Hendersonville Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh, thank you for coming. I'll give you folks just a little time to sit down. Thank you very much. All right. Tonight we're going to start with a prayer. Charles, do you mind saying the prayer for us?

Thank you very much. Let us pray. Our father, we thank you for this day and for the many blessings that you've given us for health, strength, and peace. We play a special blessing for our community, our city, our city staff, and all of the first responders that protect us. We pray that you will be with us tonight as planning commission members that we will make decisions that are correct for our community. These things we ask in thy name. Amen. Thank you very much. Roll call. Zack Aliser here. Evans here. Hardwick here. Hasty here. Kerr

here. Longm here. Silkwood. Slatterie here. Eight present, one absent.

Thank you very much. All right. Tonight we have a public hearing. continuation from our previous meeting and it's a request by real estate solutions group to amend the final development plan to remove the blanket rental restriction from the near water place final plan development. The property is located at 220 Nearwater Place to the west of Rockland Road and on the north side of West Main Street as it as identified by Sar County Tax Map 16050.01 01 and we have nobody signed up for that public hearing. I don't know if there was anybody here that mistakenly left off. Anybody here for that public hearing? All right. Thank you very much. We'll consider that one closed. Next thing on our agenda is public comments agenda items only. And for that we have several people signed up. Okay. and we'll go through these. All of those that are willing to speak are welcome to come up to the podium, say your name and your address, and then we will have a timer set for five minutes, and then we'll go from there, and we'll have we'll hear what you have to say. So, the first one to sign up was Donna Hagen. If you'll step to the mic.

Okay. Miss Hagen, will you tell us your address and your name just for the record? Donna Hagen, 180 Terara Lane, Goodletzville. Thank you very much.

Um, I was hoping that that you might update us on what's been done since the last time we had this kind of meeting about this property. Uh we talked about traffic being so terrible and there were some just some suggestions made about trying to get a stoplight or have something done to eliminate that and I haven't heard anything and haven't seen anything about that. So that's my major concern already. When you pull up, we live in the vineyards at 12 and when you pull out, you know, from the golf club and look to your right, if someone is turning right, they pull beside you if you're going left. So, you already can't see to the right. And then if there's a, you know, there's a road right across going to the property and then there's another road about to the wall that they're trying to get for this subdivision and or street. And um that's just a real problem with everybody running over that hill going to their soccer games and trying to leave the soccer field to go get some extra food between games and baseball games, etc. So traffic is our number one concern for that reason. Uh some people walk there, they're walking across to get to the park and it's just dangerous. The next thing is flooding because right after they started doing this, you know, they they started that road before we ever had the last meeting of carrying dirt in and carrying gravel in and carrying all this stuff in. There weren't any environmental impact studies done that we were made aware of. uh nothing about um anything for wildlife or any kind of uh FEMA issues. Uh we're concerned about flooding that that May after all this happened. We had major flooding that came up to our houses that had been more than had had happened since we had been there since 2010. And then we've had I think two or three other times since

then we've had to go out and find different parts of the drain tops that have been taken away where it's flooded over the road again. So it's just um it's an issue we're very concerned about. I know that people over in 12stones even have had to dig out and get special insurance. And I was told today that we might lose some FEMA um insurance if construction was done without proper documentation of how it would affect us. Um NFIB or something like that that they could suspend it or they could raise our insurance because we all have to get that flood insurance. Um that's our our second concern. The wildlife would be my third because I didn't see any studies done for that.

Thank you. Thank you. Next person I have on the list is Langden. I think your first name is Neil. Yes. All right. Mr. Langden, will you tell your address, too?

Yeah, this Neil Langden 1220 Stones crossing. Um, you know, we we've been we've lived there since 2005. Um, we see the water number one the the flood issues in the flood plane in the wetlands in the in the area in the horse pasture that they're talking about building the houses along Caldwell. You know, if if some of you weren't here then or forgotten the 2010 flood. The water was about 10 or 15 feet deep over Caldwell and there was motorboats running from the where the horse pastures are across Caldwell all the way through the golf course and so that water was really really high. We were landlocked for two days. Couldn't get out the front or the back entrance of 12 stones. So that and and the water comes up in in that field, you know, once or twice a year and two or three feet and several time, you know, every four or five years it gets up to eight or 10 feet deep where those horse pastures are now. And I've noticed that they've been trying to do dig ditches and creeks to to funnel water to try to keep that area dry. So if they build those houses, they're going to have to put fill to 10 or 15 feet higher than Caldwell. And that that'll look crazy bu building houses on a mountain along Caldwell and then it goes back down to the horse pasture. So it just doesn't make any sense that that could be a place to build houses. Uh property value is a concern. Uh we don't know what kind of houses they're talking about building. At least I've not seen anything about about that. our property values and I hope that that the people of Hendersonville are trying to do things to increase the property value and make this side of town more valuable. I did some re research today

kind of keep up with it, but our property value is half of what the same type of houses are in Brentwood. So that that concerns me plus the traffic and the you know the speed. Okay. Yeah,

you know, the traffic is, you know, coming down 12 stones, you know, 20 mph is not even a suggestion. You know, if it's 40, 50 m hour coming down the hill, coming down Caldwell is 40 or 50 miles, you know, traffic all the time. So, that's just going to create all kinds of havoc if you got another road coming across there. So that that's my main concerns is is the flooding and then the the ugly way you got to build houses, you know, especially along Caldwell to get them up out of the flood plane in the wetlands. And I would think it that they'd have to do something to replace the wetlands. I mean, you know, if if they do build there. So I just see that being a big big expense. And I and I hope you do keep doing things to improve our property values because it because that's a that's a big number when you look on the other side of town and and your house is a million dollars less than it would be in Brentwood. So keep keep trying to increase the property values up here. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The next person on the list is Susan Caldwell. I didn't sign up. Okay. didn't sign up to speak. All righty. Next would be Jade and Norma Bins. Did I get that right? Okay. Anybody are they going to speak? Ma'am, if you'll step up to the mic.

Say your name and your address, please. the Roma bands 1236 12 stones. And the only thing I have to say is there was a zoning sign in front of that driveway a while back and it gave a phone number and I called it. I don't remember who I spoke to. Uh they were very nice and interested with that, but they and they were Hendersonville, but they were concerned about pulling out of the the rock driveway. They were thinking they were u afraid about Rex because it doesn't come out evenly. So if somebody from zoning felt like that, I think we all need to be that considerate.

Thank you. I hope I'm reading this right, but it looks like it's John Hagen. Okay, no problem. And then the next person I'm really gonna ask her this. Can you see that? Is it Curator? Curator Lind Lind Linda. The address is 1277 12 Stones.

All right. I'm sorry I asked your name. a lead carrier 1277 12stones crossing. Okay.

And I have lived in 12 for 23 years now from 2003. And uh uh I think what one of my major concerns is the uh uh the street itself uh is coming down a hill traffic wise. Uh definitely going you're turning off to go into 12 stones. uh it could be very dangerous especially coming out whether you're going looking a left or looking a right. So I think uh uh it's not a place we'd like to see more traffic. Uh I understand by the plans they're they want to put a special gated road to go back to the other homes they want to add. Um, but that just creates another stopping point before you even get to 12 stones and you got that traffic coming down the hill. I mean, and you know, people going there 40 45 miles an hour. So, traffic is a big big issue. Um, and we all were here during the flood and you know that that's going to fill up a water. That's another issue. uh whether a builder can raise the property up 10 feet or 20 feet that if they can afford it fine but that's their issue and I I don't think uh it's right to change the contour of the uh land as it is uh in 12 stones we can't regrade our lots uh and infringe upon other people and I can't see where uh you'd want to turn a corporation a turnover to re landscape their area to their advantage and and destruct the uh the land itself. Um so again, I think it's just too much population in that particular area. And right now about people um I'm always concerned is we have people every morning in the evening that go through

12 stones to get over to uh Long Hollow Pike. So, they're coming down in droves down that hill, making a right turn, going up into uh Long Hollow uh 12stones crossing down down the street and over to Long Hollow and and uh that's a mess in the morning and the evening. I think it's a real a tremendous traffic uh situation. God forbid you put a traffic light down at the bottom of the street because again, it just back up traffic both ways. You got Moss Wright Park there and there a lot of uh activity goes on that in the summertime with soccer, baseball, whatever. So, got a real traffic issue that you really have to look at hard uh if you're uh looking at a an approval or a lay plan layout. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next person on the list is Tom Galbreth. I like your setup here. I spent many years at the state transportation department and we went out to a type public meeting and there'd be three of us and nobody else. So I if you'll state your address and your name.

Tom Galbreth 126 Tar Laneville. Thank you. My question and it got spoken about a little bit at the last meeting. Uh who here would have anything to do with flooding in your department? I'm sorry. Nobody. Mr. Galborth. Uh You're you're getting to speak your points right now. Yes. Okay. So, you do that and then after you all speak, you're going to hear the back and forth dialogue that will hopefully answer some of those questions. That's sort of backwards from what my years of whatever.

I never answered questions before they asked, but So, we'll find out later. You You're going to find out when the people that are representing the pro we get to ask them a question. You will not get to ask them in a public forum. appreciate that. But that's when the meeting last time sort of got shut down when somebody asked them who gave you authority to put 100 trucks of dirt in a flood plane and uh it just sort of died for lack of second and now here it comes back and we don't get a chance to talk to the people but it's your party. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Next person on the list is David Kav Cavali Kabali. Cabali. Sorry, David. It gets ruined every time. I'm sorry. I understand. I have a weird name, too. It should be easy. Yeah,

so David Kavali, uh, 1011 Caleb's Walk, Goodletzville. So, um, you know, I I think first I' I'd like to commend the owner of the property because I think I do think they have done some good things to it to to try and improve upon it. In fact, the the daughter and son-in-law are my her parents are my um uh across the street neighbor. So, nothing against nothing against them on this one. Um, the question I hope you guys will answer later or will come up because it it it currently it's zoned er and I could not find anything on Henderson's site, Hendersonville's site as to what ER meant and what the limitations were. And the other thing that it showed in one of your maps, um, I think it was one of the master plans or something that it's also labeled as an environmentally sensitive area. And again, no no definitions as to what that meant, but there was a large area that was claimed as an environmentally sensitive and we've heard a lot of people talking about the environmental side of this so far, especially as it does it is wetlands. It it does flood um which will impact that. Part of my concern on the ER and the the state um I forget what the R stood for um is is that lot size. I'm assuming, and this is a big assumption on my part, is that there was a minimum lot size associated with it, uh, because when you looked at the plans, they talked about 1acre plots, but half of those plots are really only effectively a half acre. And I don't know if that should play into it if there is some sort of a restriction based on the type that it's zoned for being an ER because if it is with that detention um

ah god I'm losing my mind here but the the portion that that the equestrian uh still has the rights to long term uh there was actually a comment by one of the departments in the plan review that no structures could ever be built on it. So it really doesn't feel like it's oh easement. Thank you. Uh that it was really much of that property and so I to me it feels a little smok and mirrors but again I don't know what the restrictions are for the ER. So I want to throw that out. Um and the equestrian easement to me didn't make any sense uh especially with where they were putting the road on the stuff that faced the Caldwell side. Um, again, I think if they had the road up against Calwell, then the setback because if you really go down up and down Caldwell, larger lots because of the ER, I'm assuming, and larger setbacks. But now you're talking about setbacks that I'm assuming are going to be backyards right up against Caldwell, possibly even elevated above it based on some of the comments that I heard earlier today uh or tonight. that I think that'll really destroy the look and the feel of Caldwell both within Hendersonville and within Goodletsville because it's a common road. And if you go all the way down except to the very, you know, almost when you get to Long Hollow on Caldwell, you still have large setbacks back from from the road and that invokes a certain feel uh and and rural feeling to it. I kept checking my time there. The biggest problem that we have is with the houses that back up to Caldwell. Um because I think that that just really kind of detracts from it. The ones that are back set back in the back half of the property I I think could actually be a good thing because when when talking with our neighbor, the idea and the concept was around, you know, homes that were equestrian centered that people could have horses and so forth. But

again, I'm concerned about the lot sizes and in any of the er and fill. You know, obviously they filled it um quite a bit so far. Uh so they're they're trying to be uh mindful of that. But again, were there any studies that were done any anything from runoff, soil, environmental, you know, as you put more concrete up in general, we're going to have more runoff of bad stuff into rivers and creeks. I'm not a a a big environmental guy, but I do know that that's something that we need to continue to protect. And then home values. I just wanted to talk about that because I do think the ones facing Caldwell detract overall from the rest of uh of Caldwell and I think those should be eliminated. Traffic concerns, Mosight Park, you've heard all of that. Um, and then I want to understand the easement uh, detention, what that's actually going to look like. Because if you build up and then it all slopes down, are you actually building a detention area or is it just say that it again just to make it feel good because it doesn't seem like it's really a what I would consider a detention pond. Uh, and then that was it. That was my

Yeah, that was it. That was I got it and I'm right on time. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody that came that meant to speak that missed signing up? If you'd like to get up and step to the microphone, tell us your name and your address. We'll add you to the list. And Sally Cobb live in 12 Stones Cross in 1286. We've lived there 26 years. Uh they've talked about all the traffic which is going to be horrendous. Can you say your name slowly and your address? I'm sorry. Sally Cobb.

Sally Cobb. My husband's HT. Okay. We've lived at 1286 Stones Crossing. All right. We live in another house for a year. We've been there 26 years. Thank you. We were one of the first eight houses that were there. Okay.

