Council - Regular Meeting

At this time, I'd like to call the regular Nashville Town Council meeting to order on this August the 4th at 7 p.m. Could we please stand for the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Let us pray. Father, as at each meeting we invite you in, we welcome your presence to lead and guide us in making the right decisions that will benefit all of our citizens. Amen. Our first item on our agenda is the approval of meeting minutes, the budget hearing meeting minutes. Did you find any corrections that need to be made to those? If not, do I hear a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

Then the next on our agenda is the regular meeting minutes to be approved from June 17th. Any corrections to those minutes? If not, do I hear a motion to approve? Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

Next is our public comments. You have three minutes to speak. The first person is Paul Wiggins. Could you come and state your name and which town you live in?

This is on which subject?

This is just public comment.

Okay. My name is Oscar P. Wiggins. I live at 911 South First Street, Nashville, North Carolina. My opinion about the new regulations for us picking up waste, like couches and chairs and big items that we have, and the city's charging what, $25 and $50 depending on the size of these items to be picked up. We pay fees for trash collection and different stuff, and I feel like that's a little bit over the top to charge extra money to pick up a broken down chair and stuff like that. And it's also going to cause a lot of stuff to be sitting beside the street, because I already see it already. I already see it already. Around the corner from me, there's been a couch sitting out there for a week and a half. And they're not going to pick them up every week for a trash collection that's on an every other week basis. It's going to cause a whole lot of unsightly stuff sitting beside the streets in town, which I don't think is a good picture for us. And plus, I don't feel like we should be charged. I'm already paying a fee for picking up trash and stuff. And I don't feel like I should pay another fee because I pay city and county taxes. Thank you.

Thank you so much. The next person is Chris Sandy.

Hello, I'm Chris Sandy on Build Right Supply on 720 South Body Street. Let's just count part one, part two will be later. We'll be talking about some stuff tonight about the shipping containers and those are the building material for me that we sell. and the things that have helped a lot of people with these things like fire departments for training centers to help save lives, which might be our lives that they save. But in looking at these things, and we've been working on this for a long time, we have to focus on our key purposes here, which is promoting the public health, safety, community acceptance standards, promoting the orderly growth, expansion, development of town, and lessen congestion, providing the adequate light and air, and safety from fire and panic and dangers and all that sort of thing. Where does that fall in line to what our administration is supposed to be handling here? And we also can't infringe on the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment ability to earn a gainful life and express ourselves. So that's all I got to say at this point. Thank you.

Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the data center moratorium. Sean?

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Thank you once again. Mayor and Council, as you know, at our last daytime meeting on July 22nd, 2026, we held the first public hearing. We wanted to do it on two nights, one in the daytime for people who work second and third shift that will be unable to come tonight, and then again one tonight for people who work regular shift that are off in the evenings that could come. So this is part two of it. We did adopt Resolution 202625. to schedule a second public hearing, which is scheduled for tonight for the data center moratorium. And as you know, town staff is asking for a 12-month moratorium to be put on this type of use until we can evaluate it, learn more about it, make an ordinance that works for Nashville, that fits our town, and be able to find something to be able to work with it. As you know, the Town TRC did have this topic on their agenda back on their July 27th meeting, and the Town TRC voted in favor of hoping the Council would adopt a 12-month moratorium on data centers. So, Mayor and Council, I'll yield back to you for the public hearing, and we can come back for deliberation, voting, and discussion.

Do I hear a motion to open the public hearing concerning this matter?

So moved.

All those in favor let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

On the sign up sheet to speak I have Curtis Smith.

