Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Okay, get started. Happy new year everybody. It is 6 o'clock January 6, 2026. I call this regular meeting of the Montgomery City McGomery Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Um, our first order of business is the pledges to the uh flag United States of America to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Texas. Honor the Texas flag. I aliance to the Texas one state one and indivisible. Let's see. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak uh during the open uh open comment section? Is there anyone? Nope. Okay. And we will move on to item number three, which is consideration and possible action on PNZ regular meeting minutes of December 2nd, 2025.

I'll make a motion to approve the meetings from the PNZ regular meeting of December 2nd, 2025. I second. Uh we have a sec motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. All oppose say no. Uh motion carries. Item number four, discussion on findings of the utility and economical feasibility study on kaya crawfish kaya development number 259.

Good evening commission. So today in front of you you have the feasibility study put across the Chicago development and I just want to walk you through some of our findings for this development. Um just as a reminder this has already been presented to council and they already took action on it. The only there is no action required. It's just for discussion purposes you ask question. Uh so this development is uh cop uh currently located on 149. Uh the developer for this property uh is Brace Black Homes. I would like to direct you to page 15 of your report um or page 16 actually be a better um larger area view of where the property being located. The property right behind um parlor which is going to be hall. Um if you remember some of y'all may remember this property was previously looked at as the moon over Montgomery development. Um, with that building, they were looking to propose short-term rentals for Lake Havens. Um, it being lest for trees and whatnot. They've come back for this proposed building of Chicago. Uh, so kind of just want to hit the high points of this piece of building. Um, the properties currently zone R1 single. So, there are two different options that they can um in order to continue with their proposed commercial development. as the previous development obtained a special use permit for the short-term rentals, they would be allowed to do the same thing for um the commercial tenant that they're looking to have because they don't know what will be the future development of this should pro you know not renew at least one year. So instead of going through the full reszoning process they just be issued a special use permit for the pro development and then that would terminate once that uh particular phase of commercial development cease to exist. Um, so they

could go through that or resone to uh be commercial. Um, either option is viable. It would be up to up to the developer to decide which one they want to go for. And then kind of going back to some of our exhibits, uh, jumping to page 17 and 18, kind of wanted to talk about um, water capacity. So, as far as this particular development doesn't move the needle all that much. uh proposed uh average for water is 7,000 and waste water is around 4,500. Again, in terms of the overall city capacity, it doesn't deal with very much, but as you all are very aware, the city is receiving a lot of development. Um so, we're monitoring that constantly um and updating our projections um to kind of match and be conservative as we plan for the future. So on page 17 of your report shows our existing wasteful or water capacity, excuse me. Um the blue uh linear line represents our capacity and then the curvatures represent uh different scenarios in which the city is looking. And so everything pre or in the solid orange line is our historical data from uh operator operator reports and then everything after that is a projection as to what could be based on developments that we're currently working through as far as that are in design elements that have executed development agreements or escro agreements or things that we know are just coming in the future that have no actual timeline but could come tomorrow. um if we got an email or call about proposed development. And so these uh projections are designed to be conservative by nature u making sure that we're over designing making sure that we have enough capacity for any event uh within the future. And so as you kind of see there are some areas in which capacity looks like it is close.

it is close um and we're going through the proper uh moving steps and making sure that we have capacity in the future. Uh currently we are in construction for water plant 3 booster pump edition which will add um around 30,000 uh gallons per day of additional flow. And then we're currently in design for water plant 4 which will be going along the broadly development on the west side of town. Um, with these two proposed improvements in the very near future, we will have capacity for all of our current developments um, up until the late 2020s and early 2030s. And going down to wastewater on page 18, very similar story. Um, with all the development going on, we are very close on capacity, but we are making sure that we're being proactive. And as of today, we're actually in 60% review of the Town Creek Wastewater treatment plant phase one. uh expansion project with half engineering. Um and then with additional options of either building out Town Creek uh for full capacity of 6 or building out Stewart Creek which is on 105 on the east side of town close to um Chick-fil-A, building that out to full plant capacity which would be8. So depending upon where development is within the city, if we're seeing more development on the southeast side of the city, we would uh vote to upgrade Stewart Creek. We're seeing it elsewhere in the city with folks of grade concrete. It kind of depends on how the development plays out in the future. Um, as far as other requirements for this development, um, they would be subject to impact fees because the properties already platted um, as of 2021. They would be subject to the PL or impact fees at that time. Um, and so those are outlined as uh proposed with one connection, two inch connection, $12,755 for water and $28,471

for waste water. Um, as far as traffic goes, um, we would be requiring them to install sidewalks to increase connectivity to the overall downtown of the city. Um we're trying to make sure that we're requesting that from developers as they come in. And then as far as drainage goes, they are proposing a private pond within their development. Um we would be requiring them to submit plans, specifications, and a drainage study confirming that there is no detrimental uh impact to neighboring or adjacent property tracks. Have you actually walked this project and taken a look at it?

Yes, sir. So, um, understanding that there is a significant drop from Clever Street down back towards Berkeley, you realize that there the first house behind the hardware store happens to be my son's in-law's house. And the next house to the east, I know those folks, too. We've been drowning them ever since they occup not my son-in-law. painted leather shoes, but they've been drowning these two people off this track ever since these houses were built.

Uh, one of those areas where when we look at these plants, we should be looking at receiving water as well as getting rid of water. And there was no arrangement made here at all. There's two deep ravines in both these yards. Yes, sir.

Back to the spatial use permit for a minute. I understand that Jacobs was going to uh he he was approaching his project as sort of temporary. These were little cottages he was going to place in there, see how it was going to work and not. And the special use permit was to get him through to the first year and then his plan was if it didn't work, he's going to move back out, which I can understand special use permit there. But to put a permanent you building on this, I would certainly advocate that be either reszoned or left alone. One of the two. I agree with you, John.

I agree. Yeah, that with Jacobs that was you. We gave him that special use like you were saying just to try that out and if it didn't work, he was going to pull the cabins off and then rego. But to give a a special use permit to a a commercial structure um I just can't I mean you're saying the council's already made on the feasibility study follow action regarding development

like you know me personally I cannot see giving a special use permit to a a permit structure um you know yeah if Kaya goes out of business um then we have to you know go do this again with either another permit or or you know the the other route with the with the uh reszoning. U but in my personal opinion I think the the special use permit is a non-factor. I don't know about you all but that's how I feel. Can we uh send that to the city council so that they know what we're saying? Um yes that feedback.