And we've seen it grow and multiply, of course. And like they said, like Lee said, everybody talked about the traffic's already horrendous. And you've also you've got Moss White Park, which is a wonderful clean park that children, my grandchildren played there for years, but you've also got Pope John Paul. So, you're going to have a lot of traffic there. And another red light is just going to be more problems. It's just going to be a hindrance to all the people that live there. And like Lee said, it's already coming through there going to Long Holla to get away from all the traffic on Ka and it's going to and people park on the side of the streets. They don't pull in the driveways in 12 stones and it's hard to get through as it is. It's going to be even worse. I know the people that live there. I think a lot of them. But I just think this is a mistake for the whole neighborhood. I don't think it's going to extend our value at all. is going to take away from it.

All right, that's all. Thank you very much.

All right, we're done with those. Okay, I'm sorry. Oh, one more. If you'll step up, say your name and your address slowly so we can write it down.

Okay. Hi. Uh I'm Ken Roberts, uh 1247 12 Stones Crossing, and uh we've lived there for I think over 14 years as well. So I believe in uh the abundance mentality you know sometimes we can say sometimes scarcity um where you know if if if I get something and everything or it's a zero sum game where if you guys do good I might need to do bad you know or we can't have it or I want to hoard whatever I have and keep it uh which is understandable preserve preserve but I I guess I believe uh positively that with you guys if there's a a development that's done according to 's uh plans and everything that just a new new thing across the street from 12stones shouldn't be really a big issue. Um I my 14 years I haven't noticed the traffic really changing all that much. In fact, I think when I first came there it was even more. I don't know if more people had children with cars or teenagers or what but uh than now. Um, but I uh I guess I'm just uh saying uh you know we can't even see I don't think where this is development is from 12stones the golf courses and so forth is there. So if things are done well I think it'll actually probably add value and who knows some of those uh children there might be the ones that marry our our children or they may it's little league World Series time. Maybe some of them will have 12 or 13 year olds that'll get Hendersonville or Goodletville in the in the World Series. So, I'd rather think of it positively. As long as I'm believing you and trusting you guys, you know, they'll it'll be done well and it'll be another nice addition to the community and others can enjoy it and it won't really hurt us. It'll be a win-win for everybody, I hope. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Can I see that?

All right. Uh, I just want to make one comment. Mr. Galbreth, you you brought up a point and you know, we we allow you all to speak first. Okay. And what our hopes are is you're going to say something to us that makes us write a question down that you have. You're going to spark interest in us that we ask the participant on the other side of this development what his ideas are. And what we're hoping from you guys is you encourage us and and and push in us to ask those kinds of questions. All right? That way we get that information out to you and you do get to hear it in a public forum. Okay? But you don't get to speak to the person directly. You are doing it through us. All right? So I didn't want to cut you off with that, but I want you to hear what our thoughts are and how we react to it. All right? So does that satisfy your

Okay. Well, that's the best I can do for you. All right. So thank you for all of you that spoke. We do appreciate that. Okay. Next I have is the acceptance of the agenda. Is there any issues with it from any of the planning commissioners? We accept second. All right. So I can do this by voice vote. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose. All right. Did you get that, Zach? Next we have the minutes. So do I have an accept do I have a motion to accept the minutes from last month? Okay. So I have a motion. I have a second. And this we can do by voice vote also. So all in favor say I. I. I. Like to.

Okay. We have one abstension by Commissioner Silkwood. Anybody oppose? All right. All it's passed. Next is the preliminary plat. Okay. And right now on the preliminary plat, this is the JLR Caldwell Drive preliminary plat. Owner JLR Property Holdings LLC. Location 155 Codwell Drive. Parcel 161 065.0. Uh the leading lead planning staff is Zach and Caitlyn. But before we start with you guys, Keith wanted to say something first. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just remind everybody uh on the podium as we're speaking uh this evening, just make sure to get close to your to your microphone so everybody uh everybody in the audience and up here uh can hear. I just wanted to mention, Mr. Mr. Chairman, we did have uh this wasn't a project where the previously it was a public hearing uh because it was a reszoning that was being done. Uh in this instance, we're looking at a preliminary plat. Uh so it's not a reszoning, it's just a typical uh submission of a plat. Uh so there's not uh there's not a public hearing, but um the everyone is given an opportunity through citizens comments, which several people uh utilize that this evening. And in addition to I think Ken and Lee uh that did share this evening uh there are uh about uh there's a total of 37 people uh that had uh that had emailed uh the planning staff and we forwarded that on uh this uh this morning uh to the planning commissioners. There were three additional emails that we received this afternoon and then those have been made available to the commissioners as well. Uh but I just wanted to just note that for the record.

All right. Thank you very much. So, now we have is it Kayn? Are you going to present? All right. Yes, sir. Kaitlin, if you'll present it, please.

The applicant JLR Property Holdings LLC has submitted a preliminary plot to create an 18 lot subdivision on approximately 75 1.5 acres located at 155 Caldwell Drive. The property lies within the existing state residential zoning district and is situated along the westernmost boundary of the city limits. All proposed lots are over 1 acre in size consistent with the requirement for estate residential. All the lots meet the minimum 1acre requirement for estate residential zoning with sizes ranging from 1 to 1.2 acres. The setbacks for estate residential are 40 in the front side is 20 ft and 35 ft in the rear. The site is located south of 12stone subdivision within the city which is within the city limits of city of goodsville north of Pope John Paul High School and east of the additional estate residential zoning. Mosight Pike, excuse me, Mosight Park is located in the city of Goodlessville, borders the property to the west. The proposed subdivision includes six lots along Caldwell Drive. One of these lots contains the existing home which will remain uh which will maintain its own separate driveway. The remaining five front lots will not have direct access to Caldwell Drive. Instead, they will be accessed through a private 20 foot wide internal access drive that oddly bisects the 1acre lots in half connected to the main subdivision entrance. A 130 foot equestrian easement in perpetuity is proposed behind these five lots. The remaining 11 lots are located in the rear portion of the property. Lots 7 through 11 along with a small

portion of lot six will contain 145 ft equestrian easement in perpetuity. It should be noticed that the steep slope exists where the easement begins on lot 7 through 11. Lot 18 will serve as a farm for horses which in includes an existing barn that will remain. This lot will have gated access. The applicant has been asked to provide a clear definition of the equestrian easement, including details regarding its intended use and long-term maintenance responsibilities. Additionally, staff is requesting that no structures be permitted within the boundaries of the equestrian easement. The subdivision is located within an AE flood zone, which is designated as a special flood hazard area, and the applicant has agreed to all staff comments. Thank you, Kaylin. Appreciate that. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and call the applicant to the stand, please, to the podium. You're not on trial.

Sorry about that. Okay. Will you say your name and your address? Andy Leath, uh, Greenwood Design, representing the project. I have also with me Mr. John Renan, who's the owner of the project or owner You're the owner. It's under Corporation's name, but he's he's the owner. Okay.

So, um I will say that we are in agreement with comments. Um there's no secret. This was brought before you guys several months back as a as a PD. Uh we were proposing first, I believe, SR2, then kicked around the idea of doing er PD. Um now Mr. Ren's come back with just developing straight ER. So I know a lot of the neighbors had brought up the flooding. Uh Stephen should be aware of this or staff's aware of this but just let pling commission know we have commissioned a flood study that has been submitted to the city some months back uh has been reviewed by the public works department comments on their third party engineer come back to us and those are back with our engineers. So all the field that has been done has been brought to your attention tonight and many of you already knew this from the last time we were before you. It has been had a flood study done. We have had a HD done on it. Somebody brought up the aquatic life. So, we've done a hydraologic determination that's been submitted to Tde as well as the city. So, a lot of the environmental issues, the flooding issues, those are being dealt with right now. Um, we are only proposing 16 new lots. I know it's 18 lot subdivision. One is his home that he intends to stay in, the other is the farm lot. So, only 16 new residential lots are being proposed. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys might have, but we are or feel like we have been compliant with your your straight zone regulations on on every bit of this submittal tonight.

Anyone from the planning commission have questions? Feel free. All right. I first see Todd Kerr. Yes. Thank you. Um, couple quick questions. Um, I just happened to about a month ago have to go to JP2 for about a week every morning and every afternoon to take my grandson to a camp and and I will attest the traffic was pretty bad.

Um, do we know what kind of impact these 16 homes will have in terms of traffic and in terms of when school's in session? That's what I'm most concerned about is how the students get in and out of school and parents. Uh that's question one. Question two is lots 7 through 11 under understand it's going to be a steep slope. Um, how do you plan to, I guess, from a cosmetic perspective, how would you dress that up? And does that create more flood concerns for uh the existing uh residents? Those are my two questions. So we can provide traffic trip generations based on how many lots we're proposing and that's pretty common engineering practice. Typically maybe eight trips per day per lot is something that we generally use. So 16 time 8 tell you how many more trips per day will be added to the road as a result of this development. We've not commissioned a traffic study. I can't tell you how many cars travel Caldwell every day. you have witnessed it yourself, so you know it's some number. Um, if the city requires a traffic study, we're willing to to do that. And I'm I'm here to be honest with you, and to the best of my ability, 16 new lots on a road like Coldwell Drive are not going to show significant impact to the traffic. I'm not saying that because I represent a developer or we're doing it. It's just if you look at 12 Stones, just the immediate road going through 12 Stones, not including all the other roads that are connected to 12 Stones, they're over 10 times more than what we're proposing already. And a lot of that traffic funnels down to Cwell at this intersection. So, if the city requires a traffic study, we're going to

be more than happy to do it. I don't anticipate them bringing back a lot of new requirements. Most of the time 16 lots wouldn't even tra trigger a traffic study. But again, we're not saying no to it. Willing to do it. I just really don't feel like it's going to and and it would also be accurate to say, "Hey, you've got a road with a lot of traffic on it already. We're not going to we're not going to make it worse." And and I'm not trying to be rude about it. It's it's just the way that the studies work out. They're going to say, "This your level of service now. this is your level of service with 16 more lots on the road. It's probably not going to move the needle, but again, we're happy to work with the city to do uh one of the things that we've looked at right in front of this there. There's a lefthand turn lane into 12stones. Right across from that, whenever the developer did that, they've striped off an area that could be a left-hand turn lane for us if we and we're willing to restripe that. That would be a small improvement to offer up that would help a little bit, but 12stones already has also a right-hand turn lane into their subdivision. So, whoever developed that many years ago provided for, you know, a lot of traffic improvements at that location. Our entrance lines up directly across from 12 Stones. That's something that we talked about with you guys and with staff. Um, so we've located that to be right across the road from it. But again, we're happy to do that. But to be honest with you, we've not done traffic counts on the road, so I can't tell you how many cars travel that road every day. We don't deny that it's a significant number. Mr. Ron lives on that road himself. Um, but we're happy to comply with whatever the city's requirements are for it.

Okay. Okay. The second one.

Did I miss the second one? I'm sorry. Yes. Sorry. So in the back of lots you said 11 through 7. So the grading that's proposed is being taken into consideration with the flood study. So part of your question was is it going to make the flooding worse according to the flood study? No. Um are there some things that we can do to soften that? Yes. And one of the comments from the staff was take it from a 2:1 slope to a 3:1 slope. Um we can make it so that there's accessibility from the lots down to the lower portion of the lot. So, there are some things we can soften with it with a grading plan to not make it to where you're dropping off your backyard. A 3 to1 slope is a mowable slope. Uh you see those a lot on T dot roads. So 3:1 is navigable on a lawnmower or a tractor. So it's not it's not like you can't walk up and down it, but we can soften it some.

Mr. uh to answer the last part of this second question there with the aesthetic of the uh of the easements. This is probably not something that would come up in an engineering plan, but you know, our goal with the easements and and I would wish I could take credit for the idea of it because it was in a staff in a staff meeting with with all y'all where we I came back and said, "Hey, here's here's my plans. I have a blank sheet of paper like what can we do with what we have without asking for any changes without without going through the whole reasonzoning process. We have 75 and a half acres zoned for one house per acre. So at some point somewhere Hendersonville in its you know uh wisdom said hey we we we could put 75 houses here. Now there's a flood plane. There's there's a lot of challenges to the property. So, we're asking for 16 out of 75 that would legally be possible. Um, but to your question, our goal, my my wife and I, our family's goal is to preserve as much of that property as farm for as long as possible. I know that it's not a secret. Pendersville some years ago passed the affordable the price of of land far surpassed the operations of any farm uh possibility. And so when we bought the property, we sat down with Mr. Free and the whole team before we ever had a contract and said, "Hey, is this possible? Is there something here that we could do on the back?" We had a couple of concepts, nothing in stone, but just a good friendly conversation of we don't hate this. I think this is something that could be done. And so we knew coming into the property when we bought it three years ago that um that the goal was to sell enough of the land, enough of the lots to sustain and offset the operations and cost of the land to be a farm for my kids and their kids and whoever else. I I won't care after that. But you know that's that's the point. And so so it was it was a concept that kind of came up out of that meeting the the issue of the easement. Now, it's

equestrian in in function and use, but it's detain detention uh is the environmental usefulness of it. Also, the the legal holding of a detention easement is much easier uh to come by. And so, so we intend to use that little bit of easement on the back half of those lots off of Caldwell and u the right side of the road for pastures, for turnout pastures. It'll be grass. It'll be black fences just like it is now. Um it'll be it'll be all following the aesthetic of the farm of Still Water Stables. So um so that's that's our goal. That was the intention of it and that's that's the hope. I hope that it doesn't come across as smoke and mirrors. Um that certainly wasn't the plan. I mean the first plan as you knew was to put 17 lots all in the corner um with smaller lot sizes. But we just have run out of time to be able to get that to come to fruition. So we kind of came back, you know, and said, "Hey, with what we have, what do you guys think? what what can we do? What can be done, you know, responsibly here? And um and and and furthermore, this is a phase. It's not noted on the plan, not something I've talked about publicly, but this is kind of a phase one and phase two for for myself and for my wife. And so the first 10 lots in the back corner is is in the next couple of years is what we'd like to see done. And if I have my way, I don't think a house will ever be built on Calwell. I do I do want to slate it in. I want to draw it in so that it's a possibility if the farm ever needed to sell those lots off. It's would be better than selling the farm. And so that was kind of the hope is that hey, we're going to draw in some lots. We don't have any plans to build them at any time in the near future. It's just kind of an an insurance policy for the farm and whoever might be running it at that time. So you might not get mad at my kids for building on call later. So

thank you. Thank you. Is that all? Commissioner Commissioner Silkwood, you're on.