Good evening. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak again. on the data centers. Detrimental effect on not only national but the entire county with the water uses we spoke about earlier. Three to five hundred thousand gallons per day used with most of your smaller data centers. Edgecombe County just stopped the one they were trying to build in Kingsborough. I called a personal friend of mine over there today, and in the town meeting, they were going to use 2 million gallons of water a day. Some of the larger ones out west are using 5 million gallons a day. This has been reported on NBC and ABC News. We see a lot of usage of the data centers that we, and the main reason, and they're not telling the actual truth of what they're used for, is to track everything you do, every text message you've sent, every phone call you've made, every email search you've done, every email, every Google search is compiled in these data centers. And this is what they're using to train AI and the AI robots. Peter Thiel was recorded last week saying it is time to end freedom and democracy. Then he fled to Argentina. He's a part owner of Palantir who works with the federal government and intelligence agencies. Sam Altman said he was building the new robot force. has stated in his mission statement that 1,000 human deaths are acceptable to train AI robots. This is very seriously. And the main reason I've spoken against this is in ancient history, In the Mediterranean, the Middle East, a gentleman started out to plant an olive garden. He doesn't plant it for himself, he plants it for his grandchildren. We're standing here to fight against this because four of these are generations that come behind us. These are used to flock cameras. I mean, it's all over the news. People are cutting them down everywhere. Garrett Langley, who was supposedly the inventor and owner of Flock, he didn't. It was an American intelligence, an Israeli intelligence invention. He was put at the head of it. He's laughed about all the false arrests around the nation with Flock cameras. They're 71% wrong at the time on license plate reading. So I was losing my train of thought. This is a serious issue. We had a gentleman in Charlotte that was falsely arrested for a car theft in Florida while he was at work in Charlotte. They kept him in jail for three months. He lost his house. He lost two custody of two of his children, lost his job. And they laughed about it. They said, well, mistakes are gonna happen. We have to ban this mainly because of the water uses and the pollution. A small facility will usually on average use 28 diesel generators. And anyone familiar with a diesel generator, they run wide open when they crank up. You can find videos of the noise all over YouTube, the internet, of how bad it is and the vibrations and the frequencies coming from these machines that is very detrimental to our health We talked about Loudoun County, Virginia, 200 data centers in Loudoun County. They're getting ready to build another one in Prince Henry, Prince William, I'm sorry, and also Henrico. They're having serious troubles with electrical grid. They have asked all public schools during the day to cut off their lights because the data centers take priority over the children. If some of you may remember last week when our lights blinked through the county, that was from Boston all the way to Miami. It was caused in Loudoun County. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. Appreciate you letting me speak.

Thank you, Curtis. The next person that has signed up is Joe Hester.

I'm getting used to speaking after Curtis. I think he's great. And I don't have to say all the things that he says. I just want to add a few things that I thought about since he was so good last time. I know he didn't go over everything he said last time, which was great because he'd already told it to you once. Anyway, it has to do with the data centers, and I'm all for moratorium and all against data centers. And of course, the pollution, water, air, heat, noise, power use, all that. He discussed most of that last time. I'd like to emphasize the water issue, though, first. I talked about the residential development that we have in the western part of Nash County, the extension of the water lines to northern Nash County. We've got to have water for those folks. And in addition to that, all the businesses and other entities that grow up around all these new people in Nash County, we've got to have water for them. We don't have the water for data centers. And speaking of water, if they use evaporation, Curtis talked about this, you lose 80% of your water. The 20% that you don't lose is polluted. because they use what they call biocides, which are just chemical insecticides, to prevent growth in the servers while they're running and all that heat inside, in effect, the big warehouse. So the water that's left contains toxic chemicals, biocides, heavy metals, and it has to be treated somehow. Same thing for the air pollution that comes from the data center itself. It has all of those things in it, and it has to be treated. Either you treat it or the public has to deal with it. So those just in addition to what he said the other night. And it's interesting to me that while we're talking about all these problems, Curtis is talking about them, I underline everything Curtis says, and while he's talking about them, what does the data center people do? You would think they'd be out doing some research and spending some money to ameliorate these negatives that data centers across the country have. Instead, what are they doing? They're paying $400,000 in North Carolina to run a PR campaign, I guess to try to change Curtis's mind. They can't. But instead of spending the money to... better operate these systems, they're spending the money to try to convince us that we're wrong about what we think about data centers. Anyway, the negatives far outweigh the positives. You have to deal with all these things that Curtis talked about last time and this time. In our case, we have a chance to solve all those problems. We don't have to deal with them. We just have to say no to data centers. Thank you once again. Thank you Curtis. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this, the data center issue? If not, do I hear a motion to close this public hearing?

Move to close.

Is there a second? All those in favor let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

WITH NO OTHER DISCUSSION, DO I HEAR A MOTION THAT WE AMEND WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUCH LAND USERS AND FACILITIES AND ADOPT ORDINANCE 2026-23? IS THERE A SECOND?

SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS SHIPPING CONTAINER ORDINANCE

Thank you once again, Mayor and Council. Mayor and Council, as you know, over the past year and a half, we have been working very diligently on writing and crafting an ordinance for the allowance of shipping containers in residential and non-residential districts to be of better use for the citizens of Nashville. We think that we have an ordinance this time that is very suitable for addressing those matters. For the sake of time, Mayor, I can go through the entire ordinance or either we can go through highlighted areas. The councilor, you just tell me which way the council would like for me to proceed. Just to highlight those main areas. If you turn to page 49 in your packet, we'll go through the presented ordinance, and then at the end we'll go with the planning board recommended to the council. And the public hearing after that. If you turn to page 49 in your packet, we are defining shipping storage containers and shipping containers. and we are saying a shipping containers are typically made of metal, 20 feet or 40 feet in length, comprised of 106 square feet area or greater, and enclosed on all sides. And we are defining what a shipping container sell or lease business is. A business or establishment in which shipping containers are sold or leased. Where shipping containers are located as inventory or for display purposes. And we're also defining what a storage container is. A storage container is a container or construction staging compressed in less than 160 square feet in area, enclosed on all sides. Examples of storage containers will be your pods and your pack racks. If you go to section two, we are omitting the table allow use ordinance to allow shipping storage container sales and lease as a permitted use in the I-1 light industrial, I-2 heavy industrial district. Section three, we are putting out standards for ordinances for storage containers and residential land use. Number one, a storage container may be placed to locate a store in use in a residential use zoning district as a necessary use for a temporary period not to exceed 60 days. Number two, a storage container shall meet all applicable front, rear, side, yard setbacks by those applicable to accessory storage for the district where the storage container is located. Provided, however, a storage container located on or within a permanent driveway serving the residents may encroach upon otherwise required setbacks.

Sean, can I stop you for a second?

You don't.

If I have proposed changes, do I present those now or after the public hearing?

I would say this was organized. We'd go so the public can hear it so they can discuss it with the public. Okay. So you want to go back to number one?

I do have a suggestion for number one, yes.

Yes, please.

So we want to prevent a situation where someone has a 60 days with their storage container, they take it off for a day, bring another one on, and say, oh, one was a pack rat, one was a pod, and so all of a sudden you have one permanently there. So my suggested language would be a storage container may be placed, located, stored, and used in a residential use zoning district as an accessory use only. for a temporary period not to exceed 60 calendar days. The cumulative placement of one or more storage containers on the same parcel for more than 60 calendar days within any 12-month period shall constitute a violation of this subsection, regardless of whether the storage containers are different brands, manufacturers, owners, or units.

OK. Let me make it over there on my end. If we pick back up on number three in section three, a storage container shall be oriented perpendicular to the public-private street for ease of access and removal. A storage container shall be located on improved surface, asphalt, concrete, gravel, and shall not be placed on grass or other unimproved properties. No storage container shall be installed, stored, or placed on a vacant or otherwise undeveloped property unless permitted in accordance with the subsections. Number six, a storage container shall be installed, stored or placed for, no storage container shall be installed, stored or placed for display or marketing purposes on residential zone properties. Number seven, no storage container shall exceed 159 square feet in area. Number nine, substitute exemption contained in subsection nine, hereof any storage container must be removed within 60 days from the date of its installation, placement or location. And number nine in section three, any storage container installed, placed, located, or used in connection with a zoning compliance permit and or a Nash County building inspection permit for repair, renovation, demolition, or construction purposes on the property may rain for the duration of the permit issuance Such storage containers shall in all events be removed within 30 days following the issuance of a certificate of compliance, CO, by the town of Nashville, the Natch County Building Inspections, or the expiration of any permit issued in connection with development construction on the property. Number 10, no stacking of storage container units shall be allowed. And number 11, no storage containers shall be located, placed, or stored in violation of Article 4 of the Parking Orders of the Town of Nashville Code of Ordinances. Section 4 pretty much discusses standards for service land use for displaying shipping containers for sale or lease. And if you go to number six on that, that will be the new subsection in that chapter of the ordinance. Display of shipping containers for sale or lease. In accordance with provisions section 18109, the table permitted use of shipping container sales and rentals include any placement or location of shipping containers for inventory storage or display purposes is permitted only in the I-1 light industrial, I-2 heavy industrial zoning district. For this purpose of this subsection, display shall mean placement or location of a shipping container on properties for advertising, promotional visibility, or marketing purposes when such container is not being used as either the principal use or an accessory use of the property.

I also have a suggested change for that one. Okay, please. I just wanted language that was a little clearer in what we're intending to do here. So my language would be the placement, location, storage, inventory, or display of shipping containers or storage containers offered for sale or lease is permitted only in the i-1 light industrial and i-2 heavy industrial zoning districts any person or business engaged in whole or in part in the sale or lease of shipping containers or storage containers may operate in any zoning district where such business use is otherwise permitted provided all other applicable standards are met However, no shipping container or storage container that is owned, leased, or controlled by such person or business or that is held as inventory, offered for sale or leased, used for display, demonstration, or advertising may be placed, located, stored, displayed, or maintained outside of I-1 or I-2 zoning districts. This subsection shall not prohibit the lawful use of a shipping container or storage container as an accessory use were expressly permitted elsewhere in this ordinance.

