Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. We're here for the Mount Juliet Board of Commissioners to conduct a public hearing on these items to be considered on the January 12th meeting. We have a list of 14 items for the public hearing. I will read those for the record. The first is an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Juliet approximately 39.34 acres property located at 502501 Dirt Road, map 77, parcel 1, parcel 1.03, located within the city's urban growth boundary and adopt the plan of services. The second item is an ordinance to reszone approximately 39.34 acres of property at 502501 Dirt Road, map 77, parcel one part and 1.03 03 from Wilson R1 to CMU PUD and to adopt the preliminary master development plan for the courtyards of McFarland. The third item is an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Juliet a portion of the road, excuse me, the roadway and the rideway located at South Green Hill Road from the existing city limits near the Lebanon Road intersection to the southeastern property corner of partial 53152 within Wilson County, Tennessee, located within the city's urban growth boundary and adopt the plan of services. The next item is an ordinance to reszone the property located at 3336 North Mount Juliet Road, approximately 1.37 acres, map 54, parcel 179.02 from RS40 to CTC. The next item is an ordinance to reszone the property located at 660 central Pike approximately 8.21 acres map 97 parcel 18 from RS40 to CMU. The next item is an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee, approximately 6.58 acres of property located at 2964 Lemon Dirt Road, map 73, parcel 64.05. The property being located within the city serving growth boundary and adopt the plan of services. The next item is an ordinance to amend part B of the unified development code of the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee known as the

zoning regulations ordinance 200129 adopted October 8, 2001 as amended by amending article 56 and 7 sections 5103A 51034 6103A 6103.37 103A building heights. The next item is an ordinance amend part B of the unified development code of the city of mullet, Tennessee known as zoning regulations. Ordinance 200129 adopted October October 8, 2001 is amended by amending article 8207.3 minimum lot area in pud overlay districts. The next item is an ordinance to reszone the property located at 3971 Beckwith Road, approximately 5.21 acres, map 78, parcel 21.06 06 from Wilson County R1 to CI Exchange Commercial. The next is an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Julia approximately 5.21 acres of property at 3971 Beckwith Road, map 78, parcel 21.06, the property being located within the city's urban growth boundary and to adopt the plan of services. The next item is an ordinance to amended to amend part B of the land development code of the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee known as the zoning regulations ordinance 200129 adopted opera A 2001 as amended by amending article 9 section 9106 access management. The next item is an ordinance to amend part B of the unified development code of the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee known as zoning regulations ordinance 200129 adopted October 8, 2001 as amended by amending article that's a big article 14 public notices section 1494. And the next item is an ordinance to amend the city of coil code of ordinances chapter 28 article 9 truck routes. And the final item is an ordinance to amend ordinance 255 that ex that extends the sunset date

until October 31st, 2025, which amends the ordinance 2024-5 part B of the unified development code of the city of Mount Juloning regulations by amending article 3 use and regulations are adding section 3 108 temporary events uses and portable buildings to include mobile vendors, food trucks, regulations, residential and industrial districts. by extending the sunsets date from December 31st, 2025 until December 31st, 2026. And if you are here to comment on any of these items, I would invite you to come forward, give your name and address for the record at the podium, and you will be recognized for three minutes. I'm glad somebody's coming forward after reading all that. Name and address for the record, please.

98 Tanglewood Drive. Um, I just wanted to uh I don't have any objections to the rideway, but I was just wanted to make sure that like on my property I don't wind up like a a sheer 5 foot u bank on the on the edge of my property. I mean, will it be if it's taken, will it be graded kind of, you know, where it's not? So, which which item are you referring to, sir?

The uh uh rideway uh redoing the rideway on South Green Hill Road. Oh, I follow you.

Shane, can you address that one? Yeah. you would you mind getting getting together with Shane here? He can he can go into the details on that one. Does anyone else have a public comment? Hello. My name is Al Williams. I live at 801 Morland Hills Drive. Want to compliment the mayor on reminding me of a commercial in the 1970s about Federal Express about a man who spoke like uh really fast apparently without any punctuation. So compliment you sir on doing that as well. Uh two things I'm talk about the um uh the road South Green Hill same as the guy before. Um I'm a elder at the uh the church on the corner there and um we have some limited parking. So, I see some benefits for the city taking over some of the road and I mean I'm not not fussed about that part, but if there were any expansion or anything coming up, I just wanted to make sure we had adequate notice and discussion regarding that because we have very limited parking ADA. We also have a child care as minister per church that that's there as well. So, it'd be a very serious discussion to have if we were going to have any disruptions with regards to that, too. No objections to the city to making improvements. We just need to coordinate that. I believe most of that's centered around the the rightway the applicant that's building over there is donating, but we got Todd here in the front row that can

Oh, yeah. Yes. I don't think anything that's immediate to discuss. I'm talking about when if something pops up with that as well. Uh the other question too is for the um other annexations, are there anticipated property tax increases to other citizens? Now, I'm speaking as a citizen of the city. So, there's big new developments on South Green Hill Road. big developments that probably cause some other costs as well. So, do these annexations, these changes, do they increase will they increase property taxes in the near future for other citizens to pay for the new neighborhoods and the city services that are being extended to them as well? Well, this this these improvements being done on the road are being done by the applicant.

Okay. So I I couldn't say that that's going to cause any immediate impact, but as you know, roads have to be maintained in the long term. Oh yeah, there's a lot more that have been roads has maintained. Yes, sir. That's it. Anyway, so register that those comments. Thank you for listening. Appreciate your work with us. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your past service to the city as well.

Anyone else? I read really fast to save a lot of time for comments. Well, I appreciate I appreciate you coming out for the public hearing. We'll uh we'll adjourn this public hearing now that we've heard from the public and we will reconvene at 6:30 for our regular meeting. Thanks everyone.

Why you need a a shoulder to cry on? I can't say I do.

Good evening everyone and welcome to the Mount Juliet Board of Commissioners. Today is January 12th. Uh since we have a quorum present, I'll call this meeting to order and our first item on our agenda is to set the agenda that we have. If you'd like to follow along on the agenda, there copies of the agenda printed in the wire baskets in the back. I'm going to propose some changes here to the agenda and I'm going to propose moving 9 A to the consent agenda, 9 C to consent. 9 E, 9 F, and 9 G. under new business 10 A 10B 10 I 10 J 10 K 10 L and 10 M

K LM Is there any objections to those?

Sure. 9 A 9 C E F G 10 A 10 B 10 I J K L M That is correct. Any

objections? Okay, without objection, we'll move those two, four, six, eight, 10 items to consent. I'd also pref propose the last six items we have on the agenda are three different properties side by side, all straight zoning. I propose moving those to consent if there's appetite. Reference number

10R is 639 I'm excuse me 6391 Central Pike and 10 10R and S are to deal with 6391 Central Pike.

No, we just keep them off. It's not a big deal. Well, yeah, we would Commissioner Mley is um isn't okay with RNS, so that would leave us with N O P and Q, which sounds like a bad license plate. If there's no objections, we will

nq. If there's if there's no objections. Was there any objections to the four? Okay, we'll move those forward to consent as well. Any other changes to the agenda? All right, with that objection, we will adopt the agenda as set with the 14 changes outlined to the consent agenda, which means that everybody gets to hear me read along list again. So, the next item be after set agenda is invocation and pledge of allegiance. Like to ask our city manager, if you would be so kind, as to lead us in our invocation and pledge, please provide

about your history, please. Dear Lord, as we meet today, please be with us. Guide our thoughts, ideas, and decisions. Bless us abundantly. All who are present, come be with us. Inspire us, and lead us in our time together. We ask this in your name. Jesus Christ's name we pray. Amen.

To the flag of the stands. nation.

Thank you, sir. Next item is citizen comments. [cough] So, [clears throat] at this point, I'll open up the floor to anyone. I am sorry, I am skipping I'm skipping one too many. Our next item is the approval of the minutes from the last meeting that we held on December 8th. Is there a motion? Second. Motion and second. Any changes, questions? All in favor of the minutes, please signify by saying I. I.

Any uh any opposed? Any abstensions? The minutes do carry with a vote of four with one abstension. So, that puts us right back to where I started at, which was citizen comments. So, we're going to open the floor up for citizen comments. If you would like to address the board of commissioners, this is your opportunity to come forward and make a comment. The board is under no obligations though to answer questions from the floor, but we will do our best if I can to have a staff member perhaps get with you if it's if it's warranted. But I would open up the floor. I'd ask you to come forward, give your name and address for the record, and you'll be recognized for three minutes if you'd like to address the board. Name and address, please.

Yes, sir. Jay Easter with Pape Dawson, formerly Reagan Smith, 315 Woodland Street, Nashville, Tennessee. here with the EPCON development group for the McFarland Courtyards at McFarland Farms. Just wanted the commissioner to know we were here if needed uh during your discussion. And to make you aware, we did do as instructed and met with staff following the other meeting uh to work out an agreeable condition of approval for the commercial. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon. actually evening. Uh Stephen Heckorf at 393 page drive. Um so I I know it's been about a month. Hopefully you all enjoyed your holidays. Um, but one that there's several different things that I think tie in from last uh meeting and I know I talked with um Ley after as well and um I do believe that the citizens of Mount Juliet should hear a discussion about where each of you elected officials stand on three really key important issues that I think over the next years are going to be really important for people to know now what you what you believe and that goes around growth. taxes and cutting waste growth. Um, I believe there should be a discussion on Hefner's amendment. Here's, you know, if even if you don't agree with it, I think a healthy discussion is warranted because I think people should have be able to go back and forth and have a hearty debate because that's the only way that everyone will be able to understand each other because this is in the open. everyone's discussing there's there's no I secrets like oh what's that person thinking what's that person considering like what's the backstory I just think it's better discuss it and get it on the open everyone will be able to understand then where each of you where where each of you sit and I understand last meeting I mean I I talked with Shvette afterwards I don't think it was it wasn't a discussion because commissioner comments were used for the discussion and I think it's important to have the discussion on the item on the Because that way either you can amend it, you can even kill it. You can put a poison pill in it, but it but then you could at least vote on it and then everyone has the idea of like, oh well, if you put a poison pill of like the opposite, well, and everyone votes for it, well, that's one way to end the discussion. So, I would appreciate that. I think it's important. Um, Mia, you have been really straight in telling people where you stand, which is really

appreciated. I I don't necessarily agree with everything as you know. Um because if we take the argument that growth is the only way to make to have revenue, then you're forever going to be stacking house on houses and then if we go the other route of we only have taxes, then well then you're just going to be taxing people's property for eternity and everybody's going to be like, well, my hands are tied. Uh the budget's growing over exponentially. Um so that's why it comes to cutting waste, too. So, we've already we've increased we just we agreed on under three times what we had been paying. Um, and I know you wanted potentially up to six times and and I think we should also understand what the goal is. And I know we're going to have an updated budget setup here soon. Um, but I do think there needs to be an idea of everyone where they sit. I've asked several of you. I know you don't want to raise taxes again, property taxes, and I know that you don't want to do that, but what's the goal to get there? Is that going to be looking at the budget with a fine tooth comb and cutting every single thing that's unnecessary revamping systems and deploying technology that cutting waste? And so that's kind of where I I rise just to say, hey, I I really would love to hear um and I think this public setting I think starting with the um the discussion on the amendment, I think that's one way to go. So that's that's it for me. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. Is there anyone else to address the board of commissioners?

Yeah, I'm Chad Keelin with 3971 Beckwith. I'm just letting you know that I'm here to address any questions you may have over it, but our whole intentions are just to comply with what the the growth plan was for Mount Juliet with annexation and go along with the C1. Nothing nothing spectacular. Just letting you know I'm here. All right. Thank you, sir.

Anyone else? Well, seeing none, we'll close citizen comments. We'll move into commissioner comments and reports. Commissioner Giles, you're recognized for five minutes.

All right. Well, happy new year to all who who are here and at home. I hope you had a good Christmas as well. I want to thank all of you who participated in the Christmas lightw walk. It was December the 15th. We had a great turnout. Um, every year differs. Some years there's more, some there's less. It was very cold. Uh, we appreciate Dunkin Donuts for providing the refreshments. We also appreciate uh Mount Juliet Band of Gold for playing for us out there. It was truly a hallmark moment, wasn't it, city manager? It was great. Many of us here were there. Most of us here at this table were there and uh just had a great evening. So, thank you all. Thank you for Willoughby Station for allowing us to conduct that there in your parking lot. And um so it was a it was a great turnout. Uh, I also want to um mention [sighs] about six years ago, I guess, or four years. Time goes by so quick. We got uh for a nonprofit organization that I serve as a president on. It's called Friends of Mount Juliet BPAC. We got our 501c3 status. And I came down here, matter of fact, and announced it because I was very serious about it because our goal and our aim was to be able to apply for grants to be able to give that to the city of Mount Juliet so that we can extend our sidewalks and greenways and uh increase education and awareness of the city. So, as you well know, it takes time. So, thanks to City Manager Martin, he was able to put us on to a grant that was available. We applied for it and it was awarded and so we we received $15,000 and to some that may not be a lot but to us it's a lot and uh it was it goes to the city to a project that's going to come um a little later this year in district 4 and uh it's this connectivity

that that we're trying to con uh construct and I'm really excited about it. So I wanted to thank all who had a a hand of it. Um, uh, Matt White, the public works director, is on that organization as well. And so we all meet, uh, normally at night at, um, another location and go over the stuff. And so we appreciate all the work that everyone has done and and, um, looking forward to it. There's, um, uh, so anyway anyway, hopefully there'll be more in the future so that we can do and give to the city. So we're excited about. So, mayor, that completes my comments. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Recognize our vice mayor.