Thank you for being here tonight. Um, so last time you all brought something about this piece of property before us. It it came to light that there were uh multiple dump trucks of field dirt that came in to the property. I think you alluded to that earlier. And I have not had an update about where we are with that field dirt. Was Tde called in? Was there remediation that was required? I understand there was a small stream that was stream that was completely obliterated. And again, we hear we've heard a lot from the neighbors and folks who live nearby. My number one concern with this piece of property is what has already been done there that is affecting and will affect the neighbors and the flooding of the surrounding pieces of property. So, if you could provide an update with that and then I have a follow-up question.

Sure. and and everything that we've done on the property with the flooding, the flood study, the environmental studies has been run through the city. So Stephen with public works can jump in and correct me or add to take away whatever he'd feel like that he if I speak an error. Uh the flood studies have been done submitted to the city based on the field that has been brought in. We went out and surveyed it. So that's the studies that have been turned to them take into account the work that Mr. Renan did by bringing the material in. Stream was relocated. The stream has been relocated back because Ted deck was brought in and did their hydraulic determinations and we it's been put back. Um the city public works department is still I don't know when the last time they've been to visit you because I've not been included but as of a few months ago they were still visiting this site. Um again I don't know when the last time they've been there but the city has been included in every bit of that. So, Stephen maybe to give you a better update than I can, but TAC has been involved. Um, so has the city and their and with the flooding and the flood study that's been done.

Stephen, would you like to prevent? Thank you. Um so uh with the stream uh it's currently we've had some back and forth with the engineer on uh stream buffer restoration and uh stream bank restoration kind of you know fixing what was done and reestablishing the buffer that's supposed to exist in there. Um, and there's been back and forth on the plans on that to to figure out, you know, exactly how wide the the buffer needs to be and uh what the appropriate vegetation is that's to be reestablished there. So, it hasn't I I I think it's in the engineer's hands right now if I recall correctly, but I'd have to start to check with our storm water coordinator. So back and forth on the plans means it really has not been fully completed and we don't really have a full understanding of what it will be like functionalitywise once it's all complete.

Um we have a general idea of the the alignment of the stream and and you know that a 60-oot buffer is required through there and I think it's shown on the plat here as a 60oot buffer. So we know that part of it. It's just reestablishing the vegetation and

no I I concur with you on that Stephen. It's a matter of what vegetation was there to begin with and how much vegetation we go back with. Um I don't think Mr. Renan's taken a stance of saying I'm not doing this. It's just a matter of what what types of trees do we want there? Um what bank slope that we've sloped the banks? Do we slope them back more? So it's something we're actively working on with the city to get this back to the way that it needs to be put back. And obviously for if you're going to have a house on three sides, I mean, it needs to look nice. It needs to look like a stream,

right? And and I understand what you're saying, but the work has not been completed yet. And I feel like we're we're skipping ahead here asking for, you know, 16 homes on this acreage when the work to remediate what has already been done, some say illegally, has not been complete yet. So until that's done, I will not support this. I'm sorry. They um um so the stream, you know, we did submit that to TK that that was never a stream that showed up on any maps before. It was never uh there, but it was a stream. And so we identified it as a stream, paid the the study for the study to identify it, submitted all that to TK. And Tak did come back with the slopes that they would like to see um and gave us guidelines of how to how to restore it. And so we did put it all back the way they wanted it with the um the um the mesh that blends into the earth with the biodegradable uh mesh. And and so they said, "Hey, go back with these banks. Go back with these slopes." And and we did all that. And so we we did that and uh Christine's been out a couple times. We've walked the property for a couple of hours and she's been very helpful. Uh we added um you know the me the what what do you call it when the dirt washes into the stream.

Silk barriers. Yeah. Yeah. Added the barriers uh that they that they described and uh and she came out and kind of you know helped get me through all that process to get it all back to back to shape. And it's it's growing grass today. So but but it's not it's not ve it's not fully vegetated. No, it's not it's not a finished product. like he just mentioned, you know, eventually houses will go in and they will want landscaping and trees and things will be added to that. It's not a finished product, but it it was put back together. I think um Stephen might be able to correct me, but I think everybody was happy with what they saw, but it but under the understanding it's not done uh because the project's not done. I'm going to push back on you a little bit about the stream obliteration. I actually saw the stream that was obliterated on a FEMA map

myself with my own eyes. So I know that did happen and I hear what Stephen is saying that that h that was replaced or you know something similar was put in its place if it couldn't be made exactly right. But the most serious issue is this flooding. So until all of this is done I don't even understand why you're bringing this before us. I think to my knowledge it everyone's satisfied with the with the flood step survey and the where are the flood surveys where are the wetland surveys where are the wildlife surveys surveys that Mr. le alluded to a minute ago. They're not in my hands. They're not in my packet. And until I get those things, I can't make a decision. We can get we can get those for you, but they have been submitted to this city.

City has or they've been submitted to TAC, the HDS. I mean, I don't you know, cities don't always get those to I'm not trying to to mislead you. I'm trying to be as honest as I can with you. Obviously, I can sense that you're passionate about this. You're upset over it. I'm frustrated. Last time this was brought before us, it was a little bit of obfuscation. Honestly, understand how you feel. Commissioner Martin, you're next in the queue.

Um, I just wanted to echo her comments. Um, and it's it's still not done. Um, you had alluded to you were out of time. What What's your time constraint? I'll let Mr. Ran speak to that.

Uh I guess with any good good plan, good project, it has a timeline. You know, you want to make a goal and put a time to be able to reset that. Um of course, you know, um there's financial constraints if the farm doesn't support the land. So, we want to keep as much of it as a farm as possible, but we've got a couple more years to finish out. Um and so, we've we've just been kind of pushing on like what is the project going to look like? And in this, you know, third version, fourth version, we just kind of came to y'all and said, "What do you want to see done here?" And so, um, you know, 1acre lots is what we have the rights to do. And so, we just kind of made up a plan that that fit exactly what Hendersonville wanted there from years and years and years ago with the original zoning. So, to answer your question, it's just um I can't afford to hold the farm out of my own pocket forever. And at some point the plan as with Mr. Free you know three years ago when we met um was to hey we want to sell some portion of this land but not one more blade of grass than necessary to keep the farm intact. That's the plan and that's that's the timing constraint.

Um all right well we made a mess. We need to clean it up and take care of it. make it right because there's a room full of concern over flooding and so I agree. Um I'm not going to be able to support it tonight. Commissioner Slatterie, you are next.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here and taking all the questions. I will um I will echo what my fellow commissioners have said. The the phrase keeps coming to mind that we're traveling down a road as you build it. And I appreciate um earnest desire to do something. We're all looking to build something for our families and I think there's an opportunity to do that. But I I do think that we do to to take Commissioner Silkwood's phrase, we've got the cart before the horse a little bit. So I think some of the just the simple administrative work of filling in some of the information gaps that I think you're hearing

whether the city has it or TKC or whoever has it there obviously are gaps in our understanding. So asking us to review and approve without full understanding of those those fills with pardon the pun. We we need to see that.

Um I'll put that aside because that that is a hindrance for me to support the project today. Simply having better awareness of what's been done and where it stands will go a long way. Putting that aside for a moment, I I want to go back and address two things. Number one, feel free to have a seat if you'd like to sit back now. Okay. Um, number one, Mr. Le, you you um I think rather casually mentioned that 128 trips a day is going to be inconsequential or that that is to paraphrase how you would expect a traffic study to show up. And I think that's that is fair in its in the data, but I think it is um doing a disservice to very concerned citizens who are sitting here tonight because we're talking about 128 trips that will go out of one entrance that is directly across from a very very very big um very busy entrance into 12 crossing. So it's not simply 128. It's where every one of those 128 will originate and end every day and it will be directly across from the entrance to 12 Stones which is also as I've learned become a very active pass through to Long Hollow. So I I think we have to look at it in totality. It's not simply the number. It's where that number sits on that road and how it impacts and and we can't overlook the concern of that. So that's one of my observations and I just put that out as simply that. Now to some questions I have about lots 8 through 11 and then the lots along Caldwell with um I'll start with 8 through 11 since back in the back corner. Mr. Ren, you said it's where you hope to to develop first. If I understand looking at this, basically half of those lots, the back half of those lots are going to be sloped. So

now we have halfacre lot that are buildable in essence. So then we start thinking about some of the the comments that I heard from some of the citizens about how this is going to look. It's elevated. How's it going to look from Caldwell? And it starts to look less and less like a beacon on a hill if we're down to halfacre buildable areas on those lots and what size homes will be put on those

and how those compare to the homes across the street from on Caldwell in 12stones crossing and what impact that potentially has to property value. So that's I I just want to make sure I do understand that correctly. those those specific four lots are going to lose half of their in essence half of their buildable um area because of the slope. So that's a concern.

And then if someone could explain to me the alleyway, please on the Caldwell lots. Understanding you hope that maybe those don't have to be built, but once they're in the plan and the plan's approved, then they can be built at a moment's notice. If only houses could be built that quickly. Those lots are going to be cut in half by an alleyway. So if I if I purchased lot 13, one of those. Again, I only have about a half an acre of that acre lot to build on because I don't want the alleyway going through my fabulous family room and chef's kitchen,

nor do I want a walkway over the alleyway to get to the rest of my house. So, am I understanding that correctly that those lots really only result in approximately a half an acre or less, slightly less in buildable area because of that alleyway?

Yeah. Um, so one of the things that that kept coming up and and that you just mentioned before is the property values. And so I I don't know if if the if the submission asked for it, maybe it's a little early to ask for it, but um but the the caliber of the house that's going to be built here. So, McFersonen Shaw, who is a wellrespected uh custom home builder in our area, been there for 35 years. Matter of fact, him and his wife live in 12 Stones and had built many many of the houses in 12stones, including some of my own family members. Um, so he is he is going to build all the houses. He's already agreed to buy all the lots and build all the houses. And so, we're going to adopt the same HOA requirements that uh ex pre that already exist in um uh plantation at Fairview Plantation. Mhm.

So, a minimum of 3500 square ft. So, so these houses are going to be a minimum of a million and a half to $2 million uh by the time you buy the lot and build the house. If anything, it's going to greatly improve the the the value of all the homes around them. Um the h to this question that you asked about the alleyway, I too am disenchanted by that the alleyway. I'm I'm actually hate the whole idea of all of those lots and I I hope that I never ever look in someone's back door from my front door. um you'll know that if we build those houses that things got rough for us. Um that is not the plan to build those in anytime soon. But I've already I've already mentioned that. To answer your question, the the rear entrance was something that came out of that meeting with with the whole staff and they just said, "Hey, we would love for these not to connect directly to Caldwell like everything else on Caldwell already does." I guess that would make sense because everything else does that these would do. But in an effort to alleviate some of that traffic on Caldwell

um and to keep that moving that traffic moving they said we'd like to see a rear entrance there. And so to preserve as I previously stated uh to preserve the the horses to preserve the f the pasture we uh asked for that easement on the the back 150 ft. Um as you know a lot consists of 43,000 square feet and more. And so we don't think anybody's going to build a 43,000t house, but Bob assures me that for the last 20 years they have been building 10,000t houses on 150 by 150 lots in Fairview Plantation for a decade or more. And so he said that's more than enough space. That's actually what we asked for initially on our first plan because that was the size lot that he said sold the best, looked the best, felt the best, and gave us plenty of room to build the houses that people want to build. Um, these are estate homes and so they're not going to be done cheaply. It'll be all to the highest grades in standards. Um, that's why I wanted to work with him because I've I've seen his work over the decades and I know he he he will deliver a quality product. Um, and so, you know, hopefully we never see any of this on the on the Caldwell.

Sure. But, uh, but if we do, you know, those those were supposed to um to I hope that answers your question. So we the alleyway is to backload those lots to alleviate the traffic issue and also that those houses would front Caldwell. So we wouldn't be looking at the backs of those houses. We'd be looking at the front prettest part of those houses. Most of those houses in that price range as you know look just as good from the side or the back as any as any other angle. But they uh that is the goal. Okay. Thank you. Um then just a a an observation. He wants to say something.

Oh, I'm sorry. Go right ahead. I might I might better jump in there to to catch just a couple things. One thing I just wanted to make clear uh to to the commission that as as um as was stated earlier by Caitlyn, the staff does feel that the location of this is oddly placed. You know, it's the the the issue about the equestrian easement. uh you know where could see how that functions in the other side up there up on the uh where the culde-sac is uh and u uh but here where this is bisecting the lots just feels very odd and and what the city staff was looking at is we didn't want the act well we weren't going to allow you know access to each lot on Caldwell uh so there would have to been some kind of combined access and our preference was the rear But we actually meant the rear. And uh so I think this would create a kind of an odd situation there. One other thing just to mention, this is different just as for the planning commissioners. This is different than like a plan development where before and it's kind of confusing because the plan development for you know specifically talked about the design of the buildings that were going to be built and all of that. Here this is just straight zoning. So certainly I think there's every intent for it to be very high-end and probably would might be but there's no guarantee to that. The only thing you're looking at this evening is the makeup of the lots, the distribution, how that is and uh you know what gets built on there in the future uh you know uh would be uh we wouldn't really control what that you know specifically what that is. Okay. I think they would be desirable of course but uh we don't have any control and certainly it's good to hear what builders might be interested or examples

and I think that's helpful but in the decision- making of it it's nothing we can really hold the developer to uh going through straight zoning. So, I just kind of wanted to Thank you. Thank you. Then then just to wrap up, I will echo what the staff has has pointed out that alleyway put if if it can't be at the very back of the lots, do the lots in one quarter and three/4er distribution because if if if everything comes to fruition and somebody wants to build a really nice estate home on a half an acre, the opportunity to do other things with their property Mhm.