Yeah we can and we will relay that information to the developer as well. And then we want feedback as to what they say about that because that is we did that for just Jacob's asking for the temporary just in case it didn't work out. Now we're talking commercial and

yeah the the the roads uh through there. Yeah. Uh I don't see how that's going to handle. You know that's that's the next question. You know, cleer clipper has been a problem for a long, long time. Some of that black top is got to be two and three foot thick. All we keep doing is patching it, patching it, patching it, and it's never fixed, right? But if you would cut in there and try to cut a driveway or something, you'll have one hell of a surprise.

Yeah, we are keenly aware of the roadway conditions overall in the city and Cleer as well. There's a significant develence going on around Cleard um just east or yeah east on TV store DCS development and church Montgomery. So we are monitoring that closely. It's breaking off again right now

and I'm just concerned with the safety with the people walking. We're getting more and more families and foot traffic up and down through the city. Um, and those those the the width of the road and the speed that some of the cars are going down through there, something hopefully that doesn't, but something is is going to happen here. You know, my feeling. So, safety is my concern cuz I we we walk up and down that road all the time and it's uh we do use the sidewalks. Um, a sidewalk there would be nice. I appreciate the heavy

but it will only be in front of their property. Just in their property. Yeah. Which get gets you a little bit right close. So we have the and then you get into residential where you can't force. Right. And then further down Cleer we have sidewalks on the south side and then on the north side which will be installed adjacent to the church of Montgomery development. Um and then BCS as well will be required to install sidewalks on the eastern portion of

CB Stewart their western boundary. So yeah and trying to increase connectivity throughout the city um peacemail milling it as we get developments coming in um is the best way to make sure the city isn't cost. I understand even in your report here you're stating that they can't make a a turn into that uh area because of the radius is required and so so on so forth. Correct. So, you know, we're just this is a non-issue. You can't even we don't even know how we're going to be able to drive and get into it.

So, particularly regarding that and glad you brought that up, they would be required based on the configuration of the existing driveways within the area and our current city ordinances. there's no way for them to configure a driveway to make the required spacing radiuses and uh distances between existing driveways and streets. So, they would have to request a variance for that as well. Um that would be coming back if they were to continue with this development coming back to PNG for recommendation to the council there. Again, you're just increasing the density. You know, there's an issue. Why make another issue on top of it? Let's, you know, we we need to start doing things correctly instead of adjusting to it in a way that just increases the density in in in an occasion like this.

Yes. If they already know they're going to ask for a variance and there's already an issue like why it they're going to come back to us and we're going to say the same thing. We're going to say like it's not going to work. So you want to take away from someone else or take away from something. You know, we're constantly being asked to reduce reduce so they can have bigger bigger and bigger and it it the variance they already know that there's going they're asking for a variance. So they need to work around it before they even get to that point. Like John said, do it right the first time so they don't have to come back to us.

Any additional questions or comments? You mentioned something about ravines in that those properties over there existing. Yes, ma'am. They're natural, right? That's that nexus. Um, so what would they do about those ravines? That would be on their engineering um to kind of design around uh make sure grades work across the site. As I said before, it does drop significantly from Cleard back to Berkeley. So, how are they proposing to do that and how and it comes to you before they do all that? Yes. Okay. Before anything's constructed or um inspected

and you bring it back to us and you explain to us what they think they're going to do to make the water flow in and flow out correctly. So plans and specifications for approval do not have to come back to P&Z or council for commercial development. This was a single family development um for a subdivision say Briley or Legacy Grove with Tri point you would have to come back for Google. But these uh commercial plans do not require additional TN. So perance per So there's no who is going to regulate their their drainage.

So they're required to design per county requirements um as the city of Mary does not have their own standard and we default to the county. The county actually just recently updated their drainage criteria um back in August of 2025. So very new and updated uh information and requirements for autos commercial, residential, etc. I would in those

That's a problem with me because I know the people on the east side of Buffalo Springs uh unintentionally that the people that built that house back in there u I mean they were flooded three or four times before anything was corrected. And luckily that you know those those residents were you know took handled it um uh man leaving something like that especially with not only going to affect John's uh son-in-law but the people next door the people next all all the way down the line which is why they're required to submit that drainage study.

May I make another state another statement? They moved into this house for one about four or five doors up Berkeley to the east. Same problem. Reason they moved out of that house because of sheet flow coming off the that those areas south of Berkeley. They the developer never provided for any kind of uphill drainage concerns. He just went out there and cut lots into an embankment and left it to all drain into those backyards. Unrelated to this, uh we are aware and we are working with public works to address that issue along Anna Springs. They're doing ditch regrading.

Yeah, they should have had an interceptor ditch in there and some easements directed out to Berkeley from that interceptor ditch to deal with the water instead of putting in the neighbor's backyard. Understand? Yes, sir. There are no further questions. I'm

so then the the next process uh city council will get our information we talked about tonight and then what's then the developer will decide what he's

wanting to do. We've already sent a request for deposit to move forward with the next steps simple plan review development coordination etc. Um, and as of late last year, the holidays around the holiday season, we haven't heard anything. As of today, we still haven't heard anything. They've been abnormally silent as far as developments go. Now, usually when we get feasibility approved by counselors issuing and gearing up to go. Um, so they may um have forego or are foregoing the development, but again, we'll keep y'all updated as we go.

I just want to be put on the record that I it's my personal feeling that uh a commercial property uh reszoneed uh into a residential neighborhood uh is um something I don't agree with. So, I'd like to be put that I agree. Especially if they already know they're going to ask for to change something.

Yes, ma'am. Okay, that's it. Okay, so there's no motion. This is just discussion only. So that that's all you have. Is that reg items? Oh, you do have

on the same sub different items. Okay. Okay. Okay. Items two. All you Okay. All righty. So, we are on that was four, correct? Yes, sir. Item number five, uh, discussion on the findings of the utility economic feasibility study for SR105 LLC, McGomery Retail Development 257.