Thanks, mayor. And, uh, thanks for everybody online and also in the room tonight. Uh, welcome back. [snorts] Uh, that parade, uh, was pretty cool, wasn't it? And then, of course, the Christmas lights, I'll tell you, uh, we're very blessed. Uh, city. U, from what I heard from the residents, uh, the parade this year went by smoothly. It was long, which is great. That means we got a good participation and, uh, all the kids were happy. I think they got so much candy that uh that there's going to be a lot of good dentist bills here coming up in 2026. So, everybody should be able to be very happy on that one. Um all jokes aside, um you know, there's a couple things though. Just want to thank our first responders as I always do because uh um as we were all having fun throughout the holidays, these folks were in there taking care of 911, dispatchers, the police, fire, ambulance. So, as we're all out with family and friends, they're out protecting our roads and our streets and our communities. So, thank you gentlemen and ladies. We greatly appreciate you. Um, and my family and I think about you guys every time we hear the uh the sirens coming down the street of what's coming down. So, um it's just great that we know that we've got the best in the in the state of Tennessee. um uh with the gentleman that came up actually he's in my district so uh me and him chat a lot um a lot about my uh um you know you know my thoughts on the growth I I do think we are definitely uh growing a little too fast in my opinion taxes I'm not a fan of them I think uh smaller government's always better and uh cutting waste actually I just talked to our deputy uh city manager tonight um that was one of the things that was one of my conversations which is uh for 2026, where are we with uh um each department? Because I know that that's uh one thing that our city manager is um is expecting our deputy manager to be looking at. And I appreciate those two gentlemen that are looking at uh what we can do to cut back and make sure that each department is being um you know, respecting the taxpayers's time and

money. You know, that's very important to me. So, um for the folks that reached out to me over the last couple weeks, thank you. If I missed anyone on my emails, I apologize. Um, that's one thing that I try to do is, you know, respond back as quick as possible. Um, you know, for the folks that are out there, I' I've actually sent three emails to a couple residents and never heard back from you. So, if you're listening tonight, I sent you three emails to two different email families and I'm not responding anymore to you. I gave you three shots. So, give me a call back and I'll uh start the whole process over again. So other than that, uh um you know, welcome back everyone. I hope everybody has a great 2026 um as we are falling into the uh you know, the winter weathers. Just be careful, be patient, and uh be respectful. That's all I got. Mayor, thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. That I recognize Commissioner Hefner. You're recognized for five minutes, sir. [clears throat]

Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate that. And happy birthday. Um, Mayor Mayus, appreciate everybody coming out this evening. Uh, and those watching online. Uh, seems like forever that I've um attended a board meeting. We've had some holidays in between. We missed some that we can meetings on. Um and uh and one uh the last one which unfortunate um I was uh 5 minutes from boarding a 4 and a half hour flight back to make this meeting and it was the first meeting in December um when I learned um uh about the death of a dear friend of mine um who lives not too far behind me. I won't mention his name. Um, but I want to go ahead and post uh some very valuable information uh for any veterans um that are um contemplating [clears throat] or having some issues contemplating um you know taking your own life or even family members of a veteran uh that's contemplating. There is a 24-hour a day, 7 days a week hotline. Uh the number uh is up on the screen. Um I encourage you to uh reach out. It's free. Um so I encourage you. So uh God bless him. I know he's in a better place. So with that being said, uh a couple other things I want to mention. Um happy New Year's. Uh merry Christmas. Um, hope everyone has a prosperous 2026. Um, I want to end on this. Uh, last meeting I attended, um, there's a lot that I I wish I I wish we didn't have that I wish we had that break, uh, on Thanksgiving because, uh, there was much I wanted to

say about that meeting um, that early November meeting. U, but I'm not going to I'm not going to go through it. I'm not gonna um I've gained another year. I'm a year older, maybe a year wiser, and a little bit more patient. So, I'm not going to go through the long list of things I was going to mention, but my only hope is tonight um that I get a second on the ordinance that I'm attempting to um have an open and honest debate on. Hope we get a second to have that and then let's vote on it. So, um, appreciate that and, um, again, welcome everybody back back to the new year and, uh, that that's it for my report. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Mlea, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. All right. So the budget that u was brought up [clears throat and cough] as you know um as far as where I stand the the way it works over the course of the year at budget time the financial director brings forth a suggested rate that would take us into the next budget cycle. That that's how it worked. And then she, our financial director, brought a rate that would have been sustainable to take us into the next year. Um, unfortunately, the sales tax numbers aren't what they once were. So, those were way down. Growth was down. It dropped from 7% to 2 and a.5% thereabout. Um, so we had some issues that we had to face. Uh so as you know the the uh property tax rate was cut three times which did not leave us in my opinion of a sustainable balance of reserves which was 7 million and I think that actually includes the million and a half for the um the uh hotel motel which goes to parks. So I think that includes that. Um so anyway, um it ended up being 7 million to take us into the next budget. So um that I felt it was a bad budget and that's the reason that I voted against it. We did cut $6 million in operating expenses. So I mean we cut everything possible. So um I don't know. I hope that answers your question as far as the budget of

where I stood on it. Um, we don't know what's going to happen in this next budget cycle. Our financial director will get the numbers and and when we have the work sessions, we'll have two um she would bring us a suggested rate and that's where it starts. Um, in my opinion, the rate should be come from finance and not this board. Uh, let's see. As far as the moratorum, I don't think there's any secret that uh I'm not in favor of it. However, if it does get a second, I'm prepared to discuss it. So, um, and that was it. I don't know that there was something else that I didn't write down. I think there was something else I missed. So, sorry about that. But I'll talk to you after the meeting if you want. Uh, let's see. So we held a work session in December um on the future growth of sustainable growth for the next 20 to 40 years of the city and um we had a PowerPoint and presented um a a plan about responsible development and um it was very good. So, if you didn't get to come or you didn't see it, I would highly recommend you go on the city's website and look that up. It's on video. Uh, it was on December 8th, I believe it was, at 5:15 that day. And so, I just want to wish the mayor [snorts] a happy birthday as well as Commissioner Hefner. He's had a birthday, too. And so, three of us on

the board have January birthdays. I have one in a couple of weeks. So, we have two Capricorns and a Aquarius. So, anyway, happy birthday. That's all. Thank you for your comments.

I'll just I'll add I just want to make I just want to hope say I wish everybody had as nice of a Christmas as I did. I got to spend some time with the family, both the both the kids home from college, so that that's always nice and a plus. and hope everybody's New Year's is starting off as well. Uh I thought our Christmas parade, the previous one we had, was probably the best Christmas parade as far as the way way it operated that I recall being in. So I just got to say staff, you guys went above and beyond on this one. I thought it went very well and even that the BPAC walk, I thought that went as well as possible. one of the better events and and just like you pointed out the band coming up and they they were spot on. So appreciate all the efforts that went into that and I know my birthday's been mentioned my it's not my birthday today but I did have a pre a birthday commissioner Hefner has had a birthday as well so happy birthday um and for you got one coming so it's um January holds a quorum for us if you know what that means. So, and Commissioner, I'm I'm sorry to hear about the loss of of your friend. I didn't know that was that was something you were dealing with. So, I'm I know that's never an easy situation. But, there were three questions I asked. I think one about growth taxes and cutting waste. Uh I'll say I'll say with growth and and Commissioner Mley led with this. My concern with growth is is where we're going to be as a city from sustainable growth. Putting the right kind of growth into this city, which growth is coming. If it's not coming in the city, it's definitely coming around the city. But managing what one happens in the city and two, what happens around the city is high on my list. But I'll say this, I spend just as much time thinking about

growth. I spend an equal amount of time thinking about what the city will do or how the city will operate when the growth stops because no place grows forever. And the growth that we do get now, it's it's extremely important for me to make sure that that growth is something that can be sustained. And I know there's a question about the in the public hearing on here is like, will this project that you voted for at a previous date cause us to raise our property tax? I don't think that project will cause us to raise our property taxes any way, but their infrastructure and other things around that and the way that some of these developments are brought in. We have to be very mindful of the fact that we're leaving that we're accepting infrastructure that has to be maintained into the future and what that's going to look like. Of course, taxes. It was mentioned that taxes recently went up. I will say our our rate has more than doubled since the last rate, but I would also point out that this city, even with the recent increase in taxes, it's still 50% less than any city in this county. So, there's a lot to be said about the way this city operates. There's a lot to be said about the fact that this city has operated as in the bottom five in the state previously as far as tax rates. And with this city, we're the only one I know of that operates a fire department, EMS, all those things. I'm the only the only one that we know of that was able to ever take it home at the rate that we took it on. and we've had an increase in taxes, but you know, it gets it always gets it always gets fronted by saying, you know, it's a huge increase or whatever the percentage is on it, but the total of it is still it's still if you live in Mount Juliet, you're still getting a you're still getting a lot of value for what you pay. You're still in the bottom. You're still

paying less than half of any other municipality in this county. But my goal is to always keep taxes as low as humanly possible and still operate this city with the basic services. Another question I think was about cutting waste. I will say with my time with the city, I have found what one calls waste, the other one calls their favorite hobby. Um, so sometimes what one person will look at and say is wasteful that the city shouldn't be spending on, you've got another person standing right beside them and thinks this is the whole reason we should have a city to begin with is pay for this. So sometimes it's not always so clear as to what the definition of waste is. I mean, we we know what spending money on stuff that we shouldn't be spending on. Leaving the lights on in a building that we're not there, that's wasteful and we want to do everything to eliminate that. But sometimes at the local level, what actually what actually is legitimate spending or or what's been wasteful is a subject that's that there's not always a consensus on. There's a clear consensus on what actual waste is that you that you think of, but there's a lot of things that the city does there's not a clear consensus on. But anyway, I hope everybody's having a good 2026. And I'll end my comments and recognize our city manager. Thank you uh commissioners and everybody that came tonight, those watching from home. Hope everybody had a great uh Christmas and New Year's. Uh we are extremely blessed in this community and I was point out a few of those things. For example, we just had a ribbon cutting at another new business recently. Actually had two last week and one of them I'm drawing complete blank on. But the other was thanks the Robinson family which is here tonight uh for the new sprouts that we've got there with Everett DS which is a local family that had owned that property for a long time. And there's a nice new business called Back Nine, I believe it is. If you hadn't been there and you like golf and don't want to get out in the elements, I encourage you to go there. It's really super cool. Some of the latest, greatest technology and these folks that invest in our community. A

lot of money in that building. It's really cool. So, I'd encourage you maybe give them a look. Uh, Sicheros, again, I mentioned Sprouts. Um, the gentleman's talking earlier is a good friend of ours. He comes to a lot of our meetings. I couldn't agree with him more. We strive to keep our taxes low and the way we do that is by encouraging people to shop local with all our businesses and uh it's sad that you know maybe not a week goes by that we don't find out if a local shop owner or business is unfortunately just can't make it as everybody knows their cost goes up just like our cost and you guys all understand that with grocery stores and gasoline things of that nature. Um but we're striving every day to not to encourage our people to shop locally. So, one way that you can get involved in keeping your taxes low, I know it sounds so self- serving and selfish is to literally if you live in the city limits of Mount J, Tennessee, if you need something and you can get it here, get it here. I know for convenience purposes sometimes it's easy to say, well, I'll just get it in Nashville or get it in another adjoining city. When you do that, that sales tax 100% of it stays in that community and not yours. And um so selfishly, we've got some new businesses coming. Texas Roadhouse. They'll be opening, I believe, in March if I'm correct. So, when they open, we hope you guys absolutely flood them with business, but continue to support your local business. There's enough to go around. Hies, if you like Hav's furniture, and I know how folks are. I know in my own household, uh I think our M mattress is about 30 years old. Looks like it'll be on a couple episodes of Dine, it's really bad. And uh so, we're looking at replacing that. Well, a typical California king today costs $5,000. So when you go go buy if you buy an industrial base, it's another $5,000. You could spend $10,000 just like that just on a bed. Well, we just toured the rooms to go showroom and that building is absolutely huge. So as soon as they outfit it with probably it's going to be millions of dollars of furniture. I'm hoping that residents in this community and outside this community come and shop there. So you'll have a rooms to go. You'll have an Ashley's. You have a Hes and all the other businesses in Mount Jill like at home and things of that nature. Please shop with them. A lot of folks have called and asked me about

Waterburger on 70. Unfortunately, business shoots for it and it it just doesn't work. You know, we taste buds don't suit the citizens of Mount Juliet or we have too much of something. So, uh be helping us send us ideas you've got for that. We're it's a unique situation because Waterburgger controls the lease on that building. So, they'll have it for a while and so it'd be up to them to subleasase that building and uh we've got a lot a lot of interest. Sadly, at the end of the day, it's up to Waterburger on who back fills it. It could be anything from a bank to an eye doctor to a dentist to another retailer. We just don't know. But we are sending them lots of suggestions and there's a lot of interest. So I know a lot of people ask about that. Uh a lot of people ask about a lot of different businesses. So um please just continue to support uh your local business. And last but not least, I'd like to give a shout out to our entire public works department which includes storm water and uh public works and the building development part of public works. A lot of what they do doesn't get noticed in the public like it does a lot of departments, but we're dealing with them daily. We probably meet with any, if there's any department we meet with, it's probably public works. We had meetings today and they all know it. They work tremendously hard behind the scenes on things that we don't even think of that are technical. And you know, in some ways, I guess you could call some of those details even boring. But what doesn't get noticed sometimes is traffic. There's it was said one time in Mount Dwitt that the orange barrels are a friend. They're like our state bird. If you see construction barrels, that's a good thing. So, I want to give this commission a shout out and our public works a shout out because probably in all my many years of being in the uh going to a lot of the meetings in the city, I defer a lot of those meetings that gentleman right there, Matt White, to try to seek funds from the state of Tennessee and federal government on behalf of the city of Mount Juliet. And our public works department as a group does that together. And by far, and Matt will tell me if I'm lying, I think by far we probably get as many if not more road projects in Mount Jul. You may not see them because they come a long they take a long time to come through to fruition. So if you've traveled old Lebanon Dirt Road recently, you probably dealt with a

lot of flagmen and traffic stops and frustrations and plates on the road, you know, and things of that nature. But that is a big big sign of progress because that means that roads as soon as those utilities get moved in short order, the road will be getting widened. Well, our public works department with the hard work of Mr. Matt White recently secured a grant for nearly $24 million uh for the Central Pike interchange and uh doesn't count lots and lots of other hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars that that team has acquired on the city's behalf to hopefully speed that project up by a couple years. And a lot of these things like 11 Dirt Road started years and years ago and the coordination that goes into that is unbelievable. If you see a telephone pole, just think there's probably five or six utilities attached to that pole and you got to get them to all work together to get them moved. So you can move that pole. If you see gas lines, water lines, all that's got to be done and they've done it. So you'll see old dirt Dirt Road getting widened. So I can promise you, you may not see it because sadly these things just take a while. For example, Golden Bear was held up for a year over the Indiana bat. All right. And I love Indiana, by the way. Congratulations. I lived in Gary, Indiana for a short time when I was a kid. So Indiana's doing very well. But we love the bats and all, but we didn't like the road project getting held up. Never heard of such a thing. So, I just want to give a shout out to everybody's patience. To the citizens that make Mount J what it is and such an awesome place to live. Everybody here works extremely hard. It's not a person that we've got here at the city, including the people in our community don't work extremely hard. And one last thing, kudos to this commission. In my 36 years here, we've been trying to find a place for our seniors, our senior citizens. And uh this commission stepped up and said, "You know what? We've got a police department that if it had not been for uh one of our local church churches, I'm drawing a blank to church on Joy Church." Joy Church brought the city joy by giving us basically a really good deal on the building that the police department just moved out of. And so we're returning that favor and basically what they did, they carried the note at no interest to the city. Saved the city

don't tell how much money to do that. And so what we did is basically this commission said, "You know what? We're going to repay that and we're going to let the senior citizens use it for I think it's a hundred years for a dollar a year. That's paying it forward, folks. So, that's the kind of community you live in. That's the kind of community I'm proud of and that's the kind of community I'm thankful for and God bless everybody because that's the most important thing because without you, there is no city of Mount Juliet. And mayor, that concludes my report.