And I think it becomes a little bit of a nightmare to hold people accountable to keeping that little tag piece of property up to standard because it starts to look more and more like pasture and less and less like my lot. So I would I would say that um I think that was all I had. Thank you for Miss Ladder. If if we were to move that back 50 or so feet, would would you be able to support it? I'm hoping that we can move it back 100 feet and never build it, but I'd like to see it deeper in the lots. I' I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. There needs to be less usable land left on the other side of the alleyway because it's not usable to the homeowner.

Yeah. And and just to to keep going, they uh the land left it over by the easement would be consumed by the pasture. So it would still be used by horses and such and they would own it but not have use of it. And so it was just something we were trying to figure out. I appreciate you're you're you're trying to make pieces fit here. But the the comment you just made. I'm I'm not imagining there are people that will want to spend the money that a home with a oneacre lot and a very nice estate home as you described are going to want to do that and half of their oneacre very expensive lot is actually horse pasture. Mhm. That that would be a dealbreaker for me as a home buyer. So I I I just think there's some more creativity work

to be done there. But at the end of the day, I I won't support the project tonight primarily because there's still a lot of gaps in understanding around remediation of the original problems.

Um to to to kind of comment on that. So we have not done any grading or anything for the for the neighborhood. Not one not nothing. What we have done to this point is strictly agricultural. We've built our barn, our arena, and destroyed the creek as you said, you know, um and in an effort to get our road back to where we needed it to be and to um to grade pastures, to create pastures. And so I I don't want to give this, you know, I I certainly I wouldn't say I'm blameless in any way. My wife will confirm that. But uh but I have not intended to, you know, to to ready, fire, aim any of this. We went window to window in Hendersonville's offices in city hall and said, "Hey, we're building a farm. Uh what do we need to do?" We've we've done a lot of work uh communicating back and forth with with what can we do, what can we not do. Um we've as they asked, "Hey, if you would have your attorney drop a letter asserting your exemption under agricultural status with the state of Tennessee and all that." and we did that and city attorney accepted it. So all of that is of record. All of that is readily available to anyone. I just wanted to reiterate tonight that we haven't started building a neighborhood. We we're not even close to that. So um what we have done so far if anything uh has been confused like like hey you started building a neighborhood but you said you were building a farm. We really are building a farm and I hope the farm animals and the horses and all that show. Um and so we intend to keep it that way. uh we will build that farm and finish it and enjoy it as long as we can if we do nothing else. But we certainly didn't do that in light of hey we're going to put you know houses here because as you can see on the plan there is no fill been put in any areas where we proposed to put houses.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I don't know if that helps or hurts but yeah. Thank you. Thank you. That's

Commissioner Hasty. You're next. As an engineer, I agree with his engineer that this is probably not going to have a significant impact on traffic and it doesn't even have enough lots for our zoning ordinance to require a traffic impact study. However, with that said, I would recommend that you work very closely with our city engineer and make that entrance as wide and visible and as safe as humanly possible. if it requires extra pavement, moving islands back, making sure landscaping is not in the way, and do a whole lot of other things because you are going to create a conflict point. And Commissioner Evans has always told us, a little here and a little there and a little here mounts to a whole lot of units. And it may be a little and there's a whole lot there. And you're contributing to all that whole lot.

Yes, sir. Next question. All those lots are going to require fill to meet the minimum finished floor elevations. Have you prepared a grading plan? And in that fill in the flood plane, is that included in your flood study? the feel for lots all the stuff that has been done where lot one through 11 is included in the flood study that's been presented to the city lots 12 through 16 they have not as of right as of today but they will require a filler right yes and and

but that's not a part of your flood study it's not a part of the flood study as it exists today I couldn't imagine the city accepting construction plans on this without it being included in it. We anticipate having to update the flood study with lots 12 through 16. Yeah, I think the road and everything in the back is included in the flood study as it exists today. Just not in the front. Yes, sir. Just not not lots 12 through 16. Will you build that alleyway above the flood plane at the floor elevation of the homes so that in the event of flooding, those people will have access to their homes?

I think that would be the prudent thing to do. uh that because if they're not accessing Caldwell Drive, they're going to need some way to get out. So, I think it you know that's gonna may impact the flood study for those. It will. Yes, sir. It will. And and a great and as we prepared the grading plan for the road in the back part, the flood study will require grading plan for those lots as well.

I agree with Commissioner Silkwood. I mean somewhere the ball got bounced wrong as far as us getting some of the access the information on flood studies. Now one of the other people that spoke today mentioned er what is that? Well, that's estate residential. Yes, sir.

That requires a lot of a minimum of a lot of a of an acre, one acre. That's the bulk regulation that goes with that zoning. Now, what you're doing here is creating lots that meet that requirement for an estate residential zoning. But what you're doing, you're taking half of it away from them. You're going to sell if I want one of these lots and I buy an acre, you're going to put a, as you've already said, I'm going to fence it

and use it for the horse farm. You want to sell me an acre and take half of it. Now, I agree you can build a good estate home on a 20,000 square foot lot. Yes, sir.

That can be done. But I think what you're doing is you're trying to circumvent the requirements of an estate residential zoning. You know, it's not an acre lot if you buy it because you're keeping half of it. You I've been around the block a long time. You probably tell that by looking at me. And I've seen a whole lot of subdivisions developed. I've never seen anything like this done. You know, easements for detentions, easements for utility uses, easements for roadways, those things, yes. But an easement for me to keep run my horses on on my acre lot that that don't add up to an er zoning with lot configurations where you're taking half of it away for it when you sell it is not something that I could support and still say we're we're we're complying with our er requirements in our zoning ordinance. it just don't fit. You selling me an acre and keeping half of it. So, I couldn't support it just for that reason on the configuration of the lots.

Commissioner Kerr. Yes. Just to tie some loose ends. Um, you mentioned that you reached out to Bob Shaw to build those lots or build those houses, but you're also saying that you hope they you never build them. Just the front ones. Just the front. Just the ones on. So in the back, those are the ones that Mr. Shaw would would purchase and build.

I think he I mean he has stated he'd be willing to in our original plan we had 21 lots and he he had committed to buying 21 lots if we could get them reszoned. Um and so when that kind of became harder and harder to do, we kind of came back and said, "Well, what what can we build with with the current rights of the property and h how would we do it? What's the best way to do it? Most efficient way to do it." And so um and so this is our best effort at So he he would he would take the he would purchase the lots knowing that you're you really don't want to build on them. No, no, no. I'm sorry. Not the just just the 10 in the back. Okay. So he's he's not going to purchase all of Okay. Yeah, that's fair. Okay. Thanks.

Is that all the questions from the commissioners? I just wanted to say I concur with what's been said here tonight. So, I'm not going to take the time to restate it. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Nothing else to be said. So, we entertain a motion. Anyone wants to offer a motion?

Okay. Go ahead. I I I might share because I'm seeing several several of the members kind of kind of saying where they're looking to go to go with it and just kind of adding up the math on it. It doesn't it doesn't look great. Uh but uh I just needed to make the the planning commission aware that um on a plat uh it's different than some of the other things that we do uh where we're making recommendations to Bulma and and things like that or even site plans, it's a little bit different. Uh but on a plat uh if if you were going to deny a plat, you have to list the reasons for it. So a positive motion that fails. So, if there is a positive motion and it fails, then it's going to be a failed motion, but you're going to need to we're going to need to turn right around and somebody make a motion uh if it does fail uh for a negative motion and give give some reasons. So, on this with it straight zoning and it's a plat, uh you you've got to give you've got to list some reasons uh why you're doing that uh as as required by state law. So, I just needed to kind of share that uh with everybody. No, Mr.

Chairman, u given the consent the comments made tonight of filling in the gaps with the flood study which we've done HD which has been done to provide that to you guys would we would like could we request a deferral to get that information to you all and to revise the alleyway and take your comments back tonight, come back next month. I can't I can't promise you that we're going to make everybody happy next month, but we can at least present you with the data. Okay. Commissioners, do we have to vote on I think should vote. Okay. At the request of the at our request.

Well, I'm going to propose the motion at the request of the applicant that we defer this until next month or do you need a longer than that? Well, how about a deferment to a later date? I I know Hendersonville has time limits on how often we can deferral. It's not indefinite like some places, but we will get with staff and get back on the agenda before the before this application expires. It Yeah, that's uh it won't it if it's done in the next couple of months, it'll be fine. Yes.

There there is a requirement that if the city if the planning commission does not take action, uh then it's automatically approved. And so, but uh we're not we're vote you're voting to defer at the request of the applicant with the understanding that that freezes the time frame. Uh so I guess maybe add that in there at the applicant with that freezing the time frame. Uh does that sound right, Lance? That good? Okay. Okay. Okay. I will present the first motion. The motion is I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I'm sorry. I hate to, you know, this this plan was our best effort to comply with with all of the requirements currently in place. Um, so if if it's pleasing, you know, to kind of give us like, hey, this is what we're looking for. I know Miss Slatterie made a point on the on the moving of the alleyway, but is there anything else that's out of compliance that you could see it preventing from moving forward? And I I I hate that you guys we spent I spent a fortune on that flood study. I really want you to read it end to end. I want you to read it and go to bed with it because it's just it is really boring. But it it does say that it's going to be okay. And so, um, and I'd hate to spend the tens and tens of thousands of dollars that that thing required. And the baseball bats that had to come out to get it back to, you know, to go unread. And so, I want you to have it. We we've paid a fortune for it. I want you to have it. I want it to do whatever it was designed to do. Um, and so, you know, I hate to to fail based on someone just didn't get didn't get it handed to them. And so I will I'll bring it to y'all's house if you want to.

All right. But you know, well, I'm going to do my best at summarizing what most of these people have said, okay?

Uh and if any of you need to jump in, feel free. Okay? Uh most of them, they want to see the flood study. They want to see the impact to the stream. Okay? uh they want to know your overall plan on the back of these lots as it relates to the easement for the equestrian and how you're going to convince people to buy that and be happy with that. Okay, that you're going to take half of their land. Uh there's probably eventually going to be comments made that if you do have half of that land uh as an easement in horse related activities, if you have a real horseloving person there on that piece of property, are they going to be able to use it for something other than just grazing?

Okay. Um let's see. The roadway coming into the back of it. Okay. I'm I'm pretty sure you mean the houses are going to front Caldwell if it ever happens. So this roadway will come into the back of those houses. So they're referring to it as an alleyway, but it is truly their access road. So it's not an alleyway per se. Okay. Uh and addressing that. Um addressing the slopes as it relates to the back of these properties going down to those flood areas and the pasture land. Um I think I've hit most people's I think I think Commissioner Hastings comments about what can be done at the entrance.

Yes. And and one thing to reiterate that point, the entrance does square away very nicely with 12 Stones. So the people that live in 12 Stones understand that it does square up with that entrance. So it's not offset like some of you had seen previously. And what the commissioner hy did say is make sure it's as big, as broad, and as easy to get in and out of as possible so it doesn't interfere with the people across the street or the people on your side of the street. and make it as safe as possible because we all know you got to blind people coming down at high speeds. So, make it as safe as you possibly can for the people that are going to come up and down that road. So, did I summarize everybody's thoughts? I think it was and then those lots facing Caldwell

if you're really not interested doing it later. That's right. you know, and I may get shot for saying this, but a lot of the, you know, you have a lot of rights by right to this property. So, if you're not really planning to use those, you may want to just defer it to later or not even put it on, you know, leave it off the list. Don't make it as something that isn't an an impediment to you. Yeah. And you can come back in 20 years or 15 years or your kids in 30 years. Yeah. And let them address it at that time. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. One additional comment. go right in. So, there are a lot of people from 12 Stones neighborhood as well as the two neighborhoods behind 12 Stones.

And they specifically showed up tonight because they knew there was going to be a plan. When we defer and we don't tell them when it's going to be coming back, it may be next month. It may be 60 days. It may be six months. There needs to be some notice go out to those homeowners associations so they know this is coming back. they can look at the plan and and might encourage him to reach out to those homeowners associations to have discussions with them before it ever shows back up here, but they need to be notified and not have to wonder every month is this going to show back up. So, commissioner, let me direct your comments on that.

Yeah. Uh so if if somebody can let whoever the HOA um uh members board members are to contact me and then okay contact send me an email keith free uh kfree at hvilletn.org uh send it to me and then we'll make sure Zach that we will notify you so that you can let everybody know. So we'll we'll do that that way. Yeah. Did you repeat your email address?

Your email address. Oh, kfre at hv ln.org or if you're wanting to send it to the to the whole planning staff, it's planning at hvilletn.org. So, uh, but, uh, but if you'll send me something so that I'll know who you are, uh, Susan, right? So, I'll know who you are, then I'll make sure to get it to you when we know and that way you can distribute it because it seemed effective. It came from the HOA and we got a lot of feedback. So that was pretty pretty effective. Okay. Thank you. Now I'm going to do my best to make the motion. Okay.