Okay. Let me make a note of that. If we move down, shipping container sales and lease and then placement location and storage of a shipping container is also subject to the following additional standards and requirements. Issues of a zoning compliance permit consistent with the requirements of this chapter is required for the placement, location, or storage of shipping containers for display, sale, or rental. Shipping container units shall not be stacked. No shipping container units shall be placed, located, or stored within 25 feet of a property line. Shipping containers must be located, displayed on an approved surface, asphalt, gravel, or concrete. And E, shipping containers shall not be located or require parking areas, drive lanes, or require loading berths associated with the principal land use of the property where such are located. No container may be located in violation of Article 4, the Parking Code of the Town of Nashville Ordinances. In section five, you will see we'll be adding a new section, which will be subsection S. There will be standards for land uses for accessory use structures and facilities in non-residential zoning districts, i.e. commercial. The following standards and requirements shall apply with respects to the location and placement, that's on 51, turn to 52. Installation and all use of all accessory use structures, temporary or permanent, in non-residential zoning districts. All accessory uses, number one, all accessory use and structure shall be located on the same lot as the principal use of structure and not be located with any street right of way. The use of any accessory structure or facility must be clearly salorded in size and scale to the principal use of the property and devoted to use customary incidental to and for the benefit and convenience of the principal structure in use. Number two in that section, Any accessory use structure shall be located in the side or rear lot areas and shall be located behind the front building line of the principal structure provided, however, parcels over two acres in size may have one accessory structure in front of the principal structure so long as all setbacks applicable to the district are maintained.

I have a suggestive change for that one as well.

Yes, ma'am, Councilwoman.

So I don't think it matters whether it's a half acre or two acres. If there's a property that's close to a street that's very visible to everybody, I would rather not have an accessory structure in front of that principal structure. I'd rather just keep them all to the side or behind regardless of acreage.

So would you like to do a straight through it after the Congress has provided?

Provided and maintained.

Okay. Number eight, all accessory use structures shall not exceed the following size restrictions. With respect to the problem where the gross floor area of the principal structure is less than 10,000 square feet, 10% of the floor area or 324 square feet, whichever is greater of accessory structure space shall be permitted. With respect to problems where the gross floor area of the principal structure is 10,000 square feet or greater up to 25,000 square feet of gross principal structure floor area, 15% of accessory structure space shall be permitted. And with respect, number three, with respect to problems where the gross floor area of the principal structure exceeds 25,000 square feet, 20% of the gross floor area shall be permitted for accessory structure space. We'll also be adding another section with this, section B, shipping containers as an accessory use. A shipping container may be used and accessory used in the B1, I1, I2 zoning districts, business one, industrial one, business one, light industrial, heavy industrial, zone districts only, subject to the accessory use standard set for herein and above, in addition to the following further standards and restrictions. Number one, any shipping container must be located, placed, or stored within the side and rear areas of the subject property and behind the front building line of the principal structure, regardless of the size of the property. Number two, any shipping containers shall be located, placed, or stored on the improved surface, asphalt, concrete, or gravel. Number three, there shall be no stacking of shipping containers. Number four, on page 53, any shipping containers shall be located in a manner which does not impede passage through parking lots. Required driveways or vehicle lanes, fire lanes, loading areas, or which otherwise violates the provision, article four, the parking orders of the Nashville Town Code of Ordinances. The service parking areas shall be configured and re-striped to maintain access and circulation to the principal use. Number five, any rooftop mechanical equipment placed or fixed on shipping containers must be screened in a manner providing no less than 75% screening capacity. Number six, any shipping container located in a B1 zoning district and continuously located on the property for longer than 60 days must be screened in accordance with the screening standards set for here and below. Repeated placement. replacement or rotation of a shipping container or multiple shipping containers on the same property for a total of 60 days in a 12-month period shall constitute continuous location for purpose of this subsection. And the last one, if the shipping container is plainly visible from any adjacent public street or streets, screening is required at all areas within five feet or less from the street side face of the shipping container along the entire face of the shipping container. Screening may be provided by vegetation or structural, fencing or lattice means. If screening is provided by vegetation means, planted material must be evergreen with a minimal height of three feet upon planting and six feet in maturity and provide no less than 75% opacity at the maturity. If screening is provided by structural means, it shall be no less than six feet in height, provide no less than 75% opacity.

I just have one question on that one.

Yes, please.

Where we say fencing or lattice?

Yes.