Thank you, sir. With that, we'll move to the consent agenda. By my count, we have 23 items for me to read for the record. Um, I'll get started. Get comfortable. AA, an ordinance to reszone the property located at 3336 North Mount Juliet Road, approximately 1.37 acres, map 54, parcels 179.01 from RS40 to CTC. 8B, an ordinance to reszone the property located at 660 Central Pike, approximately 8.21 acres. Map 97, parcel 18 from RS40 to CMU 8C, an ordinance to amend part B of the unified development code of the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee, known as the zoning regulations ordinance 200129, adopted October 8th, 2001 as amended by amending article 56 and 7 sections 5103A, 51034, 6103A, 6103.3, and 7103A. Building Heights 8 D, a resolution adopting the plan of services for the property known as the Hell property located at 29640 Lebanon Road, map 73, parcel 64.05 in Wilson County, Tennessee, located within the city's urban growth boundary. 8E an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Juliet approximately 6.58 acres of property at 296401 the dirt road map 73 parcel 64.05 The row five, the property being located within the city's urban growth boundary 8F a resolution in memorandum of ordinance relative to the annexation of approximately 6.5 acres of

land of at 29641 and dirt road map 73 parcel 64.05 05 8G, an ordinance to amend part B of the Unified Development Code of the City of Mount Juliet, Tennessee, known as the zoning regulations, Ordinance 200129, adopted October 8, 2001, as amended by annex, excuse me, as amended by article 14, public notices, section 14-1094. Next item is 9A, an ordinance to amend part B of the unified development code of the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee, known as zoning regulations, ordinance 200129, adopted October 8, 2001, as amended by amending article 8, 2073, minimum lot area in putt overlay districts. The next item 9 C, an ordinance to amend ordinance 20255 that extends the sunset date until December 31st, 2025, which amends ordinance 20245 part B of the city's unified development code of the city of Mount Juliet known as zoning regulations by amending article 3 use regulations adding section 3108 temporary events, portable buildings to include mobile food vendors, food trucks regulations for residential and industrial districts to extend a sunset date from December 31st, 2025 until December 31st, 2026. [snorts] The next item 9E, a resolution adopting the plan of services for the South Green Hill Road and Rideway located at South Green Hill Road from the existing city limits near Lebanon Road intersection to the southeastern property corner of partial 53152

in Wilson County, Tennessee. located within the city's urban growth boundary. 9F, an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Juliet a portion of rideway roadway and rideway located with located at South Green Hill Road from the existing city limits near Lebanon Road intersection to the southeastern property corner of parcel 53152 in Wilson County, Tennessee, located within the city's urban growth boundary. And then there's 9G, a resolution and memorandum of ordinance relative to the annexation of the portion of the roadway and rideway located at South Green Hill Road from the existing city limits near Lebanon Road intersection to the southeastern property corner of parcel 53 152. to. Then under new business, you can find 10 A, an ordinance to amend the preliminary master development plan for Providence Central Planned Unit development ordinance 201312 located at map 97, parcel 2575.7 in the city of Mount Juliet. 9B, an ordinance to amend the preliminary master development plan for the village at Pleasant Grove planned unit development located on Pleasant Grove Road, map 76, partial 37 and 3701 and 40 in the city of Mount Juliet. 10 I a resolution adopt excuse me a resolution approving a police K9 transfer agreement and release waiver for K9 between the city of Mount Juliet Tennessee.

10J a resolution approving the award of construction contract for the highway 70 pump station bow replacement and authorize the mayor to sign the contract. 10K a resolution approving agreement between the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee and various engineering firms for design and construction inspection services of the city city's capital transportation process projects and authorized the mayor to sign the agreement. 10L a resolution declaring the city of Mount Juliet's fire department property as surplus to be donated to Overton County EMS. 10m a resolution accepting a donation of a diesel engine portable light tower for the city of Mount Juliet's police department. 10N an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Juliet approximately 1 acre of property at 6325 Central Pike, map 97, parcel 14.01. The property being located within the city's urban growth boundary. 10. An ordinance to reszone property located at 6325 Central Park approximately 1 acre 1 acre map 97 parcel 14.01 from Wilson County R1 to CMU commercial use 10P. an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Jill at approximately 0.92 acres of property at 6365 Central Pike, Mount 97, parcel 14. the property being located within the city's urban growth boundary and 10 Q an ordinance to reszone property at 6365 Central Pike approximately 90.92 acres map 97 parcel 14 from Wilson County R1 to CMU commercial use and that is the 23 items is have a motion

second all in favor of the consent agenda can it wait after this vote. Uh on one of the consent items, what's the question? Um on 6600 Central Pike on that [clears throat] reszone for the 8 acres going on to uh to uh commercial mixed use. The owner has a truck business there. Is that going to be allowed under CMU? Sorry, John. Anything existing is going to can remain

existing. Yeah. Okay, that's all. All right. All in favor of the consent, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? The consent agenda does carry for those 23 items. So we will move into the next item on our agenda under unfinished business which was 9B which is an ordinance to amend the city of Mount Juliet's code of ordinances chapter 28 article 9 truck routes. Motion have a motion motion and second. The item is on the table. Commissioner Mley do you have a comment? You [clears throat] have the floor.

Okay. This is an amendment to our truck routes ordinance. Um, it's recently kind of discovered that the word deliveries um was causing issues with the police department being able to enforce it. So, this is an amendment to uh add some language in there that would give PD the teeth that they need and the trucks would have to provide proof that they're on that road or a non-truck route for [clears throat] uh for a delivery and they have to have paperwork to prove it that they're going to a particular address. So, th this is um just giving them what they need in order to enforce it. Um, I'm not opposed to trucks. I like trucks. They move America. Um, my grandfather was a truck driver. I just want the trucks to, and this is not Amazon trucks. It's mostly mostly uh, you know, 18 wheelers cutting through using their GPS on non-truck routes. So, I just want them to use the designated truck routes that we have in this city. So, that's what this is. All right. Any questions or comments? All in favor of 9B, please signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Any abstensions? 9B does carry. 9D, which is an ordinance to amend part B of the unified development code of the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee, known as zoning regulations ordinance 200129, adopted October 8, 2001, as amended by amending article 9, section 9106, access management. Motion. Have a motion. Second and second. It's come to my attention that we have a updated copy of this here at the table. Are you Goodwood adopting this? Yes. You do have some other changes too. Do we need to adopt this first? Yes.

Okay. Is there any objection to adopting the copy of the table? I've got a question about All right. There's a question for Who's the question for? I guess you look Did you read over this? This is a question for you. Yes. Okay. Any any objections to adopting this copy? No. All right. This updates some dates on this folks is is what we're adopting here on it. Are Is there other Yeah.

The wrong version of the ordinance was attached to this agenda packet. It was a old draft. So this is the exact copy. What you are about to adopt was the exact copy that was considered on first reading. It was just a wrong copy. It's changing 25 to 26. It's entirely different then. But this is exactly what was considered on first reading. Commissioner Mleium. Yes. Did [clears throat] you have some changes? So that is now adopted. Yes. Okay. So objections.

All right. Um so this is the same thing that was passed first reading and since then the planning commission read it um recommended uh some changes. So, that's what we're going to do here. And I can just go. They're very simple. Um, [snorts] if that's okay. In section two on the ordinance, this adopted ordinance section two. All right. The very last sentence, it's recommended that the um from PC that that sentence be removed and it starts with um the fourth lineup whenever joint access driveways and or all the way down to the end of the paragraph, which is um ends with access period. So, it was recommended that that be removed. So, I'm going to make the motion that that be removed from the ordinance. Is there a second to removing this one?

Yeah, I'll second that. Okay, perfect. We're on the floor by this. So, it's whenever joint access driveways and or cross access corridors are provided in accordance with the provisions of this section. It is understood that the new development will not be required to get the adjourning property owner to sign any documents to provide this access. That's motion is to strike that because that's mentioned somewhere else. It's addressed somewhere else that they they wouldn't have to do that. So we're done.

So it's just repeat repetitive apparently. Okay. Is there any objections to removing this? Okay. Okay, without objection, we'll strike that.

All right, section three. Another um something to be removed as recommended by planning commission and it's the and this is construction and maintenance. It's the one, two, three, fourth line down where it says property lines where a full connection is not yet possible. That should be a period which ends the sentence. And the next portion where it reads when both stubs can be connected, it is the financial responsibility of each owner to pay for their property portion of the connection. Period. This portion is recommended to be removed.

I'm sorry. You wanting to remove the semicolon, replace it with a period, and then capitalize when Uh and so the [clears throat] next sentence would be property shall not be subdivided. Okay. So what's after the semicolon currently all the way down to the period is comes out. So strike when both stubs can be connected it is the financial responsibility of each own owner to pay for their port their property portions of that of the connection. Correct. You're wanting to strike that. Yes.

Okay. [snorts] All right. Is there a second to striking this? I'm not hearing a second, Commissioner. I'll second it so we can discuss it. Commit that. All right. It's on the floor for that one there. So, if it's not the owner's responsibility, whose responsibility is it? Which owner? Yeah. I mean, if

Yeah. So whose responsibility is it if if they they both have connections? If it's up to the property line, whose responsibility is it? To me, it would should be both the owners take the responsibility to pay for the connection. I don't understand why the plan commission could not see that. I don't know.

Representation. I mean, wasn't this? Yeah, I know. I mean, we can vote on it. I mean, whatever y'all think. I mean, it's just I just don't understand it. But you want to hear from someone in particular? I mean, I think it'd be important to hear from public, especially if that's an opportunity there to be able to give us some insight. I guess what's the issue? What was the issue that drove this? That's what I'm looking for. Yeah, the new I can explain what said. So, M Bernett,

the planning commission was just concerned that the city would be dictating which developer pays for it rather than just letting the developers figure out who pays for it. If a new person coming in wants to pay for it, well, then great. But that's up to the private developers to figure out. That's a summary of what they said. Go ahead. Go ahead, Vice Mayor. Okay. So, and I think this gonna be a little bit confusing. I mean, so if it if it runs down to, let's say that you've got a side of a let's say a a land owner that is developing his side and then the other side is not fully it's just a piece of land, right? And they may have a uh an easement through there.

Is it going to be left up to the individual that's not going to be doing anything to his property? That's what I'm trying to understand here. And I think that's where I'm a little confused is, you know, is that expense going to be pushed back on the individual that's not doing anything that's just paying his taxes on his land? You know, he doesn't care if if there's an easement there. That's the way I'm seeing it. So, well, at that point, you wouldn't have any pavement crossing since there's no development. So, it would be just that single that new single development that would pay for their stuff at that moment. But then once if a new development comes in, then it would be up to the developers to figure out who is paying for it to be connected.

Okay. So, so I'm going to go back to this. Have we experienced any of this recently? Is there a reason why this was brought up uh from another project? Can you guys elaborate on this? Um yes, there was a recent issue with Everett Downs um with connecting to an adjacent property that an easement was provided but it wasn't provided correctly. Is that appropriate to say? Sure. Um so that that's the catalyst of of where this is is coming from. Um,

so, so for example, just so I understand because I know we got to be vague here or whatever so we don't hurt anybody's feelings, but so if we're giving an easement to go on to somebody else's property, is that what you're saying to go on there and then they got to be able to build a road? Because again, I mean, I'm just trying to understand with what what the expectations are here connection. We're talking about the connection. Talking about the cost of the connection. That's what I'm trying to figure out. But I'm looking at the big picture. That's what I'm trying to figure out is because I mean because I because I did hear remember that we had a a challenge there. How is this going to fix the challenge? That's what I'm trying to understand.

Well, this little piece that we're talking about right now that the motion is concerned about it, I don't know that it really relates to what that challenge was. We're just talking about one sentence right now versus correct. That's what I'm just trying to figure out. Does this apply to that? That's all I'm asking. [sighs]

I just I just think what we should do is whoever builds there first pave as close to the property line as they can. And I know they can't pave all the way the property line because that would involve them getting over onto the next property. And that's called trespassing. And people get really upsensitive about that as they probably should. How about they just pave up to five feet from the property line where they want to put that cross access. They can deed that property, that little gap there over to the city. The city can own it. The next person that develops, uh, we can make that a requirement for them to pave on the city's land. And then we deed that that little spec back to the person or whichever side wants it. And, um, pavement meets, it's all done, worked out, and we have cross easement. Tell me how I'm crazy.

No, I think that's an idea. May I? One of the one of the reasons that it was written is so that people then looking at our ordinance if they're in California and they want to come here to build. It's easy to understand. You couldn't even understand the other ordinance. Yeah. If this says it's the responsibility of each owner, that makes sense. I mean, you don't have to have a degree to look at that and say, "Well, I understand that." I think that that's where it is. And as far as another developer paying for it, that would be negotiation between two land owners. They may probably do that anyway, but it would still be the responsibility of that owner. So, I don't know. I just I didn't understand why they didn't like that. But, nevertheless,

I I just want a straightforward way if we can have cross connectivity and everything doesn't get funneled back on the main road. Commissioner Hefner. Well, there there there could be there could be reasons why the why the existing land owner doesn't want to could be

doesn't want to pay pay for the connection. maybe a competing business that's going in on the new development. It's commercial and uh he refuses to pay to connect. So, he stops the stops the access to go go through. So, I think that I don't know I don't want to speak out of term, but I I can see that being a scenario where somebody's a land owner has got a lease on a commercial piece of property and then the new land owner is going to got a competing business that's going to drive the maybe the existing one out. Well, taking it out takes care of that. I just I was just expressing what I felt. I just wanted it to to be easy to understood, but the plan commission said take it out. She's saying take it out. So, I mean, you know,

I'm just motioning to, you know, um, [clears throat] put it out there for discussion.

So, I do have a question as far as [clears throat] Everett down. So the the way I understand this, this is being removed because it removes the city from having to uh the city can't really enforce the two property owners to you know how to pay for it. So it just removes the city. That's how I understand it. So talking about Ever Downs, [clears throat] I know the city was involved. So what was the city's role in that deal? the the city's role was more of a facilitator more than anything. Um that was an agreement that just had to be worked out between two property owners. Um because of two I think it was two different puds that had conditions requiring that cross connection. Um one owner wanted it more than the other to put it lightly. Um,

yeah, one owner was required to want it more than the other. Both owners were required to want it. Yes. But whose responsibility was it to make sure that it was enforced initially on the first PUD that came there and it be recorded on the plat that that easement would go up to the line? Yeah. The the issue wasn't the easement going to the line. It was how the easement was recorded. Okay. So, whose responsibility was that to make sure it was recorded correctly? That's a great question.

Yeah. City attorney at the time, the director of public works at the time. Um, well, okay. Miss Bernett, speaking generally, it's planning department's job. However, in this specific case, the scenario you're referencing, the other PUD, for lack of a better word, essentially went behind the city's back and filed something new with the register of deeds office that basically removed the cross access and we don't get notified about that. So, how can they do that if it's a PUT inside the city limits?

Well, I mean, you can pretty much file whatever you want with the register of deeds office and we don't get like a hey city of Mount Juliet just so you know this happened. It's filed. So, then that's the document that that rest of that PUD started working under. Not Everett DS I'm talking about the other I understand. But then we have inspections and we don't look at and and well and look at the the the construction the building that was a office building down there and I'm trying to think what it's called on the right. So are you saying it was after the fact that that happened? So we had approved everything and then they go do that. Yes.

Okay.

That's a shame. just like it was down there on Lebanon Road when they moved that cemetery when we voted the planning years ago and that cemetery was supposed to be there and then they did something like that behind their back and moved that cemetery. So I guess it's very close to that. Um I think this is an important issue for us to get right. I'm going to make a motion that we defer this and hold a workshop to go over these details before we vote on this for second reading. And I'll make the motion to defer this until the next available time slot before a city commission that we can have a workshop to go over this.

Have a motion and second. Any discussion on deferral? All in favor of deferral, please signify by saying I. Any opposed? This item is going to be deferred for a workshop. You're distaining on this deferral. Okay.