With the uh applicants request to have this deferred. I make the motion that that we are going to freeze the time frame of your application. while you do your work, you're going to do everything in your best efforts to bring back to us the flood studies and all pertinent information that I listed previously. And now I need a second. Second.

I have a second for Miss Slatterie. And then we will do this by roll call vote. motion to accept the deferral uh requested by the applicant approved with eight yeses and zero nos. Thank you very much, Zach.

Appreciate it, y'all. Thanks for your information. Okay, next development plans. Now we're to Nearwater Place. Final development plan. Owner Real Estate Solutions Group, location 220 Nearwater Place, parcel 16050-01. Lead planning staff, Zack Coleman. But we're going to have our planning director, Dr. or Mr. Free tell us that Dr. Dr. Not quite doctor. Not quite doctor. So that is a promotion, isn't it? Yeah.

Um yeah. Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this is the item that was deferred uh last month uh from the request from uh Nearwater Place. Uh it's a uh development that's about half finished uh behind the Waffle House on uh on Main Street. You see the location uh there on the map. uh the applicant um uh it was deferred at the last meeting asking the applicant to come back uh with some uh more detailed information. Uh the applicant, you can find in your packet, the applicant did submit a uh new uh letter uh with an adjacent uh adjacent to that or attached to it was some new um CCRs uh relating to the specific nature of changing the requirement uh for the property to be homeowner occupied uh to allow leasing. And uh that's pretty much where where we left it. And I believe the applicant is is here this evening, Mr. Chairman.

All right. I'm sorry. Would the applicant like to step up and speak? Good evening. Lyn, please. Lyn Elely at 250 Lake Valley Road, Hendersonville. Thank you. I'm here on behalf of Real Estate Solutions Group. Um, Keith said it pretty

pretty plainly. I'll I'll add that um I'll add a little color to it if y'all wouldn't indulge me. Uh, you know, last month we were here um after a lot of deliberation with our our attorney, meeting with the city attorney, meeting with planning staff to try decide how uh we might be able to go about lifting this restriction, just the legalities of it to start and what process it had to go through. We I think I my original submitt was a BZA application uh which Keith um was quick to tell me that was not the way to go about it. Um so uh through through a lot of that contemplation, we landed on um having the city attorney and my attorney meet and talk about some of the reasons why it might make sense to not have this restriction, for the city not to hold this restriction on the property. Um, and a letter was sent from my attorney. You guys saw that letter. We met last month and through a lot of discussion. Um, I thought it'd be best to come back with a different approach this month. Uh, so, um, my letter that you have before you, it got a little long-winded after I'm reading it for the second time, but, um, what it's trying to do is sort of explain the history of what happened a few years ago, a couple of years ago, um, as to what how we got to the point of the last, uh, reading putting, um, uh, just a blanket owner occupancy only is really the term, the the only meat to the restriction um, on the zoning of the property. Um, and then it it goes on to um to explain why, you know, why the city felt it was justifiable to zone it the way that they did. Um, and it talks about some of the troubles that the builder has had since that time. And I don't need to read the whole letter. You guys, we talked about

a lot of that last month anyway. Um, but that hasn't changed. I will say the only thing that that has changed is um I was made aware that they have since closed two of the units to um to individuals. There was some confusion. I think that there's been it's been said that there's actually four units closed and that's true. The first two closings were really just the builder transferring those models from his you know from Harpath Valley Homes to the investment entity that invests in model homes. Um and then but we do have two true buyers. Now those um those two units were sold drastically lower than cost. Um not a sustainable thing for the builder or the for the developer. Uh they couldn't reasonably continue that trajectory through the 20 something they already have built and surely not through the 49 that they have built. Um they'd bankrupt long before that ever could take place. But the idea was that he's trying to get some some uh traction, some interest by um selling at a loss to bring some some life to the community, so to speak. Um so he he's he feels good about what he's done, but he knows he can't keep it up. Um he's asked us to be here uh just as much as the developer has, who still has these lots, these remaining lots to sell. um so that hopefully he can have some better success in selling the ones that he's got and those to be built in the future. Um so with that, I mean, I'll just I'll just say that we're back here today to ask the city to um to take in consideration what's taken place in this development over the last 12 months. Just take into consideration the history of it. Um, we ask that the con the city

will um recognize that there's a strong desire to rent these. Um, we we we've seen it, the builder's seen it, you know, day over day of people coming in asking how much is the rent and, you know, he has to tell them to go away. Um, and we're hoping that the city will consider that that really there's no discernable difference that we can think of that would be an end result of this community to the general public if we were to deny a renter over someone that wants to pay a note on a mortgage. We can't I I can't just to be frank come up with anything that would um that would end up with with some lesser development in the end or or or anything that would live in the public eye any different. But I'm I'm open to it. And if there if there is something that would result in that, we certainly want to do something about it. we don't want to just, you know, ignore it and and then let that happen. So, um, after last month, we came back with city attorney, my attorney, myself, met with planning staff, we brainstormed to come up with ideas to ensure that would that would be the case long term, long after I'm out of the deal and everybody else, the builder's gone and this thing's just a happy little neighborhood of 49 town homes. And what we did is we we looked back at what restrictions are already on the property because we put those on the property on every development we do to be to make sure that there's a certain quality of life and and look to the neighborhood. And we found that there's a lot of things in place that ensure that things like no Airbnbs and I mean you've got them before you but it's six or eight items. But what we recognized is that the

attorneys pointed out to me that that I could go unilaterally amend these anytime I wanted to. You know, I could just take that out and if you guys decided that you didn't have the no owner occupancy restriction on the zoning anymore, poof, it's gone and it turns into an Airbnb neighborhood or whatever else it could be. So, we think we've got creative in what we've done. We've we've we've drafted an amendment to the de declarations that will ride with the property to ensure that these restrictions will stay in place no matter what. Or if they were to suggest someone to in the future to suggest that they would be lifted or changed or whatever, they'd have to be back before the city to make that happen. They'd have to have permission. So, it essentially um gives the city some teeth to the restrictions on the property that they currently city currently doesn't have. It's just it's just on the developer's actions. So, I mean, I'll read those real quick just so they're on record and everybody understands them. Uh the units may only be rented in their entirety. No fraction or portion may be rented. No subleasasing. um any leasing has to be approved by the board of directors or the people the board of directors that will um maintain that HOA for the property so that there's some oversight. Um the units cannot be marketed for short-term rental or any Airbnb or or on any VBO type website. No transient or overnight tenants. Um let's see. No units shall be rented uh without written consent of the board of directors after they approve it. All leases shall be in writing and provided to the board within 10 days. Um all occupants of the units shall be listed in lease. Uh the total number of occupancy

occupants of a unit shall not exceed the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one. The idea there is just to make sure that there's no excessive parking, no excessive cars, what have you. We've got other things in the in the CCRs that ensure that already, but this is this gives the city that that teeth to ensure that stays stays the case long term. Um, no leasing shall be less for less than a six-month period. Um, and every owner uh shall cause all the occupants of the unit to comply with the declaration. So you got not only the city has some some teeth in it, you you're essentially saying that it's ultimately the person that buys that unit is responsible like it would be with any property. We're just putting it in black and white that they have to also provide that enforcement oversight as well as the HOA. Um so that that's basically it. We we hope that this is a more um considered to be a more cooperative way to um allow maybe a different type of citizen to live in these than what it's currently uh restricted to and that we um were open to any other suggestions we might want to do to modify these if if that be the case if it is considered. That's I'll leave it at that and answer any questions.

Commissioner Slatterie, I see you're on the doc. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I know this this was a little bit of teeth grinding to get back to this and I appreciate all the work that went into doing this. Just a couple of questions. Is there anything in here that will prevent one owner owning 12 units?

No, ma'am. No. And that and that's a um that is a possibility. We considered that and talked talked with the city attorney and and planning staff and my attorney and and it it came back to the fact that that may not necessarily be a bad thing. I don't know. I can't think of a situation where having someone own more units would result in some lesser livability or desiraability of the neighborhood. In fact, it might just be the other way around. If someone owned a a, you know, a whole building, I feel like they would have better control of, say, someone that wasn't parking their car in the right spot or something silly. Um, instead of it being 49 owners trying to enforce, you know, 30 potential leases or whatever in the mix may be. We just couldn't we couldn't see a discernable difference in what it what it would mean to the city of Hendersonville or to the general public. So we we deliberately didn't put that in there. I also was fearful that someone that I that we go through all this effort and then then that I'm fighting that as my next objection. You know, uh we already do have property owners in there. So, we know it's not going to be a national, you know, let's rent the whole neighborhood because just those two can have stopped that. Um, and we know that we have uh buyers say on the hook that want to buy for the purpose of investment and written the property. So, I've even if he's going to keep selling them at a loss, I might even do it. Um, so again, we we couldn't we couldn't really figure out why we would do that in this

particular neighborhood. I could I could see that why I would not do that in say some of my single family developments, places where each person's responsible for mowing the grass or keeping up the shrubs or but there's just none of that here that

that we can imagine a situation where that could cause a problem. My only thought is that if you do have some owner occupied units, people maybe the Fed does us all a favor and they drop the rate even a quarter of a point, make all of our lives better. um you do end up with the potential of a neighborhood where a corporate owner that owns multiple units holds far more votes in an HOA situation than individuals that have invested and are actually holding a mortgage on their home. So that that's always a a little bit of a concern that it's Yeah.

And I don't have a solution for that. I was just curious as to Well, we were trying to overcome it by giving the city that that um that ability to prevent any altercation any any altering of those particular requirements regarding leasing. So that it in the in the unlikely event that that were to happen that I walk out the door and someone buy every one of them that that would be great, but it's not it's not on the table. I can assure you that. um they'd have to be right back up here at the podium talking about what they wanted to change to the the leasing terms. So, all right. Thank you. Just one other question. Um

letter F, the total number of occupants. There are threebedroom units, correct? Uh yes, ma'am. So if a family moved in two parents and three kids, they couldn't guess they'd have to buy a bigger house if Okay. Just wanted to make sure I understood that. Thank you. That was all I had. That was that was more about overcrowding the neighborhood in general. I understand you don't want 13 people, right, pulling cars up to a single unit. All right. Again, thank you very much for the work you did to sort of get this back on track. I I can support what you're doing. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh next one I saw is Commissioner Evans.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U this project was initially approved before I was on the planning commission and I did speak against it uh from the crowd for a variety of reasons and probably some of those are the ones that are plaguing you at this point. uh including the entrance that several of us were concerned about. Uh even when the Westgate project was approved, uh we discussed then how the three acres back behind the Waffle House between you and Rockland Road might be used for an entrance way. Uh didn't see anything done on that, but the bottom line is uh the project is where it is. It is what it is. Uh it looks like a good project. the quality of the construction is good. We have uh since then had an almost identical situation where we were advised as a body that we can't stick our fingers in your business. We can't tell you what you can rent, how you can rent it, when you can rent it, who you can rent it to. And from my perspective, it would be my preference at this point considering where everything is to keep the city from having to uh provide some sort of supervision and oversight to that oversight that a homeowners association would already provide. Uh and believe me, I've been involved in those and they have considerable authority. It would be my preference that we remove the rental restriction alto together and get out of this business and I will make such a motion if the chair would approve it.

Well, we have some other people that are in the queue to speak. So before you make that motion, let's let them speak and then see if that changes anybody's opinions. Is that cool? Uh the next one I saw was Commissioner Kerr.

So I went back just to research kind of where we landed on our in our last meeting. I read Mr. Cook's letter again carefully. Uh and then I did take the opportunity to drive over to the property. Um how you get in that is a little odd going in front of uh Waffle House. But um when I drove through there now, I I didn't see a contract pasted to a door. I did see uh lots or units 108, 112, 120, 148, and 408. It said on the window, I am sold.

So, I assume those units are sold. Um I think that's that's one more than what I'm aware of. I think one of those is canceled since then. So, they'll stick that sign up there the day somebody writes a contract. That doesn't mean that doesn't mean what it says on the sign. Okay, I understand.

They like those real letters, you know. Uh but but I did um I did run across an article in the paper which was for the time period of April 24th through April 30th of 2025. And Mr. Cook, your letter was dated uh May 27. So, this predates your letter. Uh, where a unit was sold 1089 near Water Place was sold for $429,900. Is that is that right? Do I have the facts right? Um, I I think you do. If that was one of the if that was one of the models, I believe that's correct. Okay.

I I don't know which unit that is, but I think that's I think that's right. So, this this property was sold to um an Ann Snyder. Okay. Is that related or is that in conjunction with the model home? I don't know to be honest with you. My concern my concern on this is um Mr. Cook's letter and then your letter states that there's a significant economical disadvantage because you've not been able to sell the units. Um $4299 is pretty rich I think for those units. I mean I I didn't walk in one but I saw the square footage and where they were and all that.

Yeah. U so maybe the question is for Mr. Cook. When you wrote the letter and gave it to this commission um in I guess it was the last name June or actually July were you aware of this one unit that had already sold? No, I was not aware of any units other than the internal model home sales. Yeah, we Okay, it's probably a lack of explanation. We weren't we weren't considering the transfer of the those units being a business transaction as being a sold unit, but technically it was. And that was my mistake. I should have said that two models had been

sold to a for purposes of an business uh transaction, but um that has to be one of those because I know the ones that are sold to individuals have been much less. Okay. So, I left the meeting last meeting thinking, hey, if you've not been able to sell any of those units, I wanted to see why. I'm not a real estate agent.

