six additional pieces to be built on for his family. They might be building in a year. They might be building in three years. They might be building in 40 years. But that's kind of what the process is. So when we're trying to save on cost, we're trying to prevent the man who's trying to build a house, we would rather him put the money on the house as opposed to on the concrete road. I mean, that's really the problem. Okay. But as far as all the details, that would all be presented back to you, what you're talking about.

Yeah, it'd have to get approved.

all righty thank you thank you all right excuse me mr. AG has a question for you so with the driveway who's responsible for maintaining that driveway

What we were just discussing, if they record this plat, I'm assuming you were talking about doing it like a condominium plat?

Yeah, City of Bay St. Louis will not go maintain private property.

So what would happen is we would have each house would be under individual ownership, and then everything else would be common area ownership.

That would be the entire so by do by doing this you're not placing an infrastructure burden on the city of Bay St Louis because that would be borne by the owners of the houses correct how many houses are in Romita Street that a jet this parcel Roughly well 15 6 14 So there's 18 houses against this parcel, and you're requesting to build seven.

That's correct.

So far less density than what would be allowed, presumably, on the other street.

That's correct.

And a comment from my other board members, I built three houses, of which one I lived in for 15 years, in a condominium flat. our density was far less than what was allowed. And we, the owners, bore the expenses of maintaining the infrastructure, including the roads. So I don't know for sure that this is the right solution for this particular area of Bay St. Louis, but I've seen it done very successfully in other places.

Thank you. All righty. Anybody else had any other comments? I usually don't do this, but I'm gonna go ahead and let you say one thing.

Y'all understand that what he's talking about as far as a driveway, that driveway runs from 3rd Street almost to the beach. And so they're talking about putting something other than asphalt or concrete on the roadway and there's no street in that area that has done that. It doesn't make sense to me. The values of the homes there, I don't wanna gravel road off of Third Street, that just doesn't make any sense. So, thank you.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Did you have one thing to say, Jeremy?

And just to note, it's not a road, it would be a driveway. Okay, like it would be private, it's private property. We're not maintaining it.

All right, let's cut that. All right, so we're gonna move on. Okay, we're gonna move on to a motion. I'll entertain a motion to deny or approve.

I'll make a motion to deny.

I got a motion to deny by Mr. Osborne. Do I have a second?

I have a second by Mr. Breeland all those in favor I don't have enough history in this particular case because it's been here before so I'm gonna abstain all right motion carries three to five

It would actually be, it would be the extension goes with the majority, so it's gonna be a four to one vote.

Four to one, yeah, okay, four to one vote.

I'd like to think my vote was worth five. Yeah, not yet.

Alrighty, but we still will have a meeting, a council meeting August the 18th at 5.30 in here. All righty, we're gonna move on to Montjoy. Give us the rundown, Jeremy.

The easiest one's the last one, I'm sorry, guys. Don't even say that. They're just the last one in, I'm sorry. Montjoy. Application for variance zoning ordinance submitted by Ray and Betsy Monjoy. The applicants are requesting a variance of three foot, or I'm sorry, a variance of two foot resulting in a three foot side yard set pack to allow the construction of an accessory structure slash pavilion. The property is located at 355 Main Street. The property is zoned R2 single family. so this house exists as it is today it's on the corner knee case and uh main street um they are putting a pool in their backyard and an outdoor pavilion kitchen um they would like to and they have complete construction documents here they would like to have the