So, it' be a vote of four in favor, one abstension on the deferral. Is there any objection to uh for the consideration of 9H, 9 I, J, and K together? Hearing none, I'll read all four of those. 9H, which is a resolution adopting a plan of services for the property known as the Keeland property located at 3971 Beckworth Road, map 78, parcel 21.06 in Wilson County, Tennessee, located within the city's urban growth boundary. Uh 9, which is an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Jill at approximately 5.21 21 acres of property at 3971 Beckworth Road map 78 parcel 21.06 the property being located within the city's urban growth boundary and 9J which is a resolution and memorandum of ordinance relative to the annexation of 3971 Beckwith Road map 78 partial 21.06 9K which is an ordinance to reszone the property located at 3971 Beckwith Road approximately 5.21 21 acres map 78 parcel 21 from Wilson County R1 to CI commercial interchange. Those four four items. Is there a motion for the four?

Motion and a second I heard. So the four on the table. Um, I got I got an unusual email about the four properties and it was referencing to some pending litigation between the properties and Wilson County. I'd ask the city manager to look into it. Um, can you can you help me out here? This there's current pending litigation with the county over these litigation or is it codes effort? What was exactly found? Yes.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And I'll defer to the city attorney if I misspeak, but from my understanding, I got the email as well. We reached out to the county. It's been an ongoing issue, I think, for about three years or better, I believe. And the county does have some current litigation against the county in regards to codes. And so, um, and we just found that out literally over the weekend or I can't remember the email came through, but I'll defer the city attorney for any additional details I may be omitting. You have any additional email um, additional details?

I haven't read the actual complaint or the lawsuit. So, I don't know the exact details, but yes, there is pending litigation. And I think it was filed in 2022 um filed by the county attorney for basically violation of zoning of county zoning. Okay. I believe it relates to maybe a business they were conducting on the property that they not zoned for. Commissioner Lily.

Um yeah, I got the email to [clears throat and cough] previously the owner and I know he's here. Um, according to the email, [snorts] the there was a business on the property, a dumpster disposal business, uh, which until a few months ago, there's a new business now, a portable toilet and s sewage disposal service on the property. Um it is used for store storage service and to maintain the outdoor portable toilets, service vehicles and sewage waste disposable pump hall trucks. Um so the effort by the county to enforce the zoning um they were forced to bring a civil suit in 2022. And so this is the part that concerns me if true. Um to annex this into the city, annex and reszone will only serve to reset the clock for someone uh you know that for this owner um in the pending litigation. And it says if true [clears throat] since the annexation would also result in dismissal of the civil case as the county would no longer have standing. So that's concerning to me if true. So I don't know really if if all [snorts] of this is true um that the city wants to take that on. Perhaps the owner could take off and I mean come up and [clears throat] address.

Okay. A question for attorney and there was reference to standing in this situation. Would this potentially change the county standing with any pending litigation? Likely the county would not have standing anymore because it would not be within their zoning jurisdiction. So they would have no reason to enforce it since it would now come under our purview. So the lawsuit would likely just disappear, be dismissed.

Sorry, sir. Sir, just just a moment, please. Just trying to think what the next step should be here. Let me let me do this. can get your name and address for the record. Uh Chad Keelin, 3971 Beckwith. Okay. All right. And what what did you have to add, sir?

So, I've never had a business operate there. I bought that property several years ago. It was during the tornado time. I bought it and I cleaned it up and I built a shop there uh to store all my toys because like a lot of people in Mount Juliet, I now live in an HOA. So, I live in I have Jackson Hills house and they don't appreciate me keeping a skid steer and a boat and everything else in my driveway. So, I kept it out there and occasionally I would sto I would get shipments of different material in and I would have it there because it was large enough to turn semis around in. So, but I've never had a business registered there. I don't keep anything to run a business there. I don't have employees there. I don't have anything. It's just an overflow of stuff that I typic I would get in occasionally. We run our business out of out of Lebanon and off of 1095 Lebanon Road and it's just always been this place that we ride dirt bikes and keep extra stuff. So, my intentions are not to run that. This would have been settled a long time ago. Yansy's my attorney and but because we were going through all this the county didn't want to make a ruling to change the zoning there to stop all the you know any discussions about whether or not I was using it for R1 versus C1 uh that because it was in the growth plan of the city everybody brersier just kind of sat on his hands and said well we're going to push to the city so we came to the city and that's when we started moving this this annexation I was like okay well we'll just annex in um early on I intended on building a house back there with but with all the growth. Matt Wilson's property right next to mine got annexed in. It's now C1. Everybody else has gone into commercial there. I don't want to be the only one that builds a new house in the back of what's going to be an annexed area for the city and become commercial. So Yansy kept the only reason it's in this thing go kept going is because we kind of it's kicked

the can for any better words to be used and the county said well okay well if they're going to actually annex you with C1 then there's no point in us pushing further and that's what that email was about. That was us initiating them to say yes that we are in the process of trying to get annexed for C1 there. So that's that's pretty much where we're sitting. All right. And I have no intentions to use that property for anything outside of that C1 zoning. Are there outdoor? Well, it's um

a new shipment that we just brought up from Georgia on the back of the F450 because I didn't want to park in my driveway over the week. So, yes, there's six of them on the back of it, but they're all going to Nashville. I have I have no intentions of keeping port johns out there [snorts] and I don't own a garbage business anymore. I did sell it. So there's there's no rolloff dumpsters. There were some dumpsters out there but there was no ordinance saying anything about dumpsters any and anybody's property. So we didn't even know we were in violation for keeping dumpsters there. Okay. So that's what we got. Thank you.

That does make sense. Um, question for our city attorney. Is does this need to be looked at any further or so? I'm I'm thinking about a deferral for a meeting or so just to look at this since it just came up. If the board wishes to defer it, I'm happy to uh get with the county attorney and confirm that that's all accurate and that there hasn't been ongoing zoning issues. Yeah. I would give it a second if you motion for a deferral. I'll motion for a deferral. Second motion uh to next meeting.

Oh, 30 days. [clears throat] I would maybe suggest 30 days, but sometimes the county attorney is difficult to pin down. [laughter] It's on record now. 30 days. uh 30 days to give with that. What about the first meeting in March? Would that give enough time to find out about this uh lawsuit and maybe go out and check out the land? Has zoning even checked it out? You have what's your feedback on it?

Yeah, you doesn't sound like you have necessarily immediate plans. Well, you would have to skip one regardless. That's the I don't need until March. You don't need till March. Okay. 30 days. 30 days. Okay.

Got a motion for deferral for 30 days for 9H I J and K. Is there any uh any questions or comments on the advisement of deferral? All in favor of deferral, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? It's deferred for 30 days. Next item on the agenda is the is 9. Well, you do it this way. Any objections to considering 9L MN O together? Not hearing any. We'll read I'll read the four for the record. 9L which is a resolution adopting a plan of services for the property known as the courtyards at McFarland property located at 5025 Lemon Dirt Road map 77 parcel one in Wilson County Tennessee located within the city's urban growth boundary 9M which is an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Juliet approximately 39.34 acres property located at 502501 dirt road map 77 parcel 1 M1.03 03 located within the city's urban growth boundary 9M which is a resolution of inmemorandum of ordinance relative to the annexation of 50250 Lemon Dirt Road map 77 parcel 1 and 90 which is an ordinance to reszone approximately 39.34 acres of property at 50250 Le1 Dirt Rope map 77 parcel 1 and 1.03 03 from Wilson County R1 to CMU PUD and to adopt the preliminary master development plan for the courtyards at McFarland.

Have a motion.

Motion and second. Uh these four items are on the table for discussion. And I can start off this question for John under planning and zoning. Um item 32 under that which was which has been struck out since the first meeting. The commercial the commercial component of the pudge shall be completed before the issuance of the 75th residential certificate of occupancy. That language has been replaced with the commercial building shells shall be constructed to a weatherproof state. Sand's final interior buildout prior to the issuance of the final residential certificate of occupancy. Now, we defined what we were going to consider complete, but we also moved the goal from the 75th to the final.

Yes. Okay. May I? Yes, sir. Okay. So, this was my first pass at this after what we talked about at the last meeting. I since I've written this, this was my pass while the applicant was discussing amongst themselves what what they thought of this. They have since I put something in here for a placeholder because this agenda had to go out before they had followed up with me. Okay. But I have an email with uh some changes. Um I could read those to you or maybe the applicant come up and talk about it. Whatever you would prefer. What's your suggestion?

I could read them. I got the email in front of me here. Um to be completed by the issuance of the 75th. This is what the applicants prop you know kind of where we met here. Okay. uh to be completed by the issuance of the 75th residential certificate of occupancy. Bullet one, phase one, commercial building 5,500 square feet or greater shall be constructed and ready to lease and not and all curb cuts sidewalks constructed along the commercial property frontage on Old Lebanon Dirt Road. So basically 5,500 square feet of the commercial which I forget the total amount here is excuse me John significantly more.

I appreciate your faith in me but if you have that in that language in an email if you would just forward that right to me that would help out a lot. That'd be great. The applicant can explain they're kind of going to break the commercial on the plan into a couple different phases. Okay. And uh so that was the first first bullet point. Bullet point two remaining phase is graded to pad ready with stubbed utilities and full construction of the retention pond completed. And I'll over to you.

Perfect. All right. We have someone with the development to comment on this. Yes, sir. Jay Easter here um with Epcon Development Group. Happy to answer any of your questions. I'm still waiting on my inbox to refresh. I'll gladly wait.

Here we go. All right. What what John has got is to be completed by the issuance of the 75th residential certificate of occupancy. So, we still got the 75. Uh, phase one, one commercial building, 5,500 square feet or greater shall be constructed and ready to lease and all curb cuts, sidewalks construction along the commercial property frontage on Obundman Road. And then the second item is the remaining phases graded to pad ready with stubbed utilities and full construction of the retention pond complete.

Yes sir. Is that are you is that agreed upon or is this Yes sir. We following the and I forwarded this to the rest of the board here so they got their phones they can actually read what sent.

Okay. um as you asked us to. We got we had a meeting with staff uh we had gotten John's um John's recommendation for the final certificate of occupancy that all buildings should be complete. We went back and revisited the commercial site trying to see how it would realistically phase out. Um sent that to John. had had a teams meeting with John, talked through various options with him and um landed on this one um that the development group could agree upon and staff to agree upon and put together this exhibit to help illustrate how we thought the project would phase out from the commercial component side and uh work through the condition with John. Okay, I I'm very appreciative that come to an agreement on what complete means because I don't know that we were on the same page at the last meeting. Uh I think I'm good with the first point on that. Just speaking for myself, phase one that those be completed by the but the remaining phase grade two pound pad ready with the stubbed utilities in full construction of the retention pod remaining phases. I got to see what your phase lines are.

Okay. Do you have the exhibit? I have printed copies. Don't need this. No, sir. This should have been Did you forward the exhibit, John? I did. I'm happy to I have some I can pass out if that's helpful. Is it part of the packet, John?

Okay. Did I have enough? Okay, I I'm looking at it now. Okay. The remaining part two remaining phases graded to pad ready with stub utilities and full construction of the retention pond. completed.

Are you not going to need the retention pond for the residential portions? Yes, we're going to build the retention the entire retention pond uh with first phase of the residential. It serves the commercial site as well. Okay. So, what what role does the having the retention pond in part two add if you've already got to build it for the residential? We were just making a statement of what all was happening with the commercial and residential and what would be in place. But it's going to it's going to be because the way this is written, you're going to need it before phase one anyway to ever get to that 75th CO. Correct.

Yes, we we will build it and it's going to serve both commercial and res. All right. So by 75th CO you would have phase one which is the 5500 square foot building and then the remaining phases will be graded to pad ready with stub utilities. Yes sir. And okay and and the and full construction of the retention pond is almost redundant but

so the second part is remaining phases graded to pad ready wood stub utilities. John, are you reading that as contingent upon the 75th CO for part two? Okay. So then essentially we're saying at the 75th CO phase one will be complete and what you've got identified as two, three, and four will just be pad ready. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. It's all got to be done by the 75th C,

right? There's no past pad ready. Correct, John. After there's no there's no trigger for phases three, two, three, and four. Okay.

Anyone else questions about this? Question. What's your question, sir? You're recognized. Thank you. Um, and again I uh you know like when this thing first came because I know there was a discussion there for the buffer between the residential I guess it'd be right there where if we're looking at the map right now where the open space is for the first pink house.

Yes sir. So between that and then the alleyway, I just wanted to make sure the staff I mean you know just to see about that like that buffer was that discussed and then also the validation for um because again I was just going back on my notes the validation with the first responders. Do we get those cleared up? And I guess that's going to be again making sure the alleyways for the first responders get through there. I know that was a discussion initially when this first project came through there. So, I'm going to ask staff. That's some confirmation there for the first responders and then also the buffer between the open space where that first pink lot is um and then where the commercial start or I guess where the um that alleyway is. So,

okay. Just want to get that validation there from staff that that was covered. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, the the fire marshall did review these plans uh prior to it coming to planning and they had no real concerns. Uh the turning radi to get onto the alleys is something we'll handle at construction drawings. They'll provide us a turning template and show that it works.

Was there any I mean because again I mean because I'm just trying to think of you know like that first residential lot right there um and then you got the alleyway. I mean, because I because again, I'm I'm just trying to think about that buffer there. You know what I mean? For the residentials, is there going to be like a, you know, like a like a fence line there or how's that going to transition? Which lot are we talking about? So, you see the open space, the alleyway, you know, like the first lot right there next to the cemetery. So, you got that first pink lot up there at the alleyway.

Yes, sir. So that's going to be a D3 landscape buffer that runs along the back side of all of those pink lots all the way up through there. Correct. But then you got the alleyway right there next to that residential. So it was just again if you look at the other lots over there, you got a green buffer and you don't have that right there for those two lots, you know, like that first lot and the one across the street. Oh, that the lot is touching the alley. Correct. And I'm just asking like, you know, because again, not having that green space there. Just didn't know if that was considered.

Uh, no, we didn't really consider a green space there because just like the two lots across the street, that home should be structured so that there's access to the garage from the alley in instead of um access onto the public road. So, it be side entrance. Yes, sir. For both of those, for the two that are on the same side as the amenity, those will be side entrance. Okay, that makes sense. We try to accommodate anywhere that there is an alley access to a residential lot that that's utilized for the access instead of the road in front of it. Okay. All right. Thank you,

Commissioner Lady. Um, is this gated? No, ma'am. Sorry. [clears throat] Why? On the right side, that road that leads in, that's a public road. Why is there a public road leading into a private uh area? [clears throat] Yeah, that road um is going to act as a connection between division and old lemon and dirt road. There's a public good in having that connection. Um, now I'm not talking about the main one that connects both. I'm talking about the one on the far right. Oh, that's a great question. That that should become private.

That should be private. All right. What do What do we need to do to adopt that into the plan or change the plan? What do we need to do? Um, I mean, the access further estee shall be private. Perfect. Is that a second? Second. Okay. All right. Now, this is a uh senior ask forification. Are we are we talking about the we we were asked to make the central road private that's labeled private at planning commission level?

Okay. And so we have the public road from east division down to 0 11 and dirt road. So are is the road that's public? Sorry, that's public. That's public. Okay. Okay. So we're talking about the the second entrance off of O1. Okay. Yeah. The short one that's that's labeled public. Correct. It's a shorted public rightway takes up the whole road. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I understood where we were talking. Okay. And this I got my directions backwards. This [clears throat] is a senior community 55 and up. Yes, ma'am.