Do we have lattice in our normal screening provisions in the rest of our ordinance?

We don't. It's pretty much just fencing, either chain link, wooden fence, wooden plane fence, or vinyl side fence.

I wouldn't add lattice then.

So you want to stretch right to lattice.

Yes, sir, Councilman. Back to the rooftop. Yes, sir. We don't have any... potential to have in Nashville. Are we talking about putting a shipping container on a rooftop? No, you've got HVAC equipment.

So if somebody takes a shipping container and puts HVAC equipment up there, the HVAC equipment has to be shielded.

It's putting the equipment on top of the shipping container.

It's just the equipment.

Yes, sir. Keeping there.

Keeping there equipment. Okay. And back to A, the shipping container, back to B, at B1. Yes, sir. I'd like to take B1 out of that paragraph altogether. Okay. Back on page 52. Okay. I'd like to strike B1. B1.

So you wouldn't like to have shipping containers allowed in the B1 zoning district?

I do not want shipping containers in the B1.

As an accessory use.

Right, as an accessory use.

You're right, as an accessory use.

That's screened behind.

Mm-hmm. And to the side and rear of the building.

So, Larry, for instance, Walmart's B1.

Okay.

I don't see that business without shipping containers allowed.

I think as long as it's screened. And I must admit, I don't either. Okay. But as long as it's screened, nobody can. Right.

Probably what you're thinking is B2, which is downtown Main Street. So, yeah, we're not allowed to be downtown Main Street. That's what I'm referring to.

That's what you're thinking. Yes, sir. I just want clarification from myself.

Yes, sir. That's no problem.

All right. Okay.

Mayor and council, if you don't mind, I would like to read the recommendations that were brought by the planning board during their meetings. Mayor, if you don't mind. The Planning Board of the Town of Nashville did meet on June 23rd, 2026 at 7 p.m. to receive public comment and consider the proposed testament for shipping containers. Upon discussion, the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of many proposed orders with the following modification recommendations to be presented to the Town Council this evening. Increase the maximum permit size for accessory shipping containers from 144 square feet to 160, which we did. 160 is the shipping container, 159 and below is storage container. Number two, allow shipping container dealers, leasing businesses, and wholesalers as a permitted use within the B1, which is a highway business district, zoner district. Number three, permit shipping container use for display by approving, permitting shipping containers are used for display and lease for sale by approving shipping container dealers within B1 Zone District to be located within the front yard setback, providing the container's not located no more than 25 feet from the front property line. So what they were saying was letting the dealer have a shipping container dealership business in B1 and letting them have shipping containers in the front yard also. for displaced purposes. And number four, increase the allowed number of shipping containers in the I-1 and I-2 zone district by permitting up to 10 shipping containers on lots containing a minimum of 4,000 square feet with additional shipping containers permitted every additional 500 square feet, which we did address that also because that was addressed in your page 52 where we talk about with respect to properties, how much shipping container capacity you can have. Those were recommended by the Planning Board on the June 23rd meeting, Mayor, and I will read one more recommendation, and then I will yield back to you, Mayor, for the public hearing portion. On July 27th, 2026, the Town TRC Technical Review Committee Reviewed the proposed ordinance with the updates that were provided by the planning board's recommendation and made the following comments and statements. I'm speaking on behalf of the TRC tonight. The TRC respectfully opposed the planning board's recommendations to allow shipping container dealers, sellers, or leasing business to display shipping containers within the front yard of the property. The TRC primary concerns that such display would have a negative impact on the town's overall appearance and community character particularly within the b1 zone district where many problems are located along high visible commercial quarters due to shipping container size industrial appearances and the potential number of containers that could be displayed in front yard display will likely create visual clutter and detract from the established aesthetic characters of the surrounding areas Allowing retired shipping containers to be prominently, prominently displayed between the principal building and the public street could also make it more difficult to make consistent harmony among commercial properties throughout the town. The TRC, Technical Review Committee, believes that shipping container displays should be located to the side or rear of the principal building and appropriately screened from public right-of-ways and adjoining properties. For this reason, the TRC recommends that shipping container dealers, sellers, and leasing businesses not be permitted to display shipping containers within the front yard of the property or in the B1 district. Mayor and Council, that is the proposed ordinance. that is the recommendations brought to you by the planning board from their meeting on june 23rd 2026 and that is also recommendations brought to you by the town technical review committee that review other things from their meeting on july 27 2026. mayor and council i think that's enough here for me this evening so if you don't mind maybe i will yield back to you for the open of the public hearing and hearing from the citizens of nashville um

Council, before we go to the public here, do any of you have any comments?