Thank you, Commission. Um so very similar um economic feasibility study for a proposed commercial development. This is the if you're familiar with HB track, HB is developing one portion of the track. This is their partner developer. Um so if you look on page 43, you'll kind of see the outline of what's with included within this particular sp some of the details of what I've already discussed as far as um city issues, water capacity, wastewater capacity. I'll go into the specifics of this particular development. So, if you scroll to page 56, you'll see kind of their preliminary site plan. What this development is proposing is large box retail uh potentially fast food or not fast food, sit down restaurant, dining and quick service restaurants and stores and then on the hard part of 2854 and 105. This is all fine within the commercial um zone that they are currently zoned as. Um so just kind of moving forward with that. Um the development is projected to be using excuse me approximately 21,000 gallons of water and then approximately 17,000 gallons of sanitary sewer a day. 13, excuse me, 13,000 gallons of san build out. Um, as far as utility connections go, uh, H was required as a part of their development to extend water and sanitary sewer along their frontage as you'll see on exhibit D, page 58. So, this developer would be required to extend utilities past or to their eastern boundary. For uh San Ju, it would stop essentially at Stewart Creek. For water, it would stop at Stewart Creek and then cross one to

create a waterline loop, which would help with pressure issues on the east side of town and removing some of these dead endings that we have within the city.

Wood and impact fees based on their current layout. Um assuming, you know, six 2in taps. This doesn't change, but based on their preliminary land plan, this looks like it would be sufficient. They would be paying uh $390,916 in water impact fees and then $39,66 in wastewater fees. Um so pretty big thing for all the uh proposed development that they're looking to do.

How long is that going to take? How how long is that 300,000? Is it all upfront? Yes, it will be due assessed at the time assessed and due at the time. So, as soon as they're ready to get their bod approved, we we in the city would issue out of impact deposit request for that total of $78,000 as far as drainage goes. So if you remember H& was actually responsible for the mass grading and detention for the entire 32 acre site. So they would be they SR5 would just have to fall follow the previously approved drainage plans for this overall site. So as long as they're within the confines of what their purpose cover is and what their um offsite sheet flow would be, they would be fine to construct. As far as transportation goes, directing back to page 56, they are proposing one connection to state highway 105. This is all that we've seen based off of their latest plan, but again would be subject to change and then all connection to Texas, we would require them to provide text approval for a set connection.

Potential lights.

So none with this site. Um with the hard corner our hard corner state house in 20184 being uh signalized we're not expecting anything but again um HB was required to submit TIA for their site which included portions of the adjacent developments which we're discussing now with this property. They weren't required to install a light at that time. I'm not expecting one now but text is kind of against what they want and where they want it. So the uh entire drainage of the both tracks goes crosses under the highway and goes in between uh the car wash and the pizza shack goes to the is it going to drain into the lake

portions of it? Yes sir. So the west side of the property uh would actually outfall to textile 2854 and then portions uh would outfall to as you said Steuart Creek and ultimately up to Lake.

Thank you. What exactly is quick service restaurants? Fast foods typically. So McDonald's would be another one. But essentially anything with the drive quick service.

Sure. They're asking for a variance on just so as a separate general item. Yes. Is that separate from this? Correct. Sorry. I won't touch. Yeah.

I was not here at the time. Is this on the original plans and the layout and the approval or was it just HB and this is now 27? So HD um had their own feasibility study which kind of blocked out areas of the SR105 development, but this is the most detailed version of the SR15 that we have today. So they didn't they knew that they were coming in the future because the general layout wasn't hashed out yet. That's the gas station on the corner, right? They're going to put the HB gas station there. No. So, if you look, this is a different one. Okay.

Different. Yes. So, if you look at page 56, um you'll see next to the bank. Yes. On the lefth hand side, that is where the fuel center fuel station will go for H. So once this is de starting to develop, then all four of those quick service restaurants up front will need a special permit for a drive-thru if they're if they are in intended to be drive-thru services. Okay. They could be anything just as they're outlined now. That's just what they have.

Exactly. I know it's probably in our development standards, but why do we keep doing that? I mean, the building's not going anywhere. Why do we want to make work to have to come back next year and issue another permit?

So, we are um unrelated to this reviewing uh the code of ordinances with KKC, the city's consultant on drafting set ordinances. that is that has come up some um and it is being worked through along the city staff as far as the general process of how that should be done whether or not they receive a special use permit or whether or not we expand the uh definitions of what would need a special use permit if it's zone commercial McDonald's should it need a fast food or what would be the advantage of having a special use permit

yeah I think I think it was more kind of to control city streets than, you know, projects out on the highway like this. You know, that gave the city the opportunity to say something if they put a drive-thru on a city street. Mhm.

Okay. Isn't that what's on that corner? Which corner? That pink one. 2854.

Yeah. So no, with this particular development, they're only proposing the one connection. The bank would have to actually drive out of their site and then into the HB site, which that's the driver that you're referring to. HTB's conducting and constructing that proposed driveway. So HB would have two or three actually um driveways on 254 and then one on 105 and then SR 105 would have one driveway on 105. Everything else would have to be um done through uh shared accessments between the property owners allowing for bank users and quick service users to use. How many did you say on 2854?

33 total. I just I wanted to make sure you said that. Okay. Right now there is a construction entrance. Yes sir. Closer to

golly that's going to be so congested right. Oh my gosh, that one in HV um is adding turn lanes on 105 and 2054 to help assist with that as required by Oh, that's so nice to bring some old lanes in, some more concrete, but we do understand y'all's concern congestion in this area. It will be a very busy intersection, even busier. And we and there's nothing we can do about it. can't push that up some or make them go a different way or

spacing as far as what textile approved is is fine and they're meeting all of our spacing requirements for droplets. Any any other discussion? Yep. Good. On on number five,

I know we've talked about the capacity, water capacity. Just the the way this chart reads right now as we enter 2026, it reads as if we're already above our current capacity. I just want to be clear that we're not Yes, sir. So, we're we are not above our current capacity. Again, what we're looking at currently as far as historical usage is historical average daily flow within the city over the past 12 months. And so, if we have a dry few months within the last 12 months, cycle, that'll bring it down. We have a wet um wet few months within the last 12 months that we'll drop it up. But generally speaking, we're well within sewer plant and water.

So it's more of a means of updating at some point the historical data. Yes. So at the time of this development or feasibility studies on all three of these actually we hadn't had the final quarter of 2025. So if you notice that exactly. So, we'll be able to update that with our next feasibility study and give y'all updated numbers. And again, looking at our projections, update those as well. We get constant information from developers as to pushing things back, pushing things up, uh building more lots, building fewer lots, etc. So, this is a these two exhibits are ever changing. I agree. I just want to make be clear. Yes, sir.