And is that written in the plans? Do we need to adopt that in or is it already adopted in the plans? It's adopted in the plans and there is a condition of approval about HOPA um that this development will follow the HOPA regulations that restrict it to 55 plus and up. Okay. And just for the public, this is a uh mixed use. It is senior. Um senior communities put less traffic on the roads and there's no burden on the school system. So just throwing that out there. That's all I have.

Any any qu any uh questions or discussion on the advisability of changing that shorter entrance on the east side to a private street? Right. All in favor of changing the eastmost uh entrance on Old Lebanon and dirt road to a private street, please signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Okay, that carries. So, we're once amended. All right. I'm going to go back to what John reads, which is phase one. Commercial buildings of 5,500 square feet or greater shall be constructed and ready to lease and all curb cut sidewalk construction along the commercial property frontage on old Lebanon Road, 0 Lebanon Dirt Road. The remaining phases part two remaining phases graded to pad ready with stub utilities and construction of retention bond. So it's your intention to complete all of the residential phase one and to leave phase two two three and four just pad ready. The in the intent is to have phase one constructed and ready to lease by the 75th occupancy permit. And that [snorts] two, three, and four by the 75th occupancy permit will be graded to pad ready.

Okay. And when will they be completed? As phase one leases out, we will move on to subsequent buildings just like in a residential development. Is everybody okay with that? Commissioner

Heer two cents is I mean I think what the applicant struggling with and I don't want to put words in your mouth is it's hard it's [snorts] going to be hard to lease these. I think we've already heard previous meetings on this project that it's you're going to have a hard time leasing these spaces out. So, I don't want to speak for you, but this is what I've heard. That that's that, you know, we're committing to building the first one. If we build the first one and it goes off like gang busters, we'll move straight through the rest of them. But if it go if it stalls, then the market will dictate when it's ready to to be constructed and to be leased, right? or you build the buildings and then you wait and we've got empty buildings,

correct, that are vacant, that are unoccupied. And by doing it this way, it it leaves some flexibility um as far as how we we tried to is how we phased it out. Moving across the front of the bu front of the commercial with phases two and then three and leaving, you know, four is the last because it's the largest part. There may be a single user that wants to come in with a larger building and he has the flexibility to come back and amend this, show a larger building and show how it configures and works it works into the program. And I'm guessing you're not going to wait. You're probably going to start marketing this commercial property as soon as we close on the property.

So I don't think he's not I don't think he I mean I understand the position the man's in. I understand it completely. Um, you want to build something because now you're limiting yourself to the building you just built and finding a tenant that will fit in that will fit in it versus keeping it pad ready and and finding a tenant that will build whatever structure that they're that they're looking to build. So, I understand I understand the phasing and understand the challenges that you you're going to run into by by putting shells on top of that pad. So you're So just to confirm, you're saying you would you would get it pad ready with the utilities stubbed out,

correct? But then you might come back and ask for a bigger building after that. Well, the site if the market was to dictate somebody wanted something.

So we will build the first one and we will we will grade out the remaining phases so that they are purged and pad ready with utility stuff. And so that still gives us the flexibility if somebody comes in and fade in and in with a phase two that needs bigger building than what we're showing there or a combination of phases two and three into one building or a combination of all three phases in one building. It's not so far along so far down the development line that it that it can happen very easily. versus if we have shells and paving and everything else down that that that limits us and limits the city's flexibility and our flexibility to market it.

Would have to come back as an amendment, Commissioner Jones. That would have to come back as an amendment, wouldn't it? If it change if it's deviates from what's approved in the PUD. Yeah. So, they would have to come back again.

Yeah. Well, to keep us moving along, I'm going to make a motion. Um, I'm going to move that to be completed by the issuance of the 75th residential certificate of occupancy phase 1, the commercial building 5,500 square ft or greater shall be constructed and ready to lease and allow curb cuts sidewalk construction along the commercial property frontage on old Lebanon Dirt Road. Part two, the remaining phases be graded to pad ready wood stub utilities. That's my motion. Is there a second?

Second. All right. Any any questions, comments, or discussion on that? All right. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. Any opposed? All right. So, we're there.

Thank you. Phase one is nailed down, but I'm I'm still not No, I I want to get us something to work from. So, two two, three, and four. I mean, this is my this is my struggle on these things. And I I've seen similar examples where we we approved residential plows ahead, the commercial just hangs there. We call it commercial mixed use, and we just get the mixed use and not so much the sea. and Commissioner Giles. Yeah. So, and I may have missed this somewhere, Jay. When is the cemetery fence completed and the walkway? And there's supposed to be a walkway from that parking up to that cemetery.

Uh, yes, sir. When is that supposed to be completed? That's a great question. We hadn't thought through that one yet. Um, it could be we could have the fence completed and provide permanent access to it. um at phase one. Okay, I'll make a motion to add that into phase one. Can you repeat that motion, sir?

That uh by the completion of phase one, they will have a fence around the cemetery. They will have um a walkway to it which is paved as per our guidelines. And that's already and I'm asking this question now. this that um that uh parking lot's already paved, correct? The parking lot in phase one will be paved. Sure. And we'll we'll provide an access to the cemetery. The access may change as it develops, but there will always have to be a permanent a paved access maintained for that cemetery.

So, the word permanent needs to go in that um that motion. Uh and and again, this is discussion. I assume that there will be a temporary access to that cemetery during construction whether it's one yes prior one for people whoever their relatives are buried in there. That's one of the stipulations on the cemetery on the property. Okay. Okay. So, as part of phase one, well, with the completion of phase one, a requirement be added that there be a paved walkway to the cemetery and the fence completed.

Right. Okay. And that paved walkway is how wide is that sidewalk? Six. What are what is our restrictions? What is our codes on that side? We don't actually have a code stipulating off- streetet sidewalk widths. Uh as long as it's a sidewalk and not a path, it can be down to five. U but five or six would be most typical. Yeah, I'll add on that. No less than five on that motion. You agree with that? Thank you, Todd. Are you okay?

Who second? It was Commissioner Bla. Okay. All right. We have as part of phase one to complete to complete a walk a pave walkway to the cemetery with no less than five feet and the completion of the fence. Good. Any discussions? All in favor, please signify by saying I. Any opposed? Okay. Commissioner Mley, you're recognized.

Question on the sidewalk system. [clears throat] It's kind of hard to tell on here, but I see it. It goes on both along the both sides of the public road connecting east division and um 01 and dirt road. I see them along the mid private road within the residential [snorts] area. I see a walkway around the retention pond. Is the connection [clears throat] so the residents can walk to the commercial? Is that am I looking at that on the back side of the retention pond in the corner of um the southeast corner of phase three?

Yes, ma'am. That's where it connects. And that's the only place it connects. That's the only place that Yes. It it wraps around. They can either come down the public road and follow 11 [snorts] road. They can walk around the pond and connect into the sidewalk system that um runs along the parking in front of all those businesses. Okay. It's just hard to with these the phase lines drawn. It's hard to see all the sidewalks. The phase lines are covering it up. Yeah. Okay.

Morning. Anybody got anything else? Do you have anything sir for us? No, sir. I'm I'm good. I'm here to All right. You're you're good. All right. All in favor of the ordin of the ordinances one twice a minute, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Nay. But it does pass second reading. So you're you're good to go. Beautiful project. I just couldn't get comfortable with the two, three, and four. But

I understand. Thank you. [snorts] Okay.

[snorts]

If there's no objection, I'd like to take a uh 10-minute recess. We've been up here for about a couple hours now. Hearing none, we'll reconvene at 8:26.

meeting over.

I'll call the meeting of the Mount Juliet Board of Commissioners back to order.

So, we're I was counting up. All right, we're under new business. The first item is 10 C, an ordinance to amend part B of the Unified Development Code of the City of Mount Juliet, Tennessee, known as zoning regulations ordinance 200129, adopted October 8, 2001, as amended by amending article 5, section 5104 3, variable lot residential developments. Is there a motion? Okay, the item's on the table. Any questions or comments? All right. All in favor of 10 C, please signify by saying I.

Any opposed? That does Excuse [clears throat] me. That does pass. And it was so meaningful. I guess it choked me up, but it passed on first reading. 10D. An ordinance to amend part B of the unified development code of the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee known as zoning regulations ordinance 200129 by adopting adopted October 8, 2001 as amended by amending article 8 overlay district section 82075 open space requirements. Second. Motion second. Any questions on 10D? Miss Malle,

um I see this as being a positive and a negative. The positive would be if the um we reduce lot sizes so we have more open spaces. So naturally makes sense to increase the open space uh to 20% because you would have more open space. Um, on a negative side, it could be a negative because if the developer has less lots because of more open space, they may not can make the numbers work. Um, so that could end up being a negative. So, I see I see both sides of it.

Commissioner, can I add something there? Yeah,

I did I did had reached out to John about this and my thoughts on that was yes, we're reducing the minimum lot size. So, this was a good opportunity to increase our open space on this. It's one of the things I hear about a lot is, you know, preservation of open space. So, that was one of the elements on it. The good thing about open space is there's no infrastructure in it. So, if we got reduced lots, there's more encouragement to have more open space in this, which is less that we would have to maintain in the future. And one thing I see with with the way our development is some current code is much less than what we're asking for here. So I think it kind of incentivizes people to go out and develop areas of the lots which probably should naturally be open space through blasting and all kinds of other stuff on here that that really alarms people. So, I thought this is a way like instead of trying to chase every square inch of the lot, let's preserve some of that open space on it and hopefully it would reduce in less blasting as we move forward as well by granting more open space. And hopefully that can be a a good steady spot there that we can land on with the reduced lot size requirements.

Commissioner Hefner, you're recognized, sir.

Uh, thank you, uh, Mayor. Um this is well I agree with you. I don't think it's if it will definitely have an impact um negative impact. Um you know we we have that voluntary contribution right away that's going to drop. I understand we're reducing the lot sizes. Um but you're going from 7% to 20%. So you're, you know, you're you're going to be eliminating a lot of potential for for houses to be to be built there, which is going to put a significant strain um on the financials for a developer to make the numbers work. Um ultimately, it's going to end up on the real estate market and whether or not they can uh they can sell those lots and those houses for the prices that they're going to have to uh demand in order to make the project worthy. And with the real estate market in a bit of a flux right now, I don't know that's a gamble, but that that a lot of developers are going to be willing to take. So you talking about my moratorum coming up. You right here, [laughter] this is going to be your moratorum increasing green space from 7% to 20%, you you're going to start seeing some some developers pull out of the city of Mount Juliet. So that's my two cents. I'm could be wrong. Um hopefully the reduction in lot sizes, which I did support, um is going to make up for it. Only time will tell. So I'm I'm against this. I think it's going to have a pretty significant impact on developers trying to trying to make the numbers work. That's that's all I have to say.

All right. Thank you, sir. [clears throat] Anyone else? Commissioner Malleti, is there any discussion feedback on u an alternative other than 20% jumping from 7% to 20%. I can go with 19 19. Commissioner Hefner,

I got a suggestion. I mean, these are all associated [clears throat] with PUDS. So, why don't we take a look at the project um and determine if if the property is conducive to 20%. We we have one we have several of them right now. Actually, I think there was one on the agenda tonight where the green space was over 20 I think it was the one we just passed was over 22 or 23%. So, I think it depends on the on the land. I think it depends on the contour of the land. As far as eliminating blasting, we don't really know that yet. The contours and engineering all dictate um where blasting um needs to happen to to satisfy your cut and fills. So, I don't know that this is going to eliminate blasting, per se. Um, but I I would I'd say we control it at the pud level and let the the project kind of let us take a look at the project and see the contours of the land to see if it's I just do it one by one and just run it through the pud process.

I think that's a that's a a good potential suggestion. Question for for John. If we set this at 20% or whatever number we set this as, they can still get a uh a variance. Thank you. I was going back. They still get a variance. So, if we set the bar high, we could work down just as easily as we could work up.

And that's kind of that's kind of the approach I think we did with the 100% masonary and stone was set the bar high and negotiate down instead of trying to negotiate up. Commissioner Lily Someone questioned if we leave the individual um property up to the HUD process and there's not a there's still a 7% basis um the developers pretty much is going to fill all that area. So if we if we don't have something to go by, um can we [clears throat] really work it out at the PUD process if it if the existing remains um at 7%. Like can can we [clears throat] if it's 70 7% can can we the board say all right we want 15%. Or whatever. Yes, sir.

I would have to defer to legal on that, but I imagine you couldn't ask for more than what's in the code. Complet. I could be completely wrong, though. Miss Bernett, [clears throat] my recommendation would be to set standard and work variances backwards rather than having them increase it. All right. Thank you, ma'am.

Commissioner Heapner, you're recognized. Um I think the pro proformas are going to going to be set based on what the what the regulations and the ordinance spell out. Um proformas are going to be based on those numbers and to ask for a variance is we don't you know that they're not going to know if that's going to happen or not. I that's usually you know that's usually a little bit of a crapshoot. So, I wouldn't be opposed to increasing it to 10% um as opposed to 20 and then letting it um kind of flow through the PUD process. We can always restrict it if it's in again it could come through staff's recommendation. It could come through planning uh as an increase in in the green space. Um, that can always go through planning can make those recommendations to the board. John's nodding his head. Yes. Is that correct though? I think I don't know if we could force somebody to do more than the minimum in the code though. But you could go the other way. You know, and every every pod, residential pud, they're a little bit different in how they approach amenities. Some are highly amenitized and then other ones we might get a dog park or a walking trail only you know dep and it depends on the size of the pud. Now with puds you're limited on the or you're you have to have a certain base acreage. So most of the puds we see through here are RS20. That's a 10 acre minimum. So you're talking 20% of 10 acres you know or whatever the number ends up being. Um, and then like I said, there's variability on how much amenities go in. Some are highly amendized, some not so much. Some have topog topographical

issues that leave a lot of open space. I like the idea of having it discussable at a pod level, you know, see what direction it needs to go. Commissioner Mlei,

I I agree with Commissioner Hefner, but then on the flip side of that, um I wouldn't want to be caught like we couldn't increase it if it states 7%. Um I think we would have a hard time there. So I do think the 20 might be a bit much and I do think it will have a negative effect on the development. Um what if we compromise 15%. I'll second. Okay. So motion to amend from 20% to 15%. Yes. Got a second.

Yes. And by the way this is for single family, right? because multif family is already at 20%. Correct. Okay. All right. Any questions or comments on the advisement of 15%. All in favor of reducing it from 20% to 15% say I. I. Any opposed? Nay. I believe that did get three votes. Okay. So, we're on the ordinance as once amended at 15%. Any other discussions? All right. All in favor of the ordinance is once amended, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed?

So that does pass 4 to one. The next item on the on the agenda is TN. An ordinance to resone the property at 13135 Lebanon Road, approximately.35 acres, map 53K, parcel 27 from RS40, lowdensity residential to CRC commercial retail center. Motion. Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second for 10E? Okay, any questions or comments?

Commissioner Heer, you're recognized. uh question. Did um [snorts] did the uh public hearing, we haven't passed that yet, I don't believe so, but I'm going to ask it anyways. Did the public notice go out to the to the residents on this reszone that are around this property? John question maybe before the planning commission. I am not positive. It would it would have gone out whatever the rules are as they exist now. Isn't that before second hearing at BOC? Correct.