I'm not a property developer. I'm an average citizen that might buy something like that down the road when I get a little older and I'll have a yard to take care of. So, I drove over there with my wife and we just took a look at it. Um, and I and it's scratched my head. Why? Why have you not been able to sell these? Is it because of the location or is it the price? Have you priced them all? Are you so deep in these pro uh properties that you had to price it so high that you've not been able to sell it? What I'm trying to reconcile and I appreciate what Mr. Evans said. I I do I understand where we are, but I'm trying to reconcile the fact that and I don't know that we still ungrung the the bail lance from the letter last month. I had asked for that to be done and I hadn't I didn't see that in in this packet. But what I'm trying to understand is we, you know, the hardship is what we really are trying to focus on.

The hardship to the owner, developer, whatever. And I learned these units have sold. Um, but I was under the impression last month that nothing had sold. Um, so Mr. Mr. Cook, let me ask you if if if you're if you're aware of these facts now and you were to write this letter again, would you put in your letter that none of the units had sold? No, I think Mr. Julie and I both would would certainly clarify that point.

Okay. And then last last question and maybe Alderman Martin can speak to this, but I believe there was a concern about the entrance the road into that property and whether or not you got DOT approval to build or construct the road. Was that has that been settled? Did you get did anybody see a letter anything that that supports that? No, I never did receive anything.

Okay. That's another concern is that just getting into the property is a little awkward. Um and and I I mean that's that's a major issue for me is that you you may have a roadway or an entrance that's not DOT approved. So, um and you may have it. You said it was a it was a a phone call only that it wasn't memorialized into a document. All I'm trying to say is No, no. I I said it was memorialized and the city has that. The city of Hendersonville has that. Okay. Who who the city would have that? I believe Sarah I believe Sarah L got that back when that happened.

But but again I hate I hate to I'm not trying to dodge the question, but I I have to ask that is someone paying rent on the house change how they might access the property because that's what's on the table. Can can you legally access the property from the road that you're using? Right. Okay. And the fact that Waffle House maybe not has pushed back on We can certainly I mean I don't I don't know what we need to do about that if there needs to be some legal action against me about it and discovery and I can give you the letter again or whatever. I'm happy to address anything about that because

we exhausted the fire out of it back when we had to. Um, but my request today is to consider whether or not there's a discernable difference who lives in these houses and if the city feels like um it's reasonable to allow someone to pay rent for one of these rather than pay a mortgage. That's what I'm here to ask. So, are you do are you going to do a lease to own option? I don't even build them or sell them. So, that's kind of between a rental and a and a purchase, right? Is that is that an option you're you're thinking about? No, because I'm not I'm not renting them or selling them.

I'm I'm the I'm the developer. I'm the property owner. And um and I had a restriction put on me as the developer and the property owner. I'm here to say that I don't think it's right. I'm hoping the city will consider that what we're voluntarily wanting to do to ensure that it's done the right way is a great compromise rather than taking the legal route to to sort out whether or not the city should have ever done it. So, I I'm I'm really here kind of hatinand to say I hope you'll find that this is reasonable, but it's okay if you don't. Yeah. Okay,

I think that to answer your question, nothing in the CCRs would prevent an owner from entering into a lease to own contract with a potential Yeah. Right. Those can be more attractive than just straight out lease. Yeah. Nothing in there would prevent that. Yeah. And and to be candid, I don't know if my builder has the ability if he I can certainly suggest it. He may not have the ability to do that. I know that's kind of a mortgage exercise beyond me, but I'll happy I'm happy to pass that along. I appreciate the suggestion.

Well, I'm I'm going to be real honest with you. I I'm having a hard time supporting this just because we have some some gaps um in the information I think it would take to for me to move forward on this. And one of those is the is the road itself. Um I'm not sure we've got that if we've got it nailed down. And maybe uh we need to to reconsider this at some point for at least if you want my support. But I guess the other is just how we got here in general. Um and I'm Johnny come late to this whole process. I did my best to get caught up on the facts and the history of this. And I I'm still puzzled and troubled about how we got here. Um and I'm not going to say I'm I'm done with that. But uh I I'm not going to be able to support the project as it as it's presented today. I just want to let you know

and and to be clear, I'm not asking for approval of a project today. Commissioner Kerr, I'm going to try to get uh Stephen, will you answer the question about the roadway? As far as I know, the roadway is approved. like my my recollection of it is that the not the roadway necessarily, but the driveway access to that property is approved by T DOT and there was an agreement as part of that that in the future when that back lot is developed there's an extension built over to I think it's a signalized intersection. Correct. That's right. Yes. Does that kind of ring true with your recollection of Yes, that's those agreements.

That's exactly what T dot has put in a letter to Sarah. Um, I think they call it a exception, special exception or something, but it says that they want um that access. They want the city to enforce that access from it's already stubbed out. If you look at the plan, it's there's a second way to get in. It's just you got to get you got to get through a a vacant property that's not yet developed. Well, no, no. I that's my construction entrance. That's not the access that that'll go away entirely. Um, but when the property behind the Exxon develops, it'll have a a permanent access that connects to that same location.

Does that answer your question, Commissioner? Okay. All right. Next I saw was Commissioner Martin. Hey, thank you for bringing this exciting project to us. Um there are I guess now two or now three homes that have been purchased. Um and what does what impact would it have on them if everything else went lease? Would there be an impact or asking? I think that's the root of the point here is that there's not

unless someone just wanted to frankly discriminate against someone that pays rent over pays a mortgage. I can't imagine any other impact it might have on them. Okay. Um, and then you mentioned at the top that you could unilaterally just do this anyway. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

Uh, yes. Yeah, we we unilaterally record restrictions on our properties. Every property we develop. It's pretty common for any any subdivision developer. Um, but they have the ability to go typically would have the ability to go modify those. Um, so what I'm here offering is to remove that ability to unilaterally modify the restrictions as the developer or as the HOA later as property owners collectively. You know, 49 one day there will be 49 property owners in this subdivision. Some may choose to lease their property, some may choose to live there, but ultimately there'll be 49 property owners. In a typical situation, those 49 property owners could unilaterally go amend their own CCNRs to change whatever they want. Like we every house has to be pink now or whatever. Um, but there's certain restrictions on the zoning of the property that are enforcable by the city. For this one, um, it's it's pretty it's down to the I mean the colors of the building, you know, and the look and the feel and everything. is a zoning um restriction. This adds to that. This says that this would be an amendment by by voluntarily amending my own CCNRs to ensure leasing restrictions are also um something that's enforceable by the city. That that's what I meant by that.

Thank you, Commissioner Silwood. I saw you're next. Thank you for being here today. So unlike a lot of the planning commissioners, I was actually through this entire process. So I remember a lot of what we discussed and what happened and let me just remind everyone the problem with this project has always been that access the access road. So it sounds like some of that might be getting resolved. So I'm happy to hear that. Um, but a comment you excuse me, you made a minute ago to Commissioner Kerr made it sound like the city somehow forced you. No, I didn't say that. You you excuse me.

I I I don't feel that way at all. You You alluded to that you felt forced into having owner occupied. And I can tell you for a fact that the January 11th Bulma meeting Mhm. 2022, you self-imposed that restriction on yourself. So now you're here. I couldn't make the amendment. I did not make the amendment. You The mayor made You offered that up. The mayor made the amendment. You offered that up because you saw the writing on the wall that it was not going to be reszoned and you were doing everything you could to get it resoned because the access was always a problem.

I think it's clear. It's on record that I said many times over that we would prefer not to restrict these so harshly to never allowing anyone to rent them. But if the city feels like that's necessary, I'm okay with it. The other thing you said that's exactly meeting was in November of 2021, you told Arlene Cunningham that if any one of these were sold, then they would all be sold as individual owner occupied. This was before you made the offer to make them owner occupied or if any were going to be leased, they would be all leased and you would lease manage that lease yourself. So, there's been a lot of back and forth. There's been a lot of changes,

right? But ultimately the last reading of this project a motion a motion was made to amend the ordinance that these be owner occupantly owner occupied only period there. No no no other detail no other whatifs. No no no exception for military leave no exception for health care health reasons nothing. You brought that upon yourself as a self-imposed restriction. Anybody can go back and watch. It's all on YouTube, right? I I I watched extremely clear. So, I mean, I'm just saying that to say I'm not that were to be the case.

I am not inclined to vote to give you relief on your own self-imposed restriction. And additionally, we find out that you've actually been selling them when we have a letter dated July 25th claiming you've sold none. when you actually sold one in April and two in June. We sold two in April as an as an investment of the models. I was unaware of the ones in June till after they closed. Okay. But this letter is

I think I'm very forthcoming. I said that said it right out of the gate when I got up here. It it feels as though you're accusing me of being deceitful. I've seen uh I've seen Councilman Martin's Facebook rants about me being deceptive and things of that nature. It's a little embarrassing for the city and me personally. Um, it feels like slander, but I didn't want to go there until I'm being accused now of I am Commissioner Silkwood,

not Alderman Martin. First of all, let's start there. Secondly, I'm speaking to you about the self-imposed restrictions that you brought upon yourself so that you thought would help with the resoning and that's what the city agreed to and I am not inclined to give you relief on that. I will say that I wish they could be all owner occupied and at that time I feel like the conditions of the economy supported that. It it really didn't bother me. I was very clear over and over that if the city feels like that's something that is concerning to them, if they feel like um there's something that would occur in this neighborhood by allowing a renter to live there, I'm okay with it. I was because I had no fear in selling them. Interest rates were at like a three or something. Um you could sell anything you wanted to anybody. I mean it was it but that's times have changed. This is proven to be what I hope everyone agrees to be as a good-looking neighborhood, but is not selling like it's supposed to. And we can talk about how two units have sold for 50,000 less than cost. Let's let's just be practical here. That's not saying, "Aha, you've sold two now. You you don't really have a problem." Um, but conversely, I'm not saying that changes anything. What I'm asking today is does the city feel like there will be a discernable difference in allowing a renter to live in Hendersonville at this location? And if they do, vote no for it. We'll keep struggling. But if um if if they can't see any any other reason to allow that type of citizen to live at this location,

I don't see why not. Um so that I'm here hatinand saying I want to self-impose new restrictions. I want to lift the one that's done by zoning ordinance because I don't think it's right, but I want to self-impose some that does give the city the teeth that I think that ensures this is a good-looking development and remains that way. Um, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sell more houses. I mean, frankly, I I don't know that this moves moves the needle much. I'm just doing what I can to try to help it. I don't want to see it fall in disrepair. I don't want to see it bankrupt. Um, just to be frank, my my builder is already in default on buying more lots because he can't sell the units. So there there's there's a sequence of events that have occurred all the way going back to when I didn't have a problem with putting this restriction on as a zoning as a zoning ordinance requirement. But there's been a lot of things happened since then that have not been in favor of success for this neighborhood. So to keep it looking good and keep it successful, I'm proposing what I think is a reasonable compromise. If it's not, I'm open to whatever we could do to change it. Um but if it's just a hell no, then I'll I'll walk out of here with my tail tucked and decide what I have to do after that. Commissioner Silwood, you have anything else?

No. Okay. Any other commissioners? Any other comments? Other than that, we have a commissioner that's willing to offer a motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, first of all, I'm not the least bit concerned with profits or whether or not the product will sell. That's not my concern. Uh secondly, uh I don't like the way this thing came down in the first place before I was on the planning commission. Uh and I spoke so at the time. Uh since that particular time, we've been in this exact situation and we're at the precipice of a very slippery slope here. And regardless of how we all feel about how this thing came down, uh the results of what we do will impact us andor Mr. Elely uh in days to come and what we do uh determines how difficult that is. So I will make a motion that we recommend removal of the rental restriction in this particular project. And I will second that motion in order to push it to the will of the commission. So we will do this by electronic roll call vote.

Hold on one second. Uh Commissioner Evans, is it with the conditions that they have presented or without those conditions that they have presented? It's without those conditions unless unless somebody wants to make us an alternative motion to leave those in. I don't believe we have the authority to do that. Okay. I do not. But uh again, I I just want to Let's try it the way it is. And I I did, if I might, can I can I say something? You go right ahead.

Um when you brought that, Commissioner Evans, when you brought that up the first time, it it did have raise some concern for me. If if I wanted to pretend I knew anything about the legalities of this, um I I can understand what you're saying. I can understand your concern is that you're you're just you're going right back to having the city imposing rental restrictions and that's a that you feel like that's a problem. And I don't disagree with you because we I do this in a lot of cities around Middle Tennessee and and I just have to say it is a problem for cities u personally speaking. But um one way we could maybe prevent that um prevent any liability, any additional change in liability on the city. I feel like I can record these on my own. You can you can keep your motion as is and I'm just going to go record these before I make it to Bulma. So, it's done. It's there. And essentially, instead of having city signature, I will put in something to the effect of you have to present to the city and get an opinion. appropriately where such oversight should apply.

So, not with the planning commission. So, that that was my plan anyway when I heard you say that the first time is just to go on and get get it done. And it can't hurt me if the if the if I'm I'm already imposing these rental restrictions in there. Now, if I add that the city has to have a say so in altering them, um I've done that myself and you know, I think that that relieves the city of the liability of of trying to enforce restriction on rental.

I don't like this, but this is the best alternative. So, the commissioner has offered a motion to accept the offering as is, and you're not going to include the additional restrictions. Okay. And I have second that motion. So, now that motion's before us and we're ready to do an electronic vote. Motion to approve. Pass with five yeses, two and three nos. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Next we have before us is site plans. This one is the Nashville Classic Rentals Mural Site Plan. Owner 4F Business LLC, location 318 Rockland Road, parcel 1600D 017.00. [Music] The lead planning staff is Caitlyn Shin. Caitlyn, would you like to tell us about this?