That's all I had. Is that it for you? Zach, I mean five. Oh, yes. We're five. Yes, sir. Uh, okay. Uh, go on. We're moving on to six. uh discussion on the findings uh on the feasibility study summary memo on the Montgomery Flex Business Center development uh development number 258.

Thank you, Commissioner. Again, so kind of just trying to hit the high points uh for this. Um, if you scroll to page 69 of your report, you'll see a plary site plan for the proposed development. What this is intended to be is warehouses for uh potential tenants. Um, based on our information from the developer, these tenants could include uh home services, e-commerce fulfillment centers, distribution centers, uh, CrossFit style gyms, uh, pool cleaning, etc. They haven't hammered out who this intended commercial or not commercial who this intended uh tenant list is. We actually have requested that from the developer and they should be following up with that just so we have a better idea as to what could be going in this within these three buildings. Property is currently zoned if you scroll to the next page page 70 plan development. Um which is why we're asking for those proposed tenants within this plan development. This particular parcel is allowed for mixed use which will allow for commercial multif family and a few other entities. But as far as the city's concerned, having a better idea as to who these potential tenants would be is something that people want to see on the front end prior to you know accepting or approving any potential plans.

What is the total uh acreage or footage or size

the tract? Mhm. It is a 2.73 acre track, so relatively small um average size for your typical commercial. Um but again, making sure that we have all the information that we can get on the front end. Um so we're making better decisions here. As far as this development goes, um developer would only be responsible for the construction of the shell buildings. So once they find their potential tenants, they the tenants would have to submit plans to building plan uh reviewer Rick Hannah and if they're making any potential adjustments or modifications to the site civil i.e. installing fire line, rerouting water line, etc., they would have to come back to us for review and approval as well. as far as drainage goes. So, if you go back to their proposed site plan, they do have a proposed private detention pond on their uh rear property line. Um, this would a very similar situation have to get reviewed and approved from um WJ city engineer. Uh, and we will be adhering to all Montgomery County uh dage criteria uh requirements. As far as access and transportation goes, uh they were not proposing any additional um connections to state highway or I'm sorry, FM 1097. They would actually be using an existing driveway on the adjacent property via a shared access easement uh to minimize the connections to uh the textile. All that we would require from them on this is that they provide us with the approval and shared um easement. um just so uh we have that papered up and documented uh for historical record. As far as everything else goes, this property would also be subject to impact

fees, assuming that they have three different meters for each building. Um, this would amount to uh $91,629 for water impact fee based on today's impact fee schedule and then a $71,115 wastewater impact fee which would be due um and assess at the top on this one. um outlining next steps for this particular development because it was so small. Um going through a full feasibility study, we didn't feel like was warranted, but we did outline them with um proposed next steps which would be funding their expert agreement to continue discussions, plan review, developer coordination um and submitting any potential agenda items as far as or which could be uh any required easements or variances for uh development. submitting a plaque for and plans for approval and then getting um building plan for unit approved and then begin construction. Any questions? Terrible. Good on six.

Okay. Move to item seven, consideration and uh possible action on a marriage request regarding required landscaping requirements for the Church of McGomery development. Uh number 251 commission. Uh so this in front of you today is a variance request from the church of Montgomery. This is the church located or that will be located at the northwest corner of CB Stewart in Clever within the Buffalo Springs subdivision. So what the developer is asking is a variance from the landscape requirements from uh the code ordinances. And your code ordinances outline that a property must meet the minimum tree tree canopy requirement of this section where if the tree canopy being preserved is not sufficient enough, they would be required to plant additional trees. um and separate um the canopy requirement being of the total gross property area um versus the individual development. So if you look at page 81, you'll see their site plan as you can see the development at full buildout. Um and uh just for clarification, this is being phased. Um they are proposed future phases um of this development, but as it currently stands, only four of the 14 acres are being developed um for this church. And so they're asking that the requirements on landscaping and canopy be uh restricted to the area that they're developing and not the entire property.

Will they touch anything on the other 10 acres? Like if they're just developing the four, are they going to mess with the other 10?

No. So we are and as a part of that requirement making sure that even staging happens within the four acres of their actual work site and not anything else offsite right as of right now there is a large buffer zone Uh there was no trees there before and they you know they they have a landscaping plan that fits the area.

Just to note this the landscape absence currently in North Packet has not been approved. So they're still going through the review process which is why they're requesting uh varian. Does this have the irrigation in it also is this? They will have irrigation for their for their landscaping. Yes sir. Do we do 2 inch or 3 inch trees? What is the inch? What's the size of the trees that we ask them to to supply or do they do they have a requirement?

They have a choice um based on, you know, the type of tree species. There's a specific caliber inch requirement or credit that's given for that. So depending upon what trees they plant is determining how much credit they'll get for a canopy. So larger canopy or a larger tree. Larger canopy more credit essentially less trees have to be planted. Smaller trees less credit more. They're including 42 4 in for this plant. But I know this isn't

what did you say? What? Yeah. 424 in. Okay. 4 in within this current iteration of the plant size.

Yeah. And this on this sheet they're proposing 42 trees um which will receive credit of 800 uh square ft per tree. So math on that they are providing a significant amount 33,000 square ft are credit for landscaping. I'll make a motion that we recommend uh approval for the further variances related to section uh 78167. One caveat that this all be applied to the initial 4 acre development.

I second it. Okay. Do have a motion and a second uh for the variance request for uh landscaping requirements for the Church of McGovery development 251 as stated. Uh all in favor say I. All oppose say no.

Motion passes. Okay. Item number eight, consideration of possible action on a variance request regarding the required utility easement vegetation setback and the allowance for retaining walls and utilities within the vegetation setback when McGomery retail development development number 242. Quick fix on that. Um the development number is actually 256. Typo on that development number 244 is actually HB. Okay. Related to SR5. Okay. So, correct that to 20 2406.

256. 256.