I have one last question. Just regarding the screening, we have in our ordinance in other places certain levels of screening buffers. Would it be simpler to just require a certain

that's already spelled out i just want to reinvent the wheel like does this match one of those or it doesn't match because i type type a type b type c type a is the most extensive one if you've got industrial style residential heavier vegetational buffer type is a little bit more relaxed of course type c is the more looser one so it doesn't address if you want to do fences down for vegetation if you want to add in a type b buffer or a type a buffer it'll be up to the council But it would be more spelled out, as you were saying, Councilwoman, that you could go into town's definition and say, okay, this is the spacing and this is how it needs to be done. It's already established by the town.

What does A say?

A is the most intense one. So A would be if you had industrial beside residential. Kind of like where our business park sits at with the neighborhood behind it, the majority of them have to follow a type A buffer.

And do you know off the top of your head what it is?

It is more heavy on trees that have to grow with a higher maturity rate. Okay.

This is 75%, so it's more than that, or it's the same?

It would be right about that. Type B would be a step under 75. I would suggest if it was me, probably either a type B. Because type B is what you get when you've got more like residential to office use.

Does type B match what we have here, but you think it's less than 75?

Can we pull that up? Are we able to pull that up? Because we'd like to see that. Who wouldn't mind?

And where is it on here, Kate and Paige?

Oh, it's 53, the final paragraph in red. So a type A buffer is intended to provide very dense site barrier to significant separate use and land use districts. It is intended to reduce the structure of lighting and noise from adjacent properties. Your type B is the medium density screen, which is intended to create a visual separation between uses and land uses. And let's see if we can get into that.

But this talks about, like, percentages and heights. It doesn't talk about any of that on that?

So if you look at your chart right here on table one in our zone of ordinance, type A is what you mainly see. So if you look at your type A, like we said, if you got industrial besides single family, you do a type A, that's a heavy buffer. If you got multi-family besides industrial, you would look at B. And if you got commercial, of course it's C because it's commercial to commercial. So A could fit, because like we said, type A, one canopy tree every 40 feet, one understory tree every 20 feet, one shrub every 10 feet, with an average width of 20 feet with a minimum width of 15 feet, and a maximum width of 40 feet, are completely consistent of fencing, wall, or planting with a width of 10 feet, completely defined as having no horizontal opening from the ground to the height of six feet within a two-year planting. Type B, one tree every 25 feet, one shrub every 10 feet with a width of 15 feet. So you can see A is a little bit more.

But they're very different than what this is.

And I don't think either one fits.

Yeah, I think we leave it alone because it's totally different. Yes, sir. So just keep going.

We've got to know with the 75%. Okay. Just strike the lattice. And just strike the lattice. Gotcha.

Any other comment from anyone? If not, do I hear a motion for us to go to an open hearing concerning shipping container ordinance? Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

The first one to speak is James. I'm sorry, I can't remember your last name.

Lynch.

Lynch, yeah. Thanks.

Good evening. Good evening.

I am a resident of Nashville, been here 55 years. And these shipping containers, the one I've seen is eyesore, especially to put it in my residential area. And I think a lot of stuff I can't. don't know exactly what the code is and all. But when you're talking about putting one of your big shipping containers in the front yard, and you ain't got in the mud front yard, and then if I come out, it could be blocking my view down the street, wherever. And I can't see where you're going. Like I said, I hear them saying something about air conditioning, and you said there's six months. In my area, if somebody want one, would that be... six months permanent if they want it first storage unit 60 days 60 day for a storage unit so like a pack rat or a pod if they were doing some sort of right construction i'm saying this shipping not in residential it don't won't come in residential okay i really want to get an understanding of course i definitely won't walk out of my front door looking at all my back door And then I see this thing as being, if it's sitting there, our lot's not that big, where my house and the next house, you park two cars, you can't get a third one hauling between the house. And this thing be there and have a fire, could it keep the fire trucks from getting back and fighting the fire? You know, I don't want it to be a danger to me, and I don't want to ask, so I take a lot of pride in my house and my community. And I don't want to see bad stuff in there to make it look bad. I've been there 50-some years. I'm planning on dying there, hopefully. But I don't want to see this thing bring my community down. And, you know, we fight hard to keep it up, and we're having to probably try to come to the council to get y'all to help us. So right now, I hope we help us with these shipping crates not being in our yards. Thank you. Thank you, Jane.

Oscar Wiggins.