I don't think this got out. This wouldn't have I mean this has been in the pipeline for a minute. So I don't think it I don't think we would have put it out sooner. You know, this is first reading, is it? So the people that live around this property don't even really know it's first reading. So the folks around this is safe to say haven't have no idea this is going on. for now. Okay. I could be wrong. I'm not positive. I'm not hugely involved in the public notice process at the moment. I mean, I'm not disagreeing. It's on Lebanon Road. There are very few errors with it though usually. So, but I mean to to your question, Commissioner, if I may here. Sure.

I think I think what he what he wants to get to is they get notice before we consider it on first. But if if we even if we deferred it tonight, is there any way to have the applicant by our current standards give that notice. Oh boy. I don't I I don't I don't because it's in before the change. 21 day I have to look at the chart again. I don't remember. It would have to and the way the the new regulation is it's prior 15 days prior to the planning commission. So it would have to go back to the planning commission. Yeah. Although they submitted before we did that, so they wouldn't be sub subject to that. Fair enough. Yeah.

So, as long as they're meeting, I mean, whatever the standard protocol we had before that amendment that's proposed, that's what this would be treated, you know, processed under. I would say this to your your point. In a perfect world, if if we could accomplish that, I just don't know how we can get to there. But that still wouldn't require the notice to go out. I mean, it it has to it has to get a sign notice. Yeah, it might even be out there. I don't know. I drive by every day. Just Bernett.

All of that will just happen before second reading. So, they would likely have to skip a meeting and then they would see it again. That's what I was under the imp. Yeah, because this wouldn't be affected by that amendment that we Yeah. talked about. Okay. That's a shame, but I get it. It's a timing thing. Is there any other questions or comments on 10E? All right. All in favor signify by saying I.

Any opposed? So 10 E does pass. 10F, an ordinance to amend the preliminary master development plan for Bender Cove planned unit development located at 771 Bender Ferry Road, map 49, parcel 69, 69.02, 69.03, and 69.09 in the city of Mount Juliet. Second.

Motion and second. The items on the floor, Commissioner Ley, recognized. Um, so when the board approved this project, it we approved that the road improvements on Bender's Ferry, including the turn lanes, would be completed before the first CO. So since then there's a trigger in there in the ordinance where if it goes beyond 120 days it kicks it to the 25th which happened. So now um they are wanting to extend the CO trigger to 75 because they've encountered some gas line problem or something and then the planning gave a re positive recommendation at 50% I mean 50 cos um which and I know things happen you know things happen all the time. But when we approve this, um, the developer agreed. So, the developer also knows that things happen and yet they still agreed to it. So, I'm not going to support the extension of the trigger uh up to 50 or anything else because we approve those improvements. um those people that live up there are having a hard time and they're seeing that stalled. So I I want what we voted for. I want those uh and and I know these things happen and it cost you money. I understand that. But um you know I want to see the road done. So I'm not going to support it.

Right. Thank you, ma'am. Vice Mayor. Yeah. Is is there any representation here for this project? Because I'd like to be able to get something on record just to know what the uh the delays are. I think that's important to know. Um so if name address and what's the delay?

Yeah, Chris Cowan Meritage Homes. The address is 2555 Meridian Boulevard, Franklin. Um so I don't know if you've been through there on Bender Ferry. We have I think it's about 3,000 ft total is the total widening on the property. We probably have about 1,500 of it widened now and are working on the very south end where all the turn lane additions will happen at the Lebanon Road intersection. We agree uh we want the road finished too. This is not an attempt to delay it in any manner. Um we're I guess sort of pass the point of no return on our side if you will. the um we knew Pedmont was there. We just didn't there's a conflict between some of our storm sewer and some of their stuff. Uh Piedmont we uh if I could move it ourselves and we have uh Pedmont won't let us touch their gas mains. So we're totally at their mercy on their timing. Um when we came to planning commission in December, they told us they were going to start in December. Well, now we're January 12th and they're telling us they're going to start on January 19th. Quite honestly, you know, when they start, I don't really have a way to force them to do anything. Um, we're still active on the site. Nobody's not trying to demobilize or anything like that. um feel like we'll have the south end at Lebanon Road um which will have all the new turn lane and the new turning movements which I think is uh probably the biggest advantage of the overall widening project sometime have that paid in end of January midFebruary. Um so it's really just this missing tooth in the middle that Pedmont has control of. We can't really do anything until they get out of the way and then we probably have 60 days of work behind them once they do

relocate because we've got to go do our stuff. So the um that's the reason for it and that's in addition I guess the reason for we were comfortable with what planning commission did in December and then now with sort of pushing us another month that's why we'd like to go back to the original request. Let's see now

25. Oh, as far as actual on the project, they uh they'll start happening in January here. So, right now, I think maybe we have it's just model homes that have been seeded. So, maybe three. So I'm again I mean because I know me and you have spoken about this right now um you know the timeline you're saying 60 days right after the completion of this so that way you know the you know the road improvements are still going to be able to get accomplished right yes I for if pemont shows up let's just round it to the 1 of February they're saying they're 45 to 60 days so that gets us to April where we get the job back and And we have probably 60 or maybe even 90 days there. And what I'm talking would be the full overlay everything all the striping and everything that's along with it. So I still feel like it's a we're finished in July August if Pedmont shows up here and you know sometime by the end of the month.

So how long is uh Piedmont uh projected to get this done? Do they give you a timeline on how many days, weeks? what they haven't uh that's one thing not get them haven't been able to get them to commit on a total duration right now uh I keep so I'm my personal experience I think it's 45 to 60 days by the time they get through you know get out of our way where we can come in right behind and do the uh storm shore work that we need to do finish the grading and then you know start the actual um curb and gutter and and paving and how many months are you guys out on the uh um the lots for the 75 lots What's your projected date on that?

That's cos we will um we've got a builder partner in there. So probably total between the two of us we will close or projected to close um between the combination. So six to eight a month would be kind of the um pace. So I at that pace, we forget about the handful of cos that have already been issued on the models. We've got closing set up for January and then they'll run from there kind of at that pace. So I don't think you're seeing um 75 ft cos is late summer, early fall, which I think right now is probably the timing of you know the um completion of the total widening. Yeah, I mean I I see the dilemma. I mean the only concern that I've got is is that you know again all those residents and all the other side of things. So is there any way to meet in the middle and hit the 50 and then if you got to come back let's just say Pedmont doesn't come back and then we got to push it back out a little bit further. What are your thoughts there?

Um I mean I'd like to say June would be great to have that road completed for these residents before we really get in the hot heavy of the summertime. you know, that road's gonna get really busy when school's out as it already is with school in. So, sure.

Do you think um I was when we asked for the 50, part of that was to try and avoid coming back to where, you know, for all of us um not having to to deal with it, you know, we we don't u we're so far into the thing now, there's no reason for us to slow play it as soon as they're out of the way. I mean qu for us it's a bigger it's equal as mess on the traffic because it's a marketing it's hard to get in and out of our project right now and that makes it difficult to sell. I not sure which is the best you been if um do could we tie it to a date is that if we said it's June or I'm going to ask for July and just say at that point in time there's no more CO issued after that until it's complete.

So you're saying like July 1st? Oh, that would take I would ask for July 31st. So that's where we started off at where you were ending back up. My only concern is that we roll into the fall and are you kind of hitting with the P you that's my concern there. Um you know I I couldn't again get with no uh no way to push Pedmont. I know if they don't show I I mean I can't finish it anyways. So that I mean I guess that would be the like the meltdown scenario.

Um I mean six months I mean you think about it like you just said maybe 45 days for Pedmont, right? 45 to 60 days. That still gives you guys then four months to get it done. And that hits us right at July 1st. Worst case scenario or best case scenario. Worst case scenario, you come back and we discuss this for August, August 30th or something. I know we're counting pennies over here, but we also look at all the residents that are all dealing with all the construction potential delays. You've got a lot of traffic over there. So, if we can just show the residents that are online tonight watching and the ones that are in the room, we can try and do this in good faith and July 1st is what the goal would be hitting and if we got to step back and punt, we can do it.

Would that be the condition the additional 25? I'm just looking to hit a date. That's all I'm looking for. And then if we hit the 50, if we got to come back and and then go down that ring. Well, I think I'll um I'm thinking about that, too. Yeah. Commissioner Heer. Uh thanks, Mayor. Um how you've done enough improvements on the road already. What's your estimate cost per per house? Uh for all the road improvements

for the widening, including the multi-use path that's adjacent to it, it's just under six million bucks. What is that per house? per uh we're 330. It's like 165 per lot was the uh it would be what we would classify as off-site improvements for the project. $16,500 somewhere per residential unit. Yes, sir. It's a lot more than what we're asking for today. And it's a finished I mean it's a uh improvement that's going to be done like I mean it's already well underway not uh years down the road after all the funds are collected.

Yeah. And just and so thank you for that. So $6 million in offside road improved. That's pretty significant on a project that was actually going to get built in the county. Correct. Actually, we turned it down. You went to the county, got approved, and then I don't know how we ended up getting together, but we we ended up negotiating a deal which you agreed to. And voila, City of Mount Julia's getting $6 million in in off-site road improvements. And we're we're talking about, you know, give them an extra 30 days.

I mean, let them let them pin it to 75th CO. Let them pin it to the 31st, July 31st. I mean, $16,000 per residential unit offside road improvements. And we're I think that's pretty significant. I mean, I I don't know. It seems like we're I think we're tripping over pennies for dollars. So, that's my just some background and some history on that. And Commissioner Jiles, if we have a time frame, then they could be you could have all the cos pulled. So the planning commission said 50 total of 50. Yes, sir.

Right. So I think that sort of meet in the middle. I think that that's where it should be. So I think you could you can get that and then if just like if if you can't negotiate and you can't get it done with with Pont then you can come back. If you only got three now you're talking about you're talking about 47 cos you know I mean so if it was 50 Commissioner, since the variable is Pedmont, which is the unknown, why don't we pin it to the date that Piedmont completes the movement of their gas line and pin a date to that. Otherwise, we're just kind of guessing, right? We're go we're going to hope we're hoping that they're going to show up and and they're going to move that gas line. They may not. We're running into winter. We're having a late winter this year. So I I don't know if they're working during during the snow season or [laughter] or not. But there's still a lot of variables. You may be back up here in two three months asking for another 25 extension, another you know 25 cos.

Yeah. Yeah, I don't know what's the easier to sort of enforce or manage or track um for all of us. I mean, I think the you know, not as we stand now, but I guess the recommendation for the planning commission is the additional 25 for a total of 50, which is pretty easy to keep up with. Um, I was trying to in my head craft it on an earlier ladder of I don't know if I can just off the shoulder here that I you know I think we're um again would not be up here if it wasn't for this most recent news from Pedmont um or update from Pedmont. we would have probably stuck with the or continued on with what planning commission had recommended and you know hopeful for a favorable vote there. So, um, again, I mean, you know, thinking about this, you know, the schools going back August 3rd. If we do hit that July 30th, I like July 31st, you like I mean, just go by the date versus So, we do 50 or July 31st, whichever one comes first. What are your thoughts on that? Just so we can get this wrapped up.

Uh, I think we're good with that. So, that's my motion. If I can get a second, I guess. raise your motion, please. Motion would be uh still the 50. Uh uh so I guess I just want to make sure I word this correctly. So whichever one comes first, it' be the uh July 31st date uh for completion of the road improvements or the 50th CO.

Okay. So, the road improvements must be completed by July 31st or 50th co. Correct. 2026, of course. Make sure we put that in there. Good point. All right. Any other questions or comments on the amendment? Right. All in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Any other questions or comments on the ordinance? All right. All in favor of the ordinance, please signify by saying I.

Any opposed? Does pass. You could pass by a vote of three to two. Thank you. Yes. Uh 10G, which is an ordinance to amend the city of Mount Juliet code of ordinances, chapter 2, regarding residency requirements. Second motion second. 10G is on the floor. Commissioner, your sponsorship. Would you like the floor? Mr. Ma, you're recognized.

All right. This is nothing but housekeeping. So, [clears throat] as years and years ago, um, our code had said that the city manager must live inside the city limits. Uh, and then over the course of so they passed whatever it was, they passed back then to uh, the board approved him to live where he lives now, which is real close to the city. I think it's right outside of it. Um, [laughter] but it was never um it was never adopted to enter it into the code to match the employee personnel manual. So that's all this is. It's it's just housekeeping is all it is. So um nothing is going to you know change. So the way the ordinance is written, the next city manager um must live inside the city limits. So yeah, and then it also included the fire chief and the um police chief to um a variance to allow them to live within uh what is it 30 minutes response time I think it is. Yes. So that that's all this is is housekeeping.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. Vice Mayor, just kind of curious because when you say the outer part of the city or are you saying just within the city? Because that's the way I was trying to understand this and I was gonna um get with legal but I honestly I you know slipped my brain with all the other topics that we were talking about today or police chief. Well, for the city manager because I was wondering about as in you know if you look at our city map we've got a lot of pockets that are within the county right you know that's within the city that are pockets that are county. So if they live on the outer skirts and inward, is that what we're trying to figure out?

Like I don't even know where he lives, but I know he lives close to the city limits. So the BOC years and years ago uh approved to that he could live where he lives and be the city manager. Sure. So I guess so I guess that's what my question is going to be. Is is this that you have to live in the city or you have to live because again if I look at the map we've got a lot of pockets that are still county but you're still within the center part of the city. That would be city limits. Um the name that's what I'm asking. City manager is the outer be required to live inside these city limits. Thank you. That's what I'm just trying to get some clarification.

Miss Bernett, please help us out. As the employee personnel manual reads, right now, they have to live within the city limits with the caveat that if a new city manager comes about who was already an employee of the city, the commission can wave that requirement. That's how the personnel manual reads right now, which was passed back in 2012. Yeah. by the BC. Yeah. Very good. Any questions or comments? So, I'm going to ask that other side, which is is it the outer edge of the city limits? It is the city limit.

City limits. That's what I'm saying is, but we've got pockets right up the street here. I understand that, but that could be annexed at any time. So, to be clear, it's the city limits for the city manager. It's different for the fire chief and chief of police. That's 30 minute response time to the city limits. Do one for one. We should do it for all then. I mean honestly, but I mean it kind of beats the calls here. I mean there's folks that are in Province that are further away than it would be our own city manager. I mean like if they live right around the corner here that's part of the county. So,

but you're still within a city limit, you know, like the outer city limit. This is just housekeeping of something that was approved years and years ago. Oh, yeah. Nothing against personal, you know, for anybody. I'm just trying to make a point here is that, you know, like right around the corner here, we got county and it's within the city limits, you know, the outer city limits. So, it's all about interpretation of that. So, that's why I was just trying to make a point for the citizens. Well, there's there's either city limits or there's county. They may have mailing addresses. That's Mount Juliet, but they don't live inside the city limit. They live in the county.

Yes, ma'am. And I was just making a point that again, you know, on the outer edge of the city. Okay. Versus right around the corner here, we got folks that are in the county that are closer to the city hall than we would be up there in Providence. Right. So, I'm just making a point. That's all. All right. Any questions or comments on the All right. All in favor of the ordinance, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Sorry. The next item is 10H, an ordinance to enact a one-year moratorium on the acceptance and approval for multif family residential developments in the city of Mount Juliet, Tennessee. All right. Well, I'm going to shock everybody and give it a second.

There we go. You want it discussed, we'll discuss it. Thank you. I appreciate that. Item's on the floor. It's under your sponsorship. Commissioner Hefner. Would you like the floor?