Thank you. In y'all's package, I do have this item, but there's a more updated version that's been handed out paper copy. Again, kind of just walking through what their request and ask is. Um so what they're proposing or requesting rather is a variance from the requirement to provide utility along the front of their property. It's very standard practice that every development within our every development provides utility easements um being placed along their frontage to allow for utilities to be placed there. Um they're asking that this be waved and there be no utility easement within their uh building or within their property along the front edge adjacent to textile and then asking for a minimum uh landscaping setback be reduced from 25 ft to 20 ft along their rear that will be consistent with HB and then allowing construction um the construction of utilities and retaining walls within set vegetative setback. Um these three variances uh and requests from the ordinance RNY consist of what HB requested two months ago. You all remember um if you look at the exhibits actually not um the exhibit from WGA kind of outlining where those proposed utilities go. If you remember on the feasibility study um we had the utilities being proposed in the development as would the required degree variance. This would show what the extension of those utilities look like the varian. So kind of showing where the existing uh pavement is and if textile in the future were to request um or request um expand this roadway, we would have approximately 37 ft from the edge of the existing pavement um to work with. So if

they're adding line or uh lanes um sidewalks, etc. within that 37 ft is where there will be no conflict. Anything past 37 ft would be a conflict by the time it reaches the end of that line. Which is why we request utility on developments. What's the benefit to no utility eastment along Highway 105 Brandage?

It allows them to extend uh some of our not account for space that would be dedicated to utilities to be used for retaining walls. For example, um on ATB's plan, I think it's shown here. They show existing and I can see proposed retaining walls along the front. I was kind of hoping that they'd put some grass and trees there along 105 instead of some more concrete.

I mean, they're they've already desecrated all of our old trees and now they're just putting more concrete and is for a just a consideration or we can say no to it or we make a recommendation council. Okay. And they want to in the back there they want to reduce the landscape setback from 20 block to 20.

Okay. So, has it been a couple of months now? We had someone come and speak and we weren't allowed to really say anything to him, but he mentioned um the result of what HB did and it's the noise, the trees, the lights. And so now they want to do the same thing, moving moving beside uh HB. They've already got the setback fixed, whatever. Now the next person is asking for another variance which is going to cause them not to have vegetation to protect the sound, protect from the lights, protect from all that. So, I mean, why did they just ask for variance on the whole 32 acres instead of just asking for each little

That would have been Yeah. Say, "Hey, look, we just want to wipe all your trees out and we're going to put some cement wall up and, you know, we're going to put some lights out there so all them people can sleep, you know, when HB is open at 11:00 at night." But anyways, so the the the um the barrier on that back back side is is it do they have vegetation? Not today. They would I mean it is it is in the they do they are required to put on top that wall.

Yes. So in the event that they continue with the same thought process as HB, they'll be planting trees and shrubbery along that back uh fed set back to again uh provide a barrier for the residents in regards to sound, lighting, etc. But it'll be required to Yes, sir. Yes.

Would that retaining wall on the south side be 20 ft off the property line? Yes, it would not be or depending upon their layout, we haven't seen it to this point. Um, but generally speaking, I don't believe the HD ones were within that uh 20 20 foot vegetative set just outside of it actually. So, there'll be a wall and then there'll be vegetation for 20 ft up to the neighboring neighborhood.

Not necessarily 20 ft in width, just within that 20 foot um setback. So essentially be a strip and however thick their their trees are if they plant shrubs and then spacing for the trees how they end up doing it. But it wouldn't necessarily be 20 ft consistent from boundary to boundary. And they're asking for that 5T reduced from 25 ft. Yes, ma'am. And the benefit for doing that back there,

allowing them to kind of extend or push back uh their retaining wall so it aligns better with their painting based on their site plan um would be my best guess for that. And again, try to be consistent with their neighbor HV and what they're doing on their property.

Is this one of those things where they said, "Uh, yeah, we know we're going to need it, so we'll just do a variance later." That's what, you know, it's basically saying it's like they should have known this ahead of time. And I really got an issue with now all these changes. Also going back to 105 where okay, now it's the city's problem if we ever have to do the lines. It's like you wanted to buy this property. You wanted to make it, you know, for your business. I don't care if you lose a little a few feet. That's you knew that going in. So I just I'm already, you know, not feeling good about this.

Me, too. I'm ready to say no to vote to these variances. I mean, they got the 32 acres. They got the hill. And I specifically ask them I specifically ask them, "How many trees you leaving?" As many as we can. Can somebody point to me the tree they saved? That is a big old mound of dirt out there. They even took the trees out away from the historical marker and it makes it look like a little blank little divot on 2854. Take it away from our historic town. Like bring your big box and bring your money and bring your customers, but make it cohesive to what type of town we live in. We're having all these developers come in here and they they're not taking into consideration some the things that we appreciate here and why we pay what we pay to live here. The taxes we pay, what we pay for our homes. I mean, they knew this before they started asking for variances. So,

so basically if the the 20 foot setback on the south side on the the back side was denied, they would just have to move that those buildings up 5 ft. Yes, sir. Okay. I can understand the variance on the front lawn 105. I mean the utility easement sorry

the utility easement on that I mean it is what it is for the tieins and complications there um but um everything like Miriam was saying everything we've given up so far in a lot of this development uh they should be able to eat the 5 foot

I'm really not liking the the front edge either like I you're already going to add a lane. You're going to add a turning lane in there and then we're going to have some construction and they're going to be sticking in there to get lines in and all kinds of stuff. So, I don't really understand. I guess u my frustration is the utility easement. I'm not understanding. Maybe the guys up here do cuz they do construction or whatever, but they knew they were going to build the buildings. So now they're asking for an easement. Why didn't they just build accordingly before they ask for it?

Ask not ask them to remove the required ement. Um and to speak to that, I'm not sure at the time of the development. I don't want to speak to the developer at the time of development that they knew retaining wall would be so needed and there are a lot of believe on HB site alone. Um not presenting the grades and how much dirt that they would be reused or have to be put off site. Not I don't think they misunderstood what was being what was going to be required for grading on site and somehow that's our problem but I'm I'm I uh I I don't I don't want to give them a variance. So confirmed procedure um could actually be taken on the variances individually.

No, they presented it like this. Are you trying to get the 16 foot minimum for us to say yes and for us to say no to the minimum landscape? Not necessarily. Just if there were if the boat made it to where one varants were granted and one wasn't. But again, the recommendation to council could be yes, yes, no, no, no. Okay. So, we can recommendation can be split, right? Definitely would.

Are we making a motion or just just discussing? Making a uh action making a formal recommendation to council. the the variance along the road. Um I mean with the tieins and what they need to do to I guess coincide with HB. I can understand that easement there. the back easement. I think that could be

that's my opinion, but it's all because of the grading and they have to put the um the walls up, the retaining walls up. So it was miscalculated how much dirt or how much incline or grade there was and they said, "Oh, we need retaining walls in order to do what we need to do." And that's why they're saying that that 16 foot is for their retaining walls because of

not for the developer. But addition of retaining walls is a viable solution in minimizing dirt being exported and imported into the site. So, sounds like a financial um decision on their end, but again, not going to be for the developer.