Yes, sir. Um, Nashville Classic Rentals has opened um or is in the process of opening a Classic Rental business at 318 Rockland. Uh, they are requesting approval to install a wall mural on the western side of the building. The the mural would face Rockland Road and serve as a visual feature for those entering the western side of Hendersonville. The property is bordered by White House Utility to the south, Southern Athletics to the west, and Joetown Classic Car Restoration to the east. Uh, the proposed mural would use the paint colors from the Bear Dynasty collection, including Golden Air Ara, Amber Brew, Firecracker, and Limousine Leather. However, we are requesting that a word other than classic be used in the mural, as classic is part of the business name. um including it would uh would classify the mural as a sign under the zoning code which is not permitted in the context. Um per chapter 13.10.1 of the zoning ordinance, the criteria for mural consideration are outlined on pages three and four of your staff report and the applicant has agreed to all staff comments.

Thank you. Would you like to speak? Will you tell us your name? Sure. My name is Aiden Phely. And your address, please. Uh personal? Sure. Uh 45503 Saunders. Okay. Um in East Nashville.

Uh yeah, I've this is my really my first time building a business. You guys could imagine. I've uh caught a couple surprises here along the way. I'm just this little country boy who's like, "What? I you guys say how what I paint on my building?" Shocked. Shocked at the process. But I'm having fun. We're we're rolling with it. We're having a good time. I go, you know, we drew one up the first time and we were like, yeah, it looks like um we I I hadn't read all the fine print. I thought, screw it, man. Put my logo right on the side. We, you know, we wanted an interesting mural. It's kind of a blessing that you said, don't put your own logo there because we're like, cool. I go to my business partner, be we just get to be more artsy now. So, this is what we drew up. Um, it's also funny that uh classic is a problem because it's in my title because when I thought classic for a reason was really catchy and I just put it on the side of my building, it just wasn't even like that's also in the title of the and becomes an ad. So, I get it. I'm with it, you guys. Whatever you say goes. Um, I have had a really good time building a classic car rental business. I've come into this as an actor who just happened to meet I knew what they liked on set and what classic cars looked like in the business and this is just a really fun opportunity where I get to, you know, do more of that and kind of pave my way. Um, I just happened to meet a guy who wanted to help me do it. So, we've been building this business. It's been a lot of sweat equity so far. We actually did do our ribbon cutting and like our official launch last weekend. Um, it was really fun. A lot of people came out. Everybody was excited about the cars and just looking for, you know, they're alreadyounding my line trying to find cars to put in music videos and commercials and stuff like that. So, it's an exciting prospect that we're just trying to move forward on. And I thought it would be really cool to put something interesting on the building because of the way Rockland um

is oriented and the way that it comes off of Main Street there. I just thought it would be cool to have people see something, you know, that instead of just kind of a boring concrete building if we could put some color on there and, you know, make it fun. Not to mention, I get to hire another local actress, artist friend of mine and she gets to do the painting and also put money in her pocket. So, we're like win-win as long as you guys can find a mural that works for you. All right, commissioners, any questions, comments? Commissioner Hasty, I see you're first. wasn't okay. I maybe I miss it missed it down here, but he's got to take the work classic off of there. Yes, sir. Because

what are you going to put on there if you take it off? Great question. Um,

so we we liked um they don't make them like they used to in the same font. Um it's kind of something we've been using on shirts and hats and stuff like that. It's also just a tagline we put on our website. Um the uh it wasn't my favorite of the slogans to put on the side of the building, but I do think it checks the boxes and is uh sufficiently interesting to draw attention to my business. If you were driving by and you saw a nice 64 Galaxy 500 convertible that's sparkling with those kind of 70s colors and you saw they don't make them like they used to, you might be like they sure don't. And then you might stop in and rent a car. then we're all happy. So, if you like that one,

okay, just so in other words, you're gonna work with the staff and come up with wording to go on the mural. I think our mural there is a good idea. And personally, I don't have a problem with the word classic, my man. I think it's I think that fits your what you're doing. I think you guys should vote. I'd be more than happy to grant him a variance to put it if we could, but I I guess we can't do that. Well, the problem is it's part of his name. I bet it's signage. And it's then it becomes a sign, not art. So, we had also done the We successfully

um bartered with you guys on the front sign. The signage on the front we passed and it's really just like letters I bought off of Amazon. 17inch Nashville Classic Reynolds right on the front. Um, to that end, we also weren't putting another Nashville Classic Reynolds beyond the fact that it's just a long handle. We weren't putting on the inside either. We weren't trying to like bludgeon people to death. It just so happened that classic for a reason was a short hand for like there's a reason cars like this look cool. Um, there's a reason you're drawn to them on camera and for your wedding drive off and for whatever. um they are classics for a reason. So then like in my brain I was like we're classic for a reason. What are we even talking about? Just happens to be in the name.

But I'm okay with you, Muriel. I'll just work with the staff and come up with wording that works for everybody. I dig it. I I can say something. Uh Commissioner Freeze or I'm sorry, Director Free is going to speak.

Yeah. I mean, um, having the name on there and that it's a part of the build, part of the name of the business is technically fits, you know, what the zoning is saying not to do. Uh but if the planning commission felt strongly that this particular use of the word in this setting was desirable, I I think I think you could approve it if if you felt strongly to do it. I think as a typical rule, we would not want to do this. But in a given setting, if you if you feel strongly that that was the case, I don't think it would be inappropriate to do it. If if there was a strong feeling of that, if that helps. So,

Commissioner Slatterie, I saw you next in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you for doing this in Hendersonville. I think this is fun. I like this. Thank you for having me. Yeah, agree.

Um I I just think it's a really neat thing and I I think there are a lot of opportunities for people to think about cars that they see in videos and keep thinking about John Rich in a convertible. Um I'm I'm stumped as to why we can't say classic for a reason. And I just went back and and confirmed again because I thought I remembered Tailgate Brewery with their mural. Now, they have a sign at the top that is clearly the signage for their building, but they've got a little banner thing that's part of their mural that says tailgate. So, is that the is that the same thing?

I can't speak to that one. Okay. Because I'm not as familiar with that. I just want to understand It would be in the same um it would be in the same nature. Yes. So I what Keith said I I I would fully support doing this as a one-off and I'm usually a stickler about not doing oneoffs, but I think classic for a reason kind of sums it up and I think that's going to make it a much prettier look coming around that corner on Rockland. Completely concrete. Okay. That's all I had. Thank you. Well, the next one I saw was Commissioner Martin.

I love the mural and thanks for bringing your business to Hendersonville. Um, I agree with both. Uh, chairman or um, so I love Classic for a reason. Um, the name of the business is Nashville Classic Rentals. It's not like they're putting Serpro on the side. It's not Serpro. That was my very first question was like I'm not putting up a McDonald's logo or anything like and you're not putting Nashville Classic Reynolds out there.

Um classic is actually a common word we use all the time. And so if I'm seeing that I'm not seeing, you know, the name of the business, Nashville Classic Rentals. I'm seeing a plastic for a reason in the car. So I would agree. And if I were to make the motion, I would do it to accept it. So we'll see how the rest talk. Commissioner Evans, I saw you next. Well, I can't wait to see what you're going to have down there. Uh, what do you want me to have? Good answer. But having been around uh at the time, I don't believe that's a 64. I think it's a 65. And it's got a 390 in it. It does have a 390 in it.

The emblem right behind right. And by the way, great call. Uh with our other convertible is the one that me and my fiance got engaged with and now happen to own and rent out. That's the 64 T-Ird. The 65 Galaxy 500 I just picked up. Drives like an absolute dream. Stop by sometime. Trip down memory lane. You'll love it. All right. Uh Commissioner Kerr, uh this is very creative and I I think it's a great idea. My question is to the staff. Have we uh denied this same type of concept with anybody else? I mean, have we said you can't have the name of your business on a mural?

We've only had I believe this will be the third application for a wall mural because the wall mural portion of the zoning ordinance was added in, if I'm remembering correctly, in 2020. Um, so this is only the third person that's actually or third company that's actually had to come before us um and get approval. The first one was Centerpoint Liquors and I am trying to remember the other one. Um, tailgate. Tailgate. Thank you. Uh, so this is this is part newer part of the zoning ordinance in the last we we granted exceptions for the other two. Okay, that's that's all I need to know. Thanks. Well, actually I don't think so.

There was no exception on the center point. There wasn't any wording on center point. Okay. Yeah. Well, then what did what how did it like this then? Tailgate is the one. Tailgate. Tailgate is the one that did have wording on it. Okay. And that's the one has this the sign actually as part of that. Tailgate. You know where tailgate is on Santa pizza used to be marina. It has tailgate as their true signage on the top of the building. And then the mural is butterflies and kind of a dolly look, but there is a little banner that is painted. That is part of the painting that says tailgate. Gotcha. Oh, uh oh, I didn't say anything. You stay.

I changed my mind. Leave them alone. Leave them alone. There we go. Okay. But in in this instance, uh there it is. See where that is over there? It's this right here says tailgate. Yeah. Is that painted? Yeah. Okay. Oh, artist. Yeah. Um, they're going to come after me next. I like the concept. I I think it's very creative. I just want to make sure that we're being consistent. That's all I'm trying to

Yeah. I I think u a motion that would want to allow this really not necessarily an exception. It would just be um approving uh approving the request with the with the name classic for a reason. Uh you know on there uh that that is appropriate for uh to go with this particular mural and I think that would okay

I think that would be be fine. I think all of these and there'll be more of them here in the coming years, but each one of these is just very unique and it really is we want to have consistency, but the murals themselves as we look at them over the next couple of years, you know, there may be some you deny, but each one of them are going to be very unique. And it's going to be situationally where it's at, what what it looks like, and also what it says. But something clearly uh as Commissioner Martin had said uh something clearly that's the name of the business can't be in that. Uh but uh this just is one of those things that kind of got tripped up in our uh review net that we caught, you know, to bring to your attention. But there's nothing wrong with you all approving it as is if you feel strongly to do so. And that's really not even any significant exception. It's just approving it in the context of the wording and the mural.

I think we all appreciate the staff doing what they've done. No problems there. You did what you're supposed to down there. That's good. Commissioner Slatterie, you're still Oh, I'm just ready to make a motion. Okay. Well, go I I'll entertain motion. Go right ahead. So, I make a motion that we accept the mural design for Nashville Classic Rentals as presented with the wording classic for a reason because it suits the nature of their business but does not name their business. Second. We have a second. So, we'll do this by electronic vote. Where do you keep right there on the property? We've got about a half acre and easement split with our neighbor there. So,

motion pass with eight yeses. Zero nose. Welcome to Henderson. Love to hear it. Thanks for having me you guys. Thank you. Okay, next site plan is Fresh Run Cell Tower. Site plan, owner, Hendersonville Utility District. Location is 98 Fresh Run Drive, parcel 169 E02400. [Music] Uh planning staff Timothy, this one's yours. Go ahead.

Thank you. So, this uh this site is located um 98 Fresh Run Drive on the Walton Ferry Peninsula. It's owned by Hendersonville Utility District, HUD. Um so that HD has had a water tower on that that little uh piece for decades and along the way have added uh um they have their their own uh radio um equipment to service their own personnel and they have also um put up cell antennas from Verizon and some some other um vendors. Um and I believe all of that materialized before our telecommunications ordinance as as it exists today. Um so they have decommissioned this water tower and are planning to remove it and replace it with a booster station. Um, and in doing so, they need to uh put up a new monopole uh to provide a place for those cell antennas and their own radio equipment to go. They went before the before the board of zoning appeals um uh a couple months ago and got a conditional use permit to allow the use itself. Um now it's before the planning commission to get the site plan for it approved. uh they are requesting uh five uh modifications is how the telecommunications ordinance terms it's basically basically like a variance except that the planning commission when it comes to the the telecommunications ordinance hears variances. So um I'm going to group these modifications in I think two or three groups. So the first looking at the first three requests

um looking at one uh one and three together. So so one through three one two and three are requests um to not be required to provide certain information that's required by the ordinance. Um, so number one, the ordinance requires a letter from an engineer that the proposed tower will not interfere with radio and over the air transmissions. And then related to that, number looking at number three, uh, that ordinance requires the applicant to submit information on the proposed power density of the equipment um, and demonstrate how it meets FCC standards. So, they're requesting a a waiver of that requirement. Um, and I just just sort of parenthetically will note that that same ordinance. Um, and it's this is on page eight at the bottom of the page. Uh that ordinance says the act the act being the telecommunications act gives the FCC sole jurisdiction of the field of regulation of of RF emissions and does not allow the city to condition or deny on the basis of RF impacts the approval of any telecommunication facilities which meet FCC standards. Um so the ordinance admits that but then requires the applicant to submit information pertaining to that. So that's what those two number one and number three is asking the applicant to submit information uh as to the RF impacts radio frequency impacts in the area. So impacts being to radio transmission, over the air television, or whatever else there is. Um, again, they're requesting not to have to provide that information. And

just as a side note, in the upcoming ordinance, staff is proposing to to amend that our current ordinance to remove these two requirements because if the city can't regulate it, we if the planning commission can't make a determination on that basis, should the city even be requesting that information from the applicant. Um, so that takes care of one and three. Uh or uh modification number two uh requires evidence from an engineer that the site does not pose risk of fire, explosion or hazardous conditions. Um and the applicant's response to that is this is again on page eight. Applicant requests a variance to the letter in this section due to the fact that no new equipment that is volatile, flammable, explosive or hazardous materials will be added to the scope of this project. Existing equipment on site is to remain undisturbed. Of course, they are adding a new monopole and um equipment associated with that. Uh so that's number two. And then moving on to modification number four. Um, number four, the ordinance requires a 10-ft landscape screen around the cell tower site. Uh, so there's existing vegetation um on two sides of the property that pretty much meet the intent of that ordinance, the screening intent. On the other two sides, there's there's very little screening. There's a few trees um that are in the neighbor's yards. Uh so, HUD is requesting a waiver from having to do additional landscaping on those other two sides because in order to in order to do that

landscaping, they would have to put it in the neighbor's yard. They don't really have room to put it within their own property. Uh then moving on to or to modification number five. That ordinance requires that the tower be set back a minimum of 200 feet from any residentially zoned lot. Uh HD's lot is only 7 about 75 ft by 80 ft. So it's not physically possible them to meet that requirement. So they're asking for a waiver for that. Um and then last thing, um any motion to grant or deny a modification, uh should use the staff comment number one on page 11 as a basis. um that lists the considerations. What sort of the findings of fact that need to be made in support of uh a motion to approve or deny one of the modifications and that this is under staff comments planning department um numbers one through four that really should all be under just number one but it got reformatted. Um, so just make sure you if you make a motion include those one of those findings of fact in that motion in support of the in support of the motion.