Thank you. That's all I asked was an opportunity to to have an open discussion. Um, one that's not on Facebook and one that's not during commissioner comments. So, thank you Commissioner Mley for that. Um, I did make a change to the ordinance. Um, I did remove uh single family single family um residential units out of the ordinance. So this strictly um is u multif family high density which is RM8 RM16. Uh also that would include uh CMU which would include RM8 uh or CMU with RM16 and same for CTC zoning. um really the the the the catalyst, one of the catalyst, there's several catalysts for this, but um when you look at single family home residential units compared to our development such as the one that just came in um that we just voted on, when you compare a residential development compared to a a 300 unit apartment complex, that apartment complex when they do the ribbon cutting, first of all, they've been pre-leasasing, pre-rening, those apartments the day literally the day I'm sure that they get approved. So when you have a ribbon cutting, you you you have the greatest amount of impact in the shortest amount of time that hits the city of Mount Juliet compared to a single 300 residential unit subdivision uh that's going to be built out over a period of time, phases, phase one, phase two, phase three, and it's usually 30, 40, 50 homes at a time. So really the main driver for me is the amount of immediate impact an apartment complex or or a town home community has almost immediately as opposed to a

single family home residential uh development as I as I spoke about. Um and as far as u I know we talk about a moratorum. Yes, it's a bad word but I really wish there was another term for it. This is not a permanent measure that I'm asking for. This is a a measure that um want I'm looking to put in place for one year. And by the way, this could be amended. Um or it can be brought back and if it even passes, which I doubt it will. So, um, a one-year pause on the acceptance of applications for multif family highdensity housing is what I'm asking this board to consider. Um, we have this other comments I've heard online and elsewhere. Um, this is going to bankrupt the city. It's not going to bankrupt the city. That's a ridicul That's that's a joke. That's ridiculous. This is going to have this going to have an impact on running the city. We're not going to be able to pay for infrastructure. Again, it's a one-year pause on accepting applications for highdensity housing, which again has the most immediate impact to the people that are going to be moving here to to the city of Mount Juliet. Um, and as far as the the bankruptcy and we're going to lose all this money and infrastructure, here's a startling fact. Um, you can debate the time frame on this, but uh, I don't know if anybody knows this or not, but you're about to. So, we currently have under construction. These are projects that already have been approved. Um, some of them approved within the last 5 years, some of them approved 10 years ago. Hell, there might even be one in here that was approved 15 years ago. Um, but what we have under construction as far as residential units, under construction meaning they broke ground.

They're pushing dirt. 4,422 residential units currently under construction. Wrap your head around that. We have another 2,000 units, 2007 to be exact, uh, that have been approved. Now that's a total of 60 call it 64 6,500 residential units that are either under construction or [clears throat] or have been approved. Now, if you look at our population, um, which will be effective July 1, 20, this July of this year, the the current projection for a city of Mount Juliet population is going to be 44,66. That's based on an estimated census that's coming out July 1. Correct, city manager? Okay. So if you take 44,000 which we're saying is going to be the population in 6 months um and you add the number of under construction and the number of approved we plan on and you take the US census of per per individual per per residential unit take the US census which I think is 2 point I'll do the math there in a minute if I have to that puts the at full population at full buildout that puts the city's population at 61,6 617. That's that's a 45% increase in population just based on what's already under construction or andor approved. So, are those all going to be built out in the next 5 years? I don't know. Anybody's guess. Most of those are apartments, by the way. Most of those are highdensity housing. Um, I can get the numbers, but I'd venture to say it's probably close to 40 3540% um is by way of apartments. And we have several that are already under construction. So again, um, not going to

break the bank. We're not going to bankrupt the city. We got plenty of people that are going to be moving here over the next 5 to 10 years based on what's already under construction. Um, I'm just asking for us to take a one-year pause in highdensity housing, uh, multif family highdensity housing, which is going to have the greatest immediate impact on the city's population. Period. Somebody tell me differently. So that's simply what I'm trying to do. and I'm simply trying to have an open debate. That's my position on it and I challenge anybody to prove me wrong. Vice Mayor recognized.

So, Commissioner, you know what? I appreciate it. I actually appreciate uh Commissioner Mley actually seconding this because um I'll be honest, it's it's challenging because again, you know, it's just a year that you see that. But if we look back at what we did for just example of the budget, right? you know, so we, you know, we kept it down at that, you know, 9 cent and 11 cent and then all a sudden we had to jump, right? The last thing I, you know, in my district that I want to see or or even having to vote for other people's district is that, you know, all of a sudden we get that you like that slow gap of a year when it comes down to uh projects, right? Then all of a sudden everything floods. not not as in um you know going to shut down everything or just again the way I see it is is that that's part of our job up here is to help you know I would say control that growth right um by approving certain projects or again getting projects to be able to go through um under a pud so we can have that you know discussion that more in depth so it is challenging to you know to vote this down or to vote for for it because whether or not uh the way I look at it is is that you know that last thing I want to do is is have that empty pocket of anything happening you know for a year 12 months is a long time I can say that and even though that you're taking out you know you know the the high density side of things it's still the fact of how's that bubble going to work in 13 months 14 months and 16 months from there is it still going to be the same type of vision or is it the you know again what we always talk about and what you and I have talked about through these meetings and even off record. It's just um you know that's all based off the market. The market is the one that determines whether or not if growth is going to come to our city or not. So um that seems to be the challenge right

there is you know these developers if they come in here they see value that's why they're going to come to this commission and also our planning board to be able to simply say hey you know we see value on on this piece of land and that's how we're going to control it. It's just like what we've seen with the taxes, just like what we see with the citizens, whether or not if they agree with um with how we're trying to run each district to be able to listen to them and go from there. So, um it is challenging tonight, especially when this is brought up. You know, I'm like when I read through this, I see both sides of it. I really do. Um especially when the gentleman was up here uh for citizens comments talking about, okay, how are we going to handle um you know, cutting waste, taxes, and growth. you know, this is this could be one potential area that we could be able to help out with some of the growth, but that's also the other side of it is is that the bubble at 13, 14, 15 months from now. How does that look? So, I just want to get your thoughts on that if you know, if you don't mind.

Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. Um, well, I appreciate the I appreciate the comments uh and your thoughts and let me respond. So again, I mean, let me let me just state this. Um, this is this is not a total ban on houses on residential units. This is I'm not I'm not asking to ban every residential unit that's that's in our zoning books. I'm talking about we used to have low density, we have medium density, and we have high density single family homes that it doesn't have anything to do with those. So, we're still going to have an opportunity to see single family homes coming in to Mount Juliet with those with those three densities. The reason why I'm isolating apartments is because of the immediate impact it's going to have on the city of Mount Juliet. When those apartments are built or constructed, they open the doors, those things come in, everybody's moving in on the same weekend or within certainly a short period of time. Those things fill up with a 300 lot subdivision that that's going to that's going to build out over a period of time. So, I'm not trying to eliminate growth. First of all, this is a one-year pause, not a total ban. And it's a one-year pause on highdensity multif family for one year. We want to look at something shorter to that. I'm I'm I'm open to it. But um I'm not I'm not asking for a pause on single family, low, medium, or or highdensity single family homes. That's this is just specific to multifamily highdensity homes.

Commissioner Jiles.

Yeah. Um, Commissioner Hefner, I I have a a not necessarily a problem, but I would like for you to explain the city is also reviewing a lack of sewer val availability when we that is over to my understanding the lack of sewer availability is north of Lebanon Road from Bender's Ferry in that area and we're not approving anything because we don't have the sewer availability. So, we've pretty well put a stop to that period. So I don't see how moratorum is going to deal with that at all. The other area of sewer um challenge is is down on the other side of Lebanon Road uh close to Nonavville Road or on Navville Road which that's all in my district and I've and and we're in the that's going to be taken care of too. Isn't that correct? So, I'm not necessarily sure that should be in there about the sewer because I don't know of any any um lack of sewer availability anywhere except in those two areas. And when that was made aware to me, I called a workshop that we that we attended to address this. We also approved this in this year's budget and they are also buying the rideways right now so that we can increase that availability over north of Mount Juliet Road. Is that correct?

Okay. So, that's the only out of this right here. I think that that needs to be rewarded or something because it's not going to affect the sewer availability. Yes,

Commissioner. Um I I say on that six whereas you brought up the point there the city's reviewing the lack of sewer availability when the city sewer system includes plans to increase capacity and budget require I'd actually when when the plans were first presented to me um I think Tim and Shane and I think we all had think here about the the lack of availability up there. I think my first response was I think I'll bring a resolution stating that we can't go to construction on this. We can keep working, but we can't go to construction on the project until T DOT starts widening Lebanon Road. And my thoughts were to use that as a natural moratorum on that one that can't be challenged in court because we can't be no one can go to Texas to court and force us to expand our sewer system. So, I I see where you're going with that. Commissioner Hefner.

Yes. Thanks, um, Commissioner Jobs. Appreciate the comments. um to address the sewer and I have full faith in our public works department um uh when it comes to sewer, but my understanding um my understanding is that sewer issue just came about within a relatively well was it was unknown, right? Was that some was that a that a true statement? Did did we not did we did was this is something that came about all of a sudden or did we know about the sewer capacity?

Mr. For you, you want to come to the because I that that statement lack of capacity has caused some people to question. Well, let me make sure I make my statement clear. Um, it was brought to my attention last year, I think it was last year, um, that we, I'm paraphrasing, that we found out we had a sewer capacity problem and it seemed like it was something that was a surprise to us. I'm not, again, I'm not pointing fingers. I'm not doing anything like that. Is is is that is that true or close to being accurate or was I told something that was not?

Well, there's two there's two layers to it. We we got capacity issues within our lines that go to the pump stations and then we have pump station capacity and all the capacity was given out to the developments that have been approved. Now, technically, we're not using it all up at the current time, but we've we've already allocated the capacity for any developments that have been approved. Now, like you said, we don't know when they'll be completed. And once we approve construction of the new regional pump station over around the Bender Ferry area, then that's not an issue anymore.

Okay. So construction is what will determine how we move forward on the north side. Okay. But you've got the Bender Ferry projects, Treymore, Benders Cove, uh additional phases to Silver Springs that were approved last year. So all of those have t taken away the capacity. And [clears throat] what Commissioner Jiles was talking about on the nonable road end. So Elliot Reserve took up line capacity, but we are we do have a project coming up that will upsize the lines. It's already been approved. It's about to go out to bid, so that'll take care of that really.

But that's that's how it's happened. It's not tech we're not physically out of capacity. We have we have uh established the capacity for the projects. Okay. So, I I guess the I guess the long and the short answer is we did know about the capacity because I was under the impression that it was something that kind of caught us off guard a little bit and now we're having to address it. Wasn't

I think at the rate the [snorts] developments were coming in then we started looking hard at the future of capacity. So to that point, so have we looked across the city to see if we might potentially run into a similar situation somewhere else within the city limits to make sure that the south side is is available. Um, no, the north side's the only real problem. We sure about that.

Um, it just depends on the type of development. I mean, we've got the Baltz farm that needs that area needs sewer that this project on the north side would provide for that.

So, and I appreciate it. Thank you, Tim. I I really do. So, again, another and I'm fine taking the sewer capacities out, but I think the the I think my point here is if we can pause, let's take a look across the entire city if that hasn't been done. if it's already been done and we know we're we need to stop and start planning and start accommodating for the expansion of our some of our sewer lines to meet future expansion needs and let's take a look at that. Um I just don't want to get caught like we did last year with this with this situation. Again, if if sewers if you're confident sewer is not going to be a problem and we don't we're good there, I'm fine taking this the sewer requirement out of the out of the ordinance completely. Well, taking consideration the numbers of homes, single family,

and and I get, by the way, and I get that there it's a it's a built-in moratorum because we're not going to we're not going to be approving any more projects where we don't have sewer capacity.

So, that in of itself, I acknowledge, is a moratorum in and of itself, but where else are we going to run into potential surprises? Again, I'm not pointing the fingers at anybody, you or anybody in staff's level. Um, but you know, if there are some other issues or surprises, I think maybe one year might be a good opportunity for us to really dig in and do some analysis. If it's not an issue, tell me. I'm not the expert. You You guys are the expert. So, if it's not an issue, I'll pull the sewer capacity language out of the ordinance. I'll make the motion myself

with the planned projects that we have. I mean, we've got one more phase of our central trunk line that runs through the middle of the town. Um, we will need to look at that in the next couple years. As far as upsizing that line, we just completed the second phase. There's three phases. Uh, once we complete that, we'll be very established on on capacity through the central part of the town going to the meter station. Okay. You got 6,500 homes that are 40 four over 4,000 that are currently under construction.

And I did the rough math just a second ago when you tossed the number out and that's about 2.2 million gallons of sewer extra a day. Okay. And we we feel good we've got the capacity to we we have calculated the capacity for those approved developments. Yes. Okay. We don't double issue capacity, do we? do not okay just part of the plan okay yeah

I'll say the seventh whereas it says whereas pursuant to the city's land use plan multif family residential developments are included in RMA RM16 [snorts] CMUCTC zoning classifications which are further defined in the city's zoning regulations this I guess I guess one is what what gets accomplished in one year's Um, I don't know. But if CMU and CTC can open up the possibilities for a a lot of things out there that I would prefer that we just considered here at the table as to whether we want to move forward on that. If we were just wanting to put a moratorium on RM8 and RM16, I mean, I'd support a five-year moratorum.

Can I respond to that?

Certainly. Um, I appreciate the comments. Um, and originally I, our city attorney can attest to this. Originally, I asked for a three-year moratorum and at the advice of uh our city attorney who consulted with MTAS um and recommended against uh against anything above a 12 month. So, I actually I actually backed it down at the advice of uh our city attorney. Um, I'm I'm not opposed to removing CMU and CTC and keeping it strictly to uh RM8 and RM16. Although I will say that most of the uh most of the highdensity um multif family units are coming in under CMU. So I really don't know how effective it's going to be in the long run, but I'll take what I can get.

Well, I'll make that motion to strike CMU and CTC. I'll second it. All right. Any questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying I. I. And I don't know if that was I was referring to the whereas we may have to look at what it says under the period of one year have reviewing. I guess I'll ask our attorney to look at section one under therefore be ordained multif family. is allowed in CNU and CTC. Correct, John?

Yes. Okay. So, section one and section two specifically call out multifamily. So, that would not allow it in CTC or CMU. Well, how do we change it to RM8 and RM16? I would replace multif family residential with those exact zoning. Strike multif family and specifically call out those two zonings. Yes. All right. I'll make the motion under section one to strike multif family residential and replace with RM8 and RM16 also in section two. And where it's referenced in section two.

Questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying I. Any opposed? Okay, it does carry. We're back on the ordinance is twice amended. [snorts] Also, the um title of the ordinance itself.

Any other comments? Commissioner Levy. All right, there we go. All right, I just want to point out that the RM8 uh could also be if a developer wanted to come in and build, you know, 30, 50, whatever units of town homes. So, are we just not going to allow any town homes under RMA if someone, you know, comes in with the 20 acre lot and uh

yes and no. If it's already approved, it still moves forward if it's already in the pipeline or being considered. But that's a good point. I do want to call that out that any anything already in the pipeline. So don't don't call me if something starts under construction. Yeah, it's in there. That's what I'm saying. Don't call me if something goes up under construction. If it's already in the approval process, this doesn't apply. So yes, to your point about RM16, if this passes, wouldn't be able to consider it for a year. RM8, not RM16. RM8 and 16 both apply. We wouldn't be able to consider it for a year.