Well, I say no to all three, so y'all can go from there. Well, we need to Somebody make make a motion. So, whatever motion you want to recommend to send to city council. So, let's let's go ahead and split these. Yeah, let's go by three. I'll make a motion to approve the variance to recommend approval of the variance for 16 ft easement at the north side of the property. Okay. I have a a motion for the approval of the variance for 16 ft easement on the north side of the property. That correct? All in favor say I. You have to have a second. Oh, sorry.

I'll second it. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Uh, all in favor say I. I. I. All oppose say no. No. Okay, so we have John which way down? No. Two nos. Yes. Three yeses. Okay. So, the variance regarding the 16 ft easement uh on the south side motion passes 3 to two the 25 ft requirement to be maintained on all commercial properties.

I second that. Just to be clear, do y'all want to address the one at the front of the property which is a recommendation or variance for zero? I won't. Yes. Do we want to individualize them? 7816. Oh, 78162 has an A and the other one doesn't. I guess we'll we'll separate them. That's section 78 162A. Um I say no to the minimum landscape setback requesting a 20ft setback in lie of the 25 ft requirement to maintain on all commercial properties of bedding single family properties. Can

I second to okay so this is regarding the south south side correct. Okay, I have a motion and a second uh to deny request for a variance uh for the 20 foot setback in L of the 25 foot requirement to be maintained on all commercial properties abudding the single family properties on the south side. So all in favor of the denial the recommendation. Yeah. Recommendations. All the um how can I put this? All okay. All in favor say I.

I. Or deny. Sorry. Yeah. Deny. Yeah. All in favor of the uh the denial of the the motion say I. I. I. I.

Uh. All opposed to the motion say no. U. That motion passes. for the denial. Okay. And then the third. Um just a vegetative setback.

Yes. And putting a retaining wall in the vegetative setback instead of leaving it vegetative set back. They're more likely going to have to have a retaining wall, but it doesn't have to be within their vegetative area. Yeah, they can put it right. They can maintain a 25 ft vegetative area and then have a retaining wall, right? That's that's what our recommendation basically. So make a motion to approve the construction of the utilities and retaining walls within vegetative setback.

We're going to say no. I'm saying no to it. Construction of I'm make a motion to deny the construction of utilities and retaining walls within vegetative setback. Okay. I have a motion for denial of the utility and retraining wall vegetation setbacks requested to allow for the construction retaining walls and install utilities within the required vegetation. So we have a motion to deny. This is our second.

Somebody makes a motion to say they want it. I need a motion to I'll make a motion to recommend approval for utilities retaining walls uh to be allowed within vegetative setback. Okay, we have a motion for approval of the utility rotating wall within the vegetation setback section 78162. All in favor? Second. Okay. Have a motion and a second. All in favor of the approval of the utility pertaining walls and vegetation setback say I. I. Opposed. No.

No. Okay. So, it passes 421. Okay. Wow. I need a break. And you can give us any water for that one. We need a long long drink of water.

Okay. We go to number nine. uh consideration of possible action by the planning zoning commission on the final platform formerly known as Redbird Meadows Kramer Drive extension develop number 20006. Good evening again. Um so last two items that I have before you um one is for the camera drive extension. This is the rightway extension that would include a reserve for the recreation center within the BR development. This is just uh approving the final plant of said camera drive extension. This would be subject to impact fees as the rec center would be connecting to the public utility system. Uh they are subject to uh impact fees in the amount of $54,248 for wastewater. And then they are receiving a credit um for the construction for their waterline impact fee because of the construction of old part of the water line uh in the amount of $30,0005 or $30,543. Um we are doing a final true up of those construction costs. Um to date uh the project is actually in warranty now. So, we'll be able to finalize what the final amount of that credit for the water line impact or water impact needs would be and we'll be able to tell y'all what every future final point for this development.

So, would this be replat a future building? No. So, the if you look on I know it has a reserve. Yeah. So, there would be no need to replant it. Uh the reserve is dedicated to the recreation center. So as long as the development or submission doesn't demo a rec center, they would be fine. What is the difference between the last time you told us about this and and now? Is it just a little bit more bland or a little bit is it a bigger area or?

So nothing's changed in terms of scope from the plinary plat a few months ago and this time right it's just what's being shown on the plat itself. So again kind of more administrative than anything contour lines not being shown um existing um infrastructure within the platted area not being shown. Now it's just what is this intended for and what's the intended use acreage um lines for the boundary of the planted area etc. So as far as content goes there's nothing of substance that has changed. Is there water lines in there or anything like that or is it just the green

along the frontage? There will be if you look a 16 foot utility easement and water meter easement for that connection, but everything passing the water meter um and on the private site would be considered private water line.

I make a motion we approve the final flat for development number 206. I'll second. Okay, we may have a motion to second uh approval of the final plaque for the uh development number two 006. All in favor say I. Opposed? No.

Motion passes 5 to zero. Item number 10, consideration possible action by plan zoning commission. The final plaque for Briley, formerly known as Redbird Meadows, pawn A1, develop number 20006. Again, so this is the final plat for the pond A1 of the development um directly adjacent to the rec center um would be providing um drainage outfall area for the entire development. If you look on the phasing plan shown on page 104, you kind of see how the detention is laid out with pond A1 again being directly there and then the subsequent ponds that's downstream of that um downstream of the pond A1.

Are they used ponds or will they be like a fence be around a Yeah. Will it be a slope down into the pond like if there was ducks in it or something for them to feed the ducks or walk around it? So, there is a maintenance burn installed on all these ponds. Um whether or not that maintenance burn is used for amenity, it would be up to the developer. In the event that they do request or or try to add in amenity features to said detention, they would have to come back for review. All right. I make a motion that we approve the final plaque for pond A1 in development 2006. A second.

We have a motion and second for the approval of the final plaque for uh number 20006. All in favor say I. Those say no. Motion passes 5 to zero. Item number 11, consideration of possible action by the planning zoning commission on a preliminary plaque for superior properties development number 2215.