May while Mr. Wiggins comes up. We are trying to get pictures of Pat Radd and power containers. Yes, that was Pat Radd. This is the Pat Radd right here container that will be allowed in residential for the citizens of Wilson, not what you just saw, the Radd. And this is the power, what powers are what we say will be allowed in residential, smaller ones in residential.

For temporary use.

For temporary use. Thank you, Mr. Wiggins. For temporary use.

Oscar Wiggins, 911 South First Street, National. I came down here to protest the containers, but in view of seeing some of the changed regulations and all, you know, my view has changed slightly because I just want to make sure that it didn't one allowed to be in residential areas. I still have a concern about adjacent residential areas versus commercial. I don't necessarily agree with the buffer that's between the two because you're talking about a tree and a shrub. How long is that going to take to hide from it? It ain't long enough. I want something to put up there that's going to block my view from it from day one where I can't see through it nor over it. So I do want to make sure that those stipulations between residential and commercial are upheld. But as long as they don't come into residential areas on no circumstances, I have no problem with it. Because you know how we do when we make rules and regulations Everybody's looking for a loophole. You say 60 days, next thing you know it's 90 days, next thing you know it's six months, because who's going to stay on top of this stuff? Everybody's always looking for loopholes. Every little amendment you make in the city of Nashville, somebody's looking for a loophole to crawl through. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wiggins. Mike Harper.

Yeah. My name is Mike Harper. I run Harper's Garden and Stone Center right outside of Nashville. I'm not actually in the city limits of Nashville. I'm in the planning zone, I would say. But anyway, I've gotten three letters about shipping containers that I had on my property. by having them, I think, removed or whatever. I actually was going to start selling shipping containers, and I put a sign on one of them pretty much, and I was told to take the sign down, which I did. And everything would probably be okay, but I've also got two more letters, and I'm just trying to figure out what's going on with it. When you go back 50 years ago, we had shipping containers then. You know, that's what we use for storage. There's a lot of good reasons for using those in my type business, which is agriculture. You know, mice, things like that, bugs can't get in these containers. They won't get into my grass seed, they won't get into corn, they won't get into anything like that. Where if you put them in a regular building, like a big metal building or something, you know, rats, mice, insects. I mean, it didn't take but a little while and they've just taken it over and messed up all the product. If I've got product that is maybe cloth or paper or what have you, I can put it in a shipping container. I mean, I don't have to worry about it. I don't have any problems. I would have been using them for 40-some years. And, you know, I'd like to continue to use them. And to be honest with you, if you rode by my place and look at the shipping container that I got the thing on, I mean, it's painted. It looks nice. It's not an eyesore. I mean, it looks as good as half the garages in Nash County in a lot of areas. It's not like it's a high sword. I don't want the place to look terrible. I want it to look nice. We do a lot of stuff trying to clean up all the time, make sure this is right. We worked for the last week cleaning up around the place. We want to make everything look nice, but there is a use for these things. You understand what I'm saying? In the right circumstances, and I would agree with that. That's pretty much all I've got to say. I'm just trying to figure out what I've got to do. I can't hear very good, so a lot of stuff I heard a while ago, I just went... They said I was out of ordinance, and I was just trying to figure out what I've got to do to get back into ordinance. That's all.

Thank you, Mike, and I'm sure Sean will be willing to help you.

Okay, thank you.

Just contact him one-on-one.

All right.

Okay, thank you, Mike.

All right, thank you.

Christopher Sandy.

Christopher Sandy, 720 South Bonnie Street, Field Rights Supply. We've been dealing with this for about a year and a half now. And I was looking at the synopsis of the story that was in the agenda of the history of what has gone on leading up to us being at this point. and it sounded pretty eloquent, but there was several things missing in this. One hint was from Harper's Nursery is that my business and other businesses selling shipping containers for the viable uses and needs that there are have been harassed and used ordinances sent into in violation that doesn't exist and doesn't apply and it's cost all of us a lot of money. It's threatened our rights from the U.S. Constitution to earn a gainful living, to express ourselves with our own opinions. I've said this many times. Some people say, I don't like the way they look. Well, you look at the one that Mr. Harper has, and he's painted it. A simple coat of paint makes it look very pleasant. At one meeting, I brought pictures of so many accessory buildings around within a quarter mile of my establishment that are in disarray, have been in disarray. It's going to cost thousands of dollars to fix them, but nothing's ever been addressed with those. I've also said many times, I'm personally not a fan of stucco houses. I sell stucco, but that's people expressing they like stucco. This is just a building material. And whatever people want to use them for, there's a great need for it, especially in the business community. Centerville Fire Department, I helped them build a training center so that they can train to save lives, and those lives that they save might be your own. And so anyhow, I'm very disturbed by this because In the past year and a half, we have lost $250,000 worth of sales. And the ordinance that was proposed is a little contrary to what the planning board wanted, which we've been back to the planning board three or four times, because it didn't get this, didn't get that, because the tails wagging the dog, somebody in the minority says that I don't like the way a shipping container lives. And like somebody said on the planning board one time, if you're afraid of worms, there's no worms to be afraid of. It's just a building material. And they can be made to use and look very beautiful. Now, if you don't mind, I want to hand you this. I found over 20 ambiguous or conflicting things in the proposed ordinance that is very contradictory. We've been over this and we've spent thousands of dollars on this. I don't know how much RAS has been paid over the time. I don't know how much our consultant, Mr. Harvey, how much he's been paid. I know I've got almost 200 man hours in this myself, not to mention the city staff working on this, the revisions we did in the beginning. I paid for us to be here today. I wanted to fix the problem. But instead it's turned into a witch hunt to shut down the business and cut down the opportunities that we all need. Our Nashville Police Department has a shipping container. Nash County Sheriff's Department has shipping containers. Because they are a need, they're a viable need. And there's no worms to be afraid of. Who's on the TRC?