That completes my staff report.

Well, usually these are pretty easy, but that's a lot of complication you just that you just threw in there. Tim Timothy earned his page. You did tonight. Okay. Well, I see uh Commissioner Slatterie, you're in the queue. What would you like to say?

I I just have a question. The requested modification number two, the requirement is they have to have a written they have to have written technical evidence from a licensed engineer acceptable to the fire marshall and the business official blah blah blah blah blah. And the variance request is them saying we don't have any of those things rather than having an engineer verify that they don't have those things. Doesn't that kind of negate the requirement that the applicant can just say not us? Okay. All right. I'm I just wanted to clarify that I understood that correctly. Thank you.

Good. Commissioner Hasty, I see you're in the queue. Um, when this went before the board of zoning appeals, uh, did all the neighbors get notified as to what's going to take place? Yes, sir. And were they aware of the and I'm sure the bot zoning appeals was well aware of the requirements of the ordinance. um that yes, they're they're aware that um there are site plan requirements that they would have to meet and in order to do the project, they would have to pass muster with the planning commission. Was there very much neighborhood opposition or any

uh there were there were one or two folks that got up and um um had concerns about the the visibility of it. a whole lot less visible than that tower that that big tank they're going to take down. So that could improve things taking a tank down from a visibility a lot better in our long as they were aware. Yes, they Yeah. Everybody within 250 ft of the of the property was was notified. Commissioner Kerr, you're up.

Yeah. on on the exception on wer five uh where it has the modification of 200 ft setback understanding that it has a 65 ft uh fall radius. What is the setback? What would that actually be if you place that tower there? Um I don't have a dimension u but if you look at the site plan on page four the monopole is shown in red uh and then the uh that line with the x at the perimeter that's that's the property line. So looking at it, I would I would guess it's um I I would say within 8 to 10 feet of the the property line.

So if I mean if if I were a property owner and I'm used to a 200 200 foot setback and you're going to go to 10 feet, I would probably ask some questions about that. So are is that a particular concern that some of the property owners raised? No, the the setback was was uh was uh not in discussion at that time. Oh, so they didn't know when it was when you sent the notice out. They didn't know if there was a change in the setback or they did know. Did not know.

But now that you know there's a change in the setback, how do we disclose that to the property owners? Um it's uh it's a the the ability to make a modification is just left up to the planning commission. It doesn't require public notification.

So if you're going from 200 feet to 10 feet and I was one of the property owners, I sure would want to know that. Um and and maybe I'm making a a major out of a minor here, but that seems like a pretty pretty large difference. So yeah, just to be clear the the existing water tank which serves as a as a as a tower structure for the ordinance um has has a similar setback. So yeah,

just look just looking at it, it's not I understand what you're saying about about the the the changed from the ordinance requirement. Um, but just looking at it, the change from the water t from the water tank proximity to the cell tower proximity, they're pretty equivalent. And I understand it may look better, but I'm just technically reading this. Do do we need to make them aware of what the actual setback will be with this new tower? I don't know what it looks like compared to the old water tower. I mean, if I were a property owner, I'd want to know that. Well, I hear what you're saying, Commissioner Kerr. I'm just sitting here looking at this drawing. I think it's in front of you right there. If you notice where the water tank is in comparison to the property line versus the monopole and then the fall radius is I mean it almost looks like the monopole is in a better position than the tank was on one corner probably

in relation to the building. Yeah. in relation to the structures around it. Yeah. Is what I'm looking at. But nevertheless, I mean, the water tank's not going to fall very far. It'll topple over. But and that was the other part of I mean, the way I read that is that if if winds over 112 miles an hour occurred that it wouldn't topple. It would break. It would break and it wouldn't just like that. So that that is to me if I were property owner that would be important to know especially if I was right on the next to it. Yeah.

Uh and the applicant did in their initial submitt it had a larger fall radius. We encouraged them to take a fresh look at that and see if they could reduce that and they did they they reduced it down to what you what you see here. Well I I mean look I'm it doesn't affect my property but I as a property owner I would probably want to know that. But if you're telling me that it's it's really an improvement and it's really not a measurable change between the water tower and the cell tower, I I mean that's I just want to get on record to say I think that it's important that the uh property owners understand that.

Okay. Uh Commissioner Slatter, I see you're in the queue, too. I just had another question so that I learn a little something about towers today. So, was this thing installed 35 ft into the ground? Because it says it's a 100 foot tower monopole, but it has a 65 foot fall. It's designed is that is that part of the it breaks and right to break. Okay. Yeah. They designed what they call a crumple zone. Okay. Within the tower itself so that it it will Okay. Because I was going to say if if the math is off, someone swimming in that pool might get hurt. But if it's designed to crumble crumble. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, Commissioner Hast, one more quick question. Sure. Now, this tower is for the utility district's use for meter reading. Right. We're not doing this for AT&T or somebody, right? Well, you see T-Mobile and AT&T are already using the top of the tank, but it's primarily for for the utility district. For the utility district. Yes. And you know, they just using at service.

No, it's it's it's all the above. It's HUD has their their radio read antennas on it, but they also I assume they lease it out to uh make it available to carriers like Verizon. So this is, as I understand it, this is serving as it's just like any other cell tower. It's it's providing service to the everybody in that community in that area of Hendersonville. And and Charles, if you look on their drawing, it shows that they have T-Mobile and AT&T on the site. Yeah, I see that. currently. So they they actually have equipment sitting there on the ground

and there is no other tower within a mile at least a mile probably more than that of this particular tower. So it's So we're not approving this for the utility district. No, it looks like you're approving it for the utility district, but they're they have these guys leasing from them. Correct. Yep. So, it looks like the utility district is, you know, helping defer their costs with these other people.

Uh, Director F, I see you have something.

Yeah. The uh the one the one modification that I think as far as the staff really feels like needs to be taken care is not granted would be the request for modification number two. We we do feel strongly and I I think fire does as well. PL staff and fire feel that you know this is a reasonable thing for to have an engineer address that. So that's that's reasonable. I think as we look at this, if this was just a empty piece of property or somebody was trying to do this and there hadn't already been all the stuff that's already on there, uh I don't there's no way that uh that I think we would be entertaining a lot of these uh different things. And probably it would have had a a more difficult time if it would have even made it through the BCA. uh but giving the existing circumstances uh you know that's already there compared to what they're talking about doing at least opens the door for that. But I just wanted to say that if it was something that was just a vacant piece of property that didn't have any of these existing things on there, uh these certainly wouldn't be a lot of these things wouldn't be things I think we want to entertain uh to to wave. But this this is a little bit different in uh in where that it uh and where that it is.

Okay. Uh Commissioner Hardwood. So basically, we're trading a water tower for a cell phone pole.

Yep. But going back to what Director Free brought up, you also are, you know, they're asking for several waivers here. Now, some of these waivers, what Timothy said is we probably shouldn't worry about them anyway because we don't have direct control over them. But the number two waiver is something that the fire department's interested in knowing. So, you know, it looks like it needs to be modified a little bit. The utility district needs to give a little information as it relates to is there something flammable, you know, in that storage area that could harm the people nearby. So,

and the other waver and the other waivers are because it physically just can't meet them. Just physically can't meet them. goes back to what Director Free said. Correct. We'd say no if it was new, but it's not new. It's not new. I agree. So, no other commissioners. Timothy, I see you're still up. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.

No other commissioners. So, we can entertain a motion. And you heard what Timothy said. If you entertain a motion, you need to look at the bottom of page 11. And it should include those things. And you also heard the comment about item number two. We should make sure that we keep a requirement in and around that as it relates to the fire. So, do I hear anyone ready to present a motion? No one. Well, I'll do my best at it then. How's that? And see what your all positions are going to be. Yeah. So, I will make the motion that we accept the variances with the exception of number two. Actually, yeah, the number two variance. I want to keep that in requiring the applicant to address it and uh I want to approve it with the requested modification of keeping number two in or the number two variance in uh the motion. Okay. that the tower is modified. It will be compatible with and not adversely impact the character and integrity of the surrounding properties. Off-site or on-site conditions exist which mitigate the adverse impacts of any created by the modification. Uh, and I think that's all I need to include. Is that correct, Director?

Free Timothy. Is that Timothy? Does that feel like it covers it well enough? So, just to summarize it y'all, the motion will exclude everything but the number two variance and it will have all that language put in there that it that it will not adversely impact the character and integrity of the surrounding properties and so on so forth. And do I have a second?

We have a second. Next, we will do this by electronic. Motion passed with eight yeses. Thank you very much, Zach. Okay, that takes us to the staff level projects. I don't think I need to read these. Everybody can see that these are all approved. Staff level projects that are pending. You see Forest Retreat, uh, Manser Farms, Meadow of Indian Lake, and the Mot Partners property consolidation?

Uh, yeah. The Cages Road Development. Yeah. Uh, you familiar with that one? Commercial? The 128 Sanders Fairy, right? That's the one that had all of the public comments. That was that was originally going to be Is it going to be a retirement or active adult or No, this one's different. Uh it's going to be uh two buildings connected with a breezeway. It's actually a commercial strip basically a commercial strip center. Oh, okay. Yeah. And uh they have deferred a couple of times. They may be on the next month's agenda. I think they were aiming for the resubmitt date this month.

Okay. So, you may see them ne uh next month or the following month. But this is to square up some things to consolidate the two lots. They've got one small lot, three lots, one big lot, and two small lots. And to consolidate them all into one lot. So, any other questions about any of these that are pending from anyone? I do. Just I know everybody's ready to go. What What's happening at 109 Erlene? That one was uh sub I'm sorry, I can't hear you. That one was subdivided into two lots. The house that it that is existing,

the house is being torn down um before they can record the plat. So, they're going to build two houses where the main house is. Yes, sir. I was afraid of that. Thank you.

It met the requirements. Tim, I do have one other question. Go right ahead, Commissioner C. Yeah. Uh, and and I don't see it, but maybe it's already been approved. Move on. The tennis courts at Mel Hyde. Where is that? Yeah. Uh, that was that was actually approved last month by staff. So, that was ready to go. Yeah, that was the small. I had somebody asked me that question and I'm like, I think I think it's good. I think that's what all the dirt's moving out there. Well, I heard it was two twopurp purpose there. It was another building plus the the tennis courts. This one I think is just the two tennis courts. That's one facing New Shackle. Yes. Timothy maybe can address. Yes, there. Yeah, there's the tennis courts. There's also the Summit County Health Yeah. building that's kind of

up and remove the mood from that, but on the same site. Same site. Yeah. Okay. Next is planning director comments.

Yeah. I will just uh uh piggyback on that question about the um um subdivision of uh taking one lot and tearing a house down in building two. uh we get a lot of requests from for that. I would say it works out that probably for every 10 10 properties that want to do that typically about only two maybe uh are able to do it. We have lot compatibility requirements uh which um uh keeps keeps that from happening quite a bit. But I would say probably on any given week we have one or two people asking about specific properties wanting to subdivide. A lot of uh pressure on lakefront properties. Uh people have large lakefront properties and they're wanting to subdivide them into four or five. Uh and even if they can meet the zoning requirement of the 20,000 square foot lots and the lot widths, uh they can't meet lot compatibility. And what lot compatibility is is if in your section of your neighborhood, more specifically in older neighborhoods, typically in the peninsula, but there's other areas that that that it's happening in, but typically in the peninsula where you have larger lots, but if the average lot is of a certain size, then even if you could subdivide your one piece of property and meet the minimum zoning requirements in SR1, 20,000 square feet, you still can't subdivide it because you can't meet lot compatibility.

Yeah. Because we don't want a bunch of real small tiny lots in the same section where we have larger larger lots. So, uh that's uh that's made a made a significant difference. But I Yeah. Yeah. And a lot of them when they are compatible, they meet compatibility, they just barely meet it. I mean, it's just it's just barely squeezing.

Yeah. But we we do look at that. But I wanted to share that. I don't have anything really to share in detail about anything, but I did want to mention to everybody, you'll be getting something from uh I think it might be Caitlyn. Caitlyn might be sending you something on our zoning ordinance revisions and subdivision regulations. I think we're going to be advertising Thursday. This Thursday, uh uh to make that available to the public and we're going to get that to you all. And at our next planning commission meeting uh then we will have uh go over uh making recommendation on the revisions of the zoning ordinance dipoma and then adopting uh the changes in the subdivision regulations. So that is uh that is coming. a lot of changes. A lot of those changes have been things that you all have shared in meetings and we've discussed uh and then we had the work session uh but we've implemented a lot of those general thoughts and ideas uh that the planning commissioners have had over the last last year or so. So, I just wanted to share that and that's all I had, Mr. Chairman.

All right. And thank you all tonight uh for your patience. It was long and drooling and a lot of information, but thank you. Uh, other than that, I'll take a motion for an adjournment. So, move. We got us first and a second. Everybody say I. I. Any nays? You want to stay here? [Music]