Good evening again. So this is for the sphere property development that is going on along Parkway on that part front of Parkway Liberty Street. Uh if you go to page 111, you'll see the general layout of the uh proposed platted area. You remember uh early last year around spring we presented um development agreement and um reszoning applications for this development uh currently is being reszone or not reszone zone multi family on the far west side and then two interior uh tracks being zoned for commercial. Um actually today is just approving the one flat. they would have to come back for their follow um and meeting all the rules and regulations of the city's coordinates regarding that. As a reminder, this development would be subject to impact fees um in the amount total amount of $574,550. Um subject to change based on bottle taps um quantity and size. Um but that is just based off of what we have at this current date. Total acreage

total acreage for the development is approximately 15.5 acres.

This is the property that like you said a year or so ago and they did we split the zoning? Yes, at that time. And so on this right you'll see the uh dedicated preserves. R2 being the multif family that's furthest away from the existing residential along Son and Austin and then two closer to Son and Austin being the commercial. As a part of that development agreement, they were required to uh maintain a 25 foot vegetative barrier between the commercial proposed and the existing single family um that's shown here on the plat um and not make a connection to street unless required by county fire marshal based on the top development and needing additional access um for emergency vehicles. Did we research anything about that high school that used to be back in there and it was going to be historical and they were going to try to find out more information? Did our historical society or anybody touch base on that?

I have not. It's the Lawson High School, right? That is if I remember what the name that they had. I have not heard anything about that from historical society. Yeah. So, radio sound after after that publication. Yes. I mean, you're going to I mean, that was one of our discussions when they brought it up to us and how they were going to enter it and how the multif family would be behind they were going to do like warehouses or storage units or something like that. So, yeah,

we're currently reviewing uh the civil plans for the multif family um as required again by that development agreement. believe all of their and the developers representative is here tonight to speak to it a little bit more, but currently all proposed entrances that we review are alongside Parkway. None are along street or um we have not at this time reviewed any plans for commercial. Um they are coming at a future date, but we would keep that same um thought process. They shouldn't be entering off of our side. So, how do we handle um knowing that there was a high school back in there that quite could be historical? Um, do we can we postpone this or talk with someone or how do we do to make sure that it's not encroaching on what might be some something historical back there?

A little bit more discussion on it or history digging. I would think that the property or representative of said high school would have to come and request that that be designated as a historical landmark or site. Yeah, it'd be a designation. So, I I don't think there would be any restrictions, but they could put a, you know, a marker just like they've done, you know, some of these other things around the community. But that I would imagine would be on the historical society to request or dictate from the current.

So, so reach out. So, if we say yes to this consideration or whatever, uh, as an individual, I would go to the historical society and see if they have any information on the on the high school and to see if there's something because I think there was a gentleman here who was talking who was here and knew about it when we were having that meeting. I just don't want to miss that. We do have a historical something historical there and we, you know, and we put something commercial on top of it. I mean, even if it's just a plaid or whatever it is, I definitely understand the concern. Um, as far as actual items here, unless you're dedicating an easement, which could be done at the final plat. This is just the primary plat.

Okay. Um, again, something that the high school um historical society would have to provide additional information on. Um, but that could be a conversation u if the developer is open to any potential dedication to that. Um, it'll be something that we worked out with historical society and the developer and staff as to what will be required for the site that can be addressed at the final. Correct. Or anytime in the future, anytime future, right? And I'll research and see what I can find out. Thank you though. Of course.

We went through this before with about the cemetery. who was a cemetery and one of the developments and it was found then after much talk with what historian information we had from this was that you know this all boils down to who the developer is the responsibility lies on the developer if there's a cemetery or something that he has to allow access to that's the development issue now that's the last we heard from Cheryl you know that lady's name I'm sorry I wasn't What did you say? The lady with the historical society, the young lady that Joy Montgomery. Joy Montgomery. Yeah.

But what we were talking about for the historical society had nothing to do. I was just asking T. Was it TJ Wilkerson that said that he's because he's born and raised here. I'm asking there was another gentleman and his wife was here from the neighborhood. From the neighborhood. Yeah. It was um cuz they they had a question whether they owned it or not. Yeah. They thought they owned Was she Miss Simington's kid? You don't get a doll. Who was it? It was I don't ever remember her name. She drives a blue truck and she uh gathers junk in Montgomery. Oh, yeah. I'm asking TJ about it. Okay. Sorry. Arilia Bartley. I can't remember her name. Arelia Partley. Arelia. That's Yes. Got it.

She would know. And I think it was her husband that stood up and said something regarding superior robberies. Got it. that and also the lost high school

just so they understand I am a member of the historical society and I don't remember any discussion about it but and I don't remember the reason I make mention of it because there was an there is an issue with a cemetery located inside of one of the developments that's proposed now at that time we got all the people involved and they said in the in these cases where the somebody wants to preserve the history, it's the the owner builder's responsibility to allow the people access to the cemetery or any other track part. So, agree,

you know, you could chase those stories about somebody, you know, somebody else owning it. I know exactly what she's talking about. I've heard that story forever. It's, you know, I'm just talking about the high school at this point. Yeah. not ownership. I I'm specifically speaking to the Lawson High School if indeed that is something that needs to be looked into historically. Yeah. Today, just to clarify, we haven't received any information regarding additional information regarding the high school or any other historical landmarks on this particular site.

Okay. I'll make a motion. Now we recommend approval of the president plaque for Superior Properties Development number 2215 and I second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for the approval of the preliminary plat for Superior Properties Development 2215. All in favor say I. I. Oppose say no. Motion passes 5 to zero. Thank you. Thank you. I'm 12.

Thank you for putting up with us. uh discussion and and discuss a proposal to add 30 minute session be scheduled during the next planning zoning commission uh to review and clarify the commission's purpose membership structure terms of service duties and powers as outlined in the the code of ordinances. Good evening, commission members. Um, Chairman Simpson and I had a short meeting a couple weeks ago and we wanted to revisit and maybe clarify, re-re the ordinance states as the duties, the responsibilities of the fact. I'd also like to be able to ask uh the attorneys to be present just to make sure that we're within the legal requirements for for the P&Z. I did draft a hopefully quick agenda for that 30 minutes. I don't know if we can cover P&Z in 30 minutes. Maybe we might have to do another 30 minutes after that. Um but maybe just do a quick overview, maybe the legal framework of the commission. um what the structure is for the membership, your terms of service, uh the duties and powers that's given to you, whether it's by state statute or city ordinance. Um comprehensive plan, that's going to be a big discussion soon. uh because we're under the 2020 comprehensive plan 2026 now might be something that we might have to um and then talk about some of the zoning and subdivision basics and covering like what I talked about here with