Yeah. I just can't see the advantages of that. Um, and as it was stated, most of our CMU projects include a combination of single family town homes and apartments. So, uh, you know, as well as commercial. So, if they're not allowed Well, okay. So, you took out CMU, right?

Okay. So, that's wouldn't affect the the uh multif family. So, Commissioner Hefner talks about the growth that's coming, uh, which I wouldn't disagree with, but we can't ignore at the current budget that we're in at budget time, um, our growth rate did drop from 7 plus% to 2.5%. You can't ignore that. Uh, sales tax revenues dropped. Um he talks about again the population growth. Well, people have to have places to live, right? Not everyone wants a single family home. Specifically millennials, they they don't want the maintenance. They don't want the yard. They don't want to mow the yard, whatever. So, they have to have places to live. It's no secret [clears throat] that I don't support this moratorum for many reasons. All this proposed are you wanted it discussed. I'm going to discuss it. All this proposed mor moratorum is is strictly political with ulterior motives for future aspirations. In a nutshell, it's a retribution for Mirabella failing. The city of Mount Juliet is one of the fastest growing municipalities in Tennessee and experiences annual increases in population, residential, construction, and commercial development. Unmanaged or fiscally imbalanced growth can result in long-term infrastructure obligations exceeding long-term revenue capacity, creating what is known as a growth Ponzi scheme, where new development is required to subsidize old obligations without adequate financial sustainability.

According to the language proposed, it does not explain how this moratorum is in the best interest of the citizens. That's merely opinion. It says this moratorum is reasonable and necessary to prevent development inconsistencies with the city's planning goals. However, it doesn't explain what the city's planning goals are. It says multifamily developments may strain public infrastructure by impacting traffic. However, it says nothing about sprawl, which actually increases the demand for infrastructure needs and increases traffic on the roads. What actual what exactly would a one-year temporary pause on multifamily accomplish? Well, it doesn't say exactly other than it's necessary, again, opinion, to allow time for review of zoning regulations. I'm not aware of any on multif family to allow time for T do DOT's plans and budgets. Well, we pretty much already know these and nothing is going to happen in a year's time as far as T do DOT's plans. Best case scenario, Lebanon Road could be included in T DOT's budget announcement for December of 26. But if it's not, are we going to continue to extend the pause year after year until they fund it? So, I guess it's saying [clears throat] unlimited numbers of single family developments and commercial developments are okay to approve now since those were removed from this moratorum. So more sprawl. In other words, as far as sewer, [clears throat] it's already been discussed, but we don't need an ordinance to restrict any development in the northeastern portion because that's already at capacity. If the city can't

supply sewer to that section, then it's common sense that it can't be approved, unless of course some development wants to come in and pay for it. So, as [clears throat] you may or may not know, we held a public work session in December regarding smart sustainable growth and infrastructure responsibility for the future. And it was unfortunate that Commissioner Hefner Hefner could not be here. And again, I'm sorry about the loss of your friend. [clears throat] In the PowerPoint presentation, we showed how moratoriums rarely work and often backfires. We talked about the growth Ponzi scheme that sprawl produces and why blanket density bands fail. We showed that the future of Mount Juliet is based on the strong town's planning concept which are walkable clusters of mixeduse developments including a downtown area which reduces sprawl and increased infrastructure demands that create more traffic. Restricting multifamily drives housing prices up. That's a fact. And it limits options for families and seniors. We showed that a smarter alternative is a strategic targeted pause and fix. In other words, pause on projects that fail infrastructure capacity test. Pause only those that fail fiscal impact analysis. those with long-term liabilities and poor street connectivity. Require developers to show revenue with long-term maintenance cost. [clears throat] Deny or redesign projects that create taxpayer liabilities, which protects taxpayers without banning housing options. Encourage the right kind of density, not

just dense housing, but dense value. You don't ban density. You pause and fix fiscally irresponsible development. You use strategic tools that outperform blanket moratoriums. You have better design, a stronger tax base, reduce sprawl, and have healthier infrastructure budgets. This is the future of Mount Juliet for the next 20 to 40 years. What we need to do is implement a comprehensive growth management framework to ensure that all development approved is fiscally sustainable, that infrastructure obligations do not exceed available revenues, and that the taxpayers of Mount Juliet are not left with unfunded liabilities. This is what is in the best interest of the city and our citizens. Now, I have a couple of other things, but I'll pause to see if anyone else has anything.

Commissioner Giles. So, all of these things that you're stating is in your opinion and you've researched it somewhat, too. [clears throat] We we showed all this in the work session, right? That and everything you're saying tonight, it's just your opinion. So, but and I appreciate you sharing that. So again the work session was based on the strong towns concept. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Commissioner, appreciate the comments. Um you're incorrect about the Mirabella reference. Um, I notice you still have you're a storyteller on your Facebook page, and that was nothing more than you telling a story. So, um, again, I'll reiterate my points here. This is a one-year pause on accepting applications for multifamily highdensity housing. This is not a permanent um moratorum moratorum. This is a temporary pause on the acceptance of applications. Uh, this does not have anything to do with single family homes. Um, as far as all your other points, um, again, I go back to the statistic that we already have plenty of capac or excuse me, plenty of inventory of homes, both apartments, which addresses your affordability concern. We already have apartments, single family homes, small, medium, low density. It's already in the pipeline. 4400 residential units that are currently under construction. Um, all your points are are I take note of them, but a one-year a one-year pause gives us an opportunity take a deep breath and say, "Oh, look, do we have any other issues that need to be addressed?" I mentioned the 10-year plan for T DOT that hasn't been officially announced for Lebanon Road. Maybe they'll maybe they'll have it within the next year. Maybe they won't. Who knows? Uh but at least one year give us an opportunity and staff, by the way, an opportunity to take a break and having to review these highdensity plans. As far as um you know, Central Pike Interchange, look, it's it's on the 10-year plan. They already made that announcement. hopefully the $25 million

of federal grant money that we uh that staff uh managed to get by way of um Matt White, Mr. White was able to get as a federal grant uh $25 million which saves TOT $25 million. Um hopefully that will accelerate it to an eight-year plan. We don't know. That hasn't been decided yet. We haven't seen or heard of any results from any ongoing conversations. So again, question mark. The other question mark is the $25 million um that that um that we're saving T DOT, where is that money going? Is that money going to go to some other municipality or is it going to get diverted or redirected to Lebanon Road? We don't know. I'd love to know that. But until then, again, I'm asking for a one-year a one-year pause on highdensity housing, which has an immediate impact on citizens moving here and living here and driving around and hitting our school systems um almost nearly immediately. So again, those are my points. Appreciate uh the second and the opportunity to have this open discussion. do have a question to the city attorney about the defensibility of this because it was stated that MTAS recommended one year. If it's one year and you renew it at the end of a year for another year, does that constitute two years? Is there a recommendation not to renew it or just what does it just need to be considered in one year chunks? mean

MTAS just recommended no more than a year and to revisit it if you need to after that year to see if your reasons for putting it into place in the first place still exist. Okay. And since Marabella was initially issued as a a reason for this, would that is that a defense issue? I don't see it in the ordinance, so I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.

Well, it was mentioned on the meeting at 10:27 that since we couldn't pass more Marabella, a moratorum would be brought at the next meeting. We can't pass 400 homes, then staff shouldn't waste their time considering apartments. I don't have an actual recollection of I'm not saying that didn't happen. I just don't have a personal recollection of that happening. Um I just know it's not in this ordinance, but if that was said before, I don't know if that's the basis for this. I don't know. All right. Uh Commissioner Abner.

Yep. I'll address that. So I think what you're referring to was a comment. So yeah, let's go back and retrace history. Um yeah, so let's talk about Mirabella. So, uh, again, this is a a 400 plus single family home, large lot, uh, multif family, multi-million dollar homes that were going to be built out over a period of 10 years. So, you do the math, that's an average of 40 homes a year. Uh, the project was committing, I don't have the rough numbers, it's been a minute. Um, nearly $3 million towards road improvements. um um Lebanon Road specifically road improvements. Um the development was a private gated community uh which um isn't going to burden the taxpayers um by way of the HOA is going to be responsible for maintaining those roads and sidewalks. So it's significant savings um and burden on the citizens of Mount Juliet. private gated guarded handling the nuisance calls which is um um which helps uh relieve some of the burden that would have put on um Mount Julia Police Department because that was a an issue or a concern that came up. Um yeah, I mean I I I don't have the numbers um in front of me but you know you're selling 5 10 15$10 million homes. I mean, do the math on property tax impact that that's going to have to the city of Mount Juliet. So, yeah. Yeah. I've made the comment if we if if we can't pass a project like that where you're going to have a development and and all the check boxes that I've sat up here over the past five years of commissioners and planning commission members requesting and asking [snorts] then why would we waste time um considering apartment complexes which

has a greater impact more of an immediate impact on the citizens and the roads and the streets and the schools than a project like Mirabella that is going to be built out over a period of 10 years. Um, and yeah, I said it. I'm not going to deny I didn't say it. Obviously, it's on tape and I say it again. I mean, yeah, uh, I was, um, I mean, I was a little shocked by that. Um, but it is what it is. They're going to build out the county, so we'll see. Maybe.

So, I don't know if that addressed your question or you're just trying to make a point. Well, I guess I guess my point was is it says a mortorium will be brought if we can't pass since we couldn't pass these ordinance. I know it's not in the ordinance, but it was it was said there. So the the question was if Marbella passed and this is question somebody else has raised. If Marbella had passed, would there have been a moratorum?

Uh yeah, possibly for sure. Why not? Well, how does that change anything? How does that change uh T DOT um approving Lebanon Road to get put on the 10-year plan? How does that have any effect on T dot putting um Central Pike on the 8-year plan? Well, I mean, it doesn't doesn't change anything. [clears throat]

Commissioner Giles. Yeah, if I may u speak on the Marbella situation. Um we we if if that had passed and I and we would have a sewer you talking about sewer capacity, we're going to have maintenance on a sewer line to run all the way out that far. Besides, it was right in the back of of one of the subdivisions in my district and and it was going to tear all of that up and we have blasting all the time. And so I think there was some some some we're talking about infrastructure and we're talking about u depreciation of sewer lines and stuff like that. I think it was I think it would would be a big impact on on our um on our city. So that was that was a Marbella. I want to throw that in since Marbella's come up somewhere. We're here to

discuss this again. If we want to talk about Mirabella, we can we can talk about it, but that's not what's what we're discussing. But since the mayor brought it up, I felt appropriate for me to respond to it. Anyone else? We ready to vote? No. Is that a no vote or or vote? I I said initially that I had a couple other things to say, so I was just letting the rest of y'all say it. Um, I have a point blank question to ask Commissioner Hafner. Were you set to get any contracts if Mirabella had passed?

No. Now, before you go on and start making accusations, um I want you I'm going to proclaim I've done absolutely nothing against the law. I've not violated any ethics ordinate ordinances. If you've got [clears throat] proof that I've done any of those, you bring it forward to this commission immediately. Otherwise, all you're doing right now is grandstanding. And you leaned over after the meeting, after the camera was out, after that November meeting, and said, "Scott, I'm sorry. Don't take it personally. It's just business." That's right.

So, that's all you need to know about her comments that she's about to make and all the ones that she's been stating on Facebook. Scott, I'm sorry. Don't take it personally. It's only business. It is business. Business for what? Monkey business. city business. Oh, city business. Okay. Anyway, she she's she's she's laid into me before and said it's just business, but it sure didn't feel like it at the time. Yeah. Well, don't apologize for something. Don't say something you have to turn around and apologize for. If you know it's not right. Well, I wanted to ask you that directly because I know you were very upset when it failed.

You were upset about a lot of projects that didn't pass, including the park down in in Providence. For the record, and your mic wasn't on, you asked if you were if you benefited basically from any of this. Correct. I asked if he was set to get any contracts if Mayor Bella had my Okay. So, it's on the record.

Okay. This moratorum is hypocritical at best. Commissioner Hefner is one the one who pushed very hard to reduce the 20 acre minimum requirement for multifamily down to 10 acres citywide. that would have resulted in mass expansion of multif family across the entire city with very little road improvements I might add and honestly this is my opinion I don't really believe that he wants this moratorum rather I believe he's more interested in personal support for future plans after all he's an investor a developer who's now in the exc excavating business who does profit from approved projects He's always preaching transparency. So I think we need to be transparent. So for him to truly think this moratorum is what's best for city the city and its citizens, it just doesn't add add up.

Commissioner Hefner. Yeah, let me respond to that. So first of all, the eight the RMA that was six year was five and a half, six years ago. We have What do you mean? So, I think that's pretty relevant because we've approved a lot of developments. Uh, we've approved a lot of residential and yes, I voted for some of them, but at some point I got to say, look, enough's enough. Let's I can't change what's happened in the past, but I can only affect what I'm going to do going forward. As far as your comments about all the other nonsense, um, again, you've got some proof, you've got some evidence that I broke the law or I violated some ethics ordinance. Bring it forward. Bring it forward. broke the law and I never said you

you just said I'm benefiting from my seat. You're implying that I broke the law or No, I never said that. I never said that. I said you do profit off approved projects. And you do again bring the evidence that shows any laws. Show the evidence. Are you denying it? Show bring the evidence that I broke any laws. I didn't say you broke any laws. Are you denying that you profit? All right.

Whatever the correct Robert's rules of order. Well, call for question. Yes, that's the correct. I'm going to recognize Commissioner Hefner. Call for question. All right. Is there a second? Second. All right. All in favor of the moving the question, please signify by saying I.

Any opposed? All right. All in favor of the ordinance as twice amended. Any opposed? The ordinance passes with a vote of 3 to one on first reading. The next item on the agenda is 10R, an ordinance to amend to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Juliet approximately.92 acres of property at 6391 Central Pike, map 97, parcel 15. The property being located within the city's Irving growth boundary. Is there any objection to reading 10S? 10s, an ordinance to reszone property located at 6391 Central Park, approximately.92 acres, map 97, parcel 15 from Wilson County R1 to CMU commercial mixeduse.

Okay. Is there motion and second? Uh, do you want to fix some acreage? Yes. Um, so the acreage in both of these ordinances for the annex and the reszone are incorrect. They're listed as 0.92.92 acre that it's should be um two acres. So I motion to replace all the references of 0.92 acreage to two acres. What was the correct acreage commissioner? Two acres. Two acres. Mhm.

So, would a motion be appropriate just to replace N2 wherever it exists in either of these ordinances with two? Yes. All right. I'll second that. Any questions or comments? All in favor replacing the 0.92 and and replacing that with 2 acres, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? All right. back on the two ordinances once amendment. Any once amended each? Any other questions or comments? All right. All in favor of R 10R and 10S, please signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Those do cap. Those do carry. The last item on the agenda is 111A, which is a joint economic community development board appointment to position number nine. Uh this is my recommendation with the board of commissioners to ratify I guess is right. Currently we have commissioner Hefner serving in that position. I haven't asked him and but would you be willing to continue your your uh service? I would. All right. One more year.

I will affront Commissioner Hefner's name for consideration. Um, all in favor of appointing Commissioner Hefner to the joint economic community board for another year for position number nine, please signify by saying I. I. And sir, you you've got another year. And with that, we're on item number 12, which is adjournment. Is there any objection to adjourning and going home? Hearing none, we are adjourned.