flex a development plan and what we would be looking at as as a commission or what you as a commission would be looking And also maybe we'll cover this with city secretary beans talking about the ethics conflicts of interest open meetings act. I assume that we're probably all up to date because I think we tried to do that earlier. Um and maybe even do a couple of case studies. not anything that we can vote on or anything like that, but just use as an example of some development issues that we've come across. Uh reszoning, especially since that kind of thing and to be able to cover that. Like I said, I was hoping that we could cover in 30 minutes, but as I was writing the agenda, it just kind of,

but if we want to start with next next month, maybe if we have a short agenda that we can add 30 minutes at the end of the agenda just to just to cover a few things. You please do me a favor. Yes, sir. Will

you get the mayor involved in that? Now, we've got a new administrator here that hasn't been involved. He's new here is getting involved, but we're going about uh the the approval process. I've went over everything with her. I've outlined, you know, after 47 years in a development business, how to do how to get these approvals, how to do different things. You know, here we are. We're improving flats over here that we've never seen a drainage map. We've never seen a drainage flat. We're sitting up here blindfolded and proving this stuff and it's just it it's uh it's not right. We're not we're not looking at it correctly. There's procedurally there has got to be something done different than just fly by your seat in your pants every time we bring it these days.

Well, just like what um Zack mentioned we're going through the subdivision ordinance. We're going through the zoning ordinance. Procedures could be written written in those ordinances. And we have done that over we've been writing. We've been doing that for 5 years. We need to get it done.

Yes. Yes. And and we do agree with you, but right now we have a interim ordinance. We're tweaking the interim ordinance and then we'll be moving over to the UDO which will encompass the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance, um sign ordinance and I believe flood plane is also in there. So the whole UDO will encompass everything that we have divided now into in these separate ordinances. hopefully make it more readable, hopefully make it more procedurally easier to administer. Um, that's what we're

One thing I would like to add is that just like mentioning the uh special use permits on the drive, you know, uh it just brings to mind what I see is happening is we're sitting up here trying to do our job and then city council gets up here and reverses half of what we how we rule on things. totally disregard what we've said. And you know, I know damn near everybody up here. And I don't know I don't know anybody knows any more about it than the group that's up here. They're overruling us. It's very aggravating. You know, if we if we make a ruling about something we you know, you got to be able to tell us explain to us why you can't you can't see what we're trying to do. I think the problem is and gets back to I'll get off my stool in a minute. You know, we we've we've got too many problem we have as city council is 2year terms. We got people coming and going constantly and it's a learning process for everybody and in two years no one is learning. Follow it.

I rest my case. Well, and the comprehensive plan is the city's floor plan. It's the city's game plan. It's what we should be moving towards every time. It has the the fiveyear plan in there, the 10ear plan, the 20ear plan. And that needs to be here when we're making these decisions like these setbacks and vegetations and widening the driveways and reducing the driveways and the width of the streets. And

we need to have the whole cohesive vision of what we want McGomery to be. Right now, it's just here, just spit on it and water it up and throw it and see if it hits the wall. Well, and that's why we'll we'll go back to using the comprehensive plan. Even though it's very old right now, it is what we have and it's what we base our zoning on. So, if we want to

bring that back up, I could share the comprehensive plan with you. We can talk about it. It's a it's a difficult read because um I've been with other cities before and comprehensive plans don't really read in that format. So um we we look at it and and and try to see the feel of where the city is going. Take a look at the zoning map what we have now. I don't think we have that new zoning map available to us yet that um KKC was proposing. Uh, but we do we need to get back. It's time. Yes. Like I know I've been sitting here long enough to see a see something.

We've been talking about it. We've gone to meetings about it and we've had lots of people come in and show us pictures, but we're still Well, we need to get back on board with it. We need to see where KKC is at. I I know it's been a while where KKCO we're just getting caught up with it too where we were kind of surprised to see you know 20 new zoning districts that we weren't aware of. So it's it's definitely something that I think you all

need to be have a comprehensive plan so far to date works. They got everybody they come the developers people come in here who want to be in part of the community they have an idea and the city council goes jackdaddy and let let them come in and disregard comprehensive plans anything that's been said or planned is oh forget that somebody's got some dollars we're going to chase them

but if it helps when I write my report to you As a staff person, I make a recommendation. You don't always go with my recommendation, but I I feel good about my recommendation. Now, when you reverse that recommendation, then you would only hope that the recommendation that you have is supported by something else that you might have seen in the comprehensive plan. So that when now you recommend it to city council, you should feel good about your recommendation because again, you went on the basis plan by June. And if city council reverses it, well, they reverse it. Um, but you can see how frustrating that is though, right?

Yes, I understand. But I think once we get the new ordinances where everybody's on the not dealing five years ago and get that straight then there if if if something is agreed or not agree in a certain certain ordinance then if somebody does go the other way then we then we then we do have you know something to go back on to say why. Absolutely. But we can't do it on 5year-old rules. something as small as those drive-throughs, you know, she's the one that got to go through it over and over and over again. It's like,

oh, that was probably made back when like was said back I don't know how many years ago that ordinance is when the city didn't want fast food drive-thru, you know, clogging up 105. Well, you know, now we're in 2026 and it's whole, you know, if we don't do something, we're going to have five different special use permits on the all the restaurants over down by HB. So, it's just all I think it's the city is trying to catch up. It's just a matter of getting everything implemented, I believe.

Yes. going back to basics and starting with our comprehensive plan and then we'll we'll bolster our rules and ordinances codified like they're supposed to be instead of you know we find out later we pass some rule along that because it's not been caught by Tilly caught mine she goes you passed that Mary and you said yes to it I went dumb it like that was a long time ago right she showed it to me I was Okay. Oh, I make a motion to consider. Are we discussing it or are we saying yes? It was a discussion. Okay.

Yeah. But we is everybody in agreement for next We like it. Next week or next month? Next month. Okay. Is it like out and open like now being recorded or Okay. All right. There'll be nothing to vote on. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. I make a motion that we agend second. Okay. I have a motion to uh adjourn the adjourn uh January 6, 2026 P&Z meeting. All in favor say I.

I opposed. No. Motion passes. That's another thing too, Zach. You kill a lot of trees. You got two cousins. You hardly ever disagree, but you know what I mean? So, the truth needs to be that