You want to go to Chris to answer at the end so you won't lose your minute?

The what?

You got a minute. You want to keep going to answer at the end.

All right. You know, we look at percentages. I've got 25 businesses that have signed in. And I would have more, but I just haven't had time to go get them because I've got to run a business and a family and all that sort of thing, too. That's 10% of the businesses in this community. That's a substantial number. Unfortunately, the citizens of this town... don't vote and come to the elections because, like, everybody on city council here only got, what, six or seven percent of the total population that could vote. People have to come out. So I've got more than that to substantiate this, and I know I can get more. I know I can get more. And what we do now is going to affect everybody. And not to mention, infringe on our constitutional rights and freedoms to take and earn a gainful living and be prosperous in this community. And in Section 1, where I read what our goals here as an administration to do, shipping containers do not threaten those things in any way. And please look over these over 20 conflicts that are in this proposed ordinance. They are ambiguous, and ambiguity is not a good thing to have going into this.

Thank you, Chris. Thank you. Mayor, do you want me to ask this Chris question while he's walking down? Yes. The TRC committee consists of the town manager, Mr. Randy Lansing, the planning director, myself, the parks and recreation director, Mr. Cora Worrells, the public works director, Mr. Jason Glover, the public works warden and sewer superintendent, Mr. Chad Neville, the chief of police, Mr. Caleb Shockley, the fire chief, Mr. Chris Joyner, and also our environmental compliance officer, stormwater administrator, Mr. Walter Manning, and also our town engineer, Mr. Kevin Barnell.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this matter? If not, yeah.

I have a question.

I think, I might be wrong.

And it's against the town ordinance for me to park in my front yard. Yes, sir. On the grass, yeah. But you're saying you can put these things on your front yard?

No, sir, not in the residential.

It has to be in the driveway. Okay, I'll make sure about that.

Yes, sir. Mayor, if I may. Yes. I want the citizens to understand that we're not trying to violate anybody's constitutional rights, deprive anybody from making a living. The only thing we're trying to do is trying to make sure that this ordinance allows a dealer... a renter or whatever to use shipping containers, but we want to regulate where you want to put, where we can put them. We've allowed, in this ordinance, we've written it out so they can operate a business. But we just don't want a shipping container in a residential area or even in a semi-business area where it's set out front, where it's an iso, it's a traffic hazard for visibility reasons. That's the only thing we're trying to do. We're not trying to violate anybody's rights or take anybody's business away from them. And the gentleman just spoke and said that he spent Hours and hours, hundreds of hours in this ordinance. Our staff has spent hours and hours in this ordinance. We've paid this attorney here way more than what we had allocated to try to get this ordinance right for him. We've hired other advisors to help us bring this ordinance up and try to make it as... As usable and fair as we could make it to everybody. We have spent quite a bit of our time. This gentleman here has spent on the phone hours and hours, days after days, talking about the same things over and over and over. We've heard what he has to say. We've took this in and we've gave it careful consideration and I think we've heard enough. We've spent... more than usual on this project, trying to get it where we can go on it. And I think it's now the point right now we need to vote for.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this issue? If not, do I hear a motion that we come out of the public hearing?

Move to come out of public hearing. Second.

Is there a second? Second. Are there any comments from the council?

I just made mine.

One that was brought up by one of our residents that... If a residence is adjacent to where one of these B1 units would be, it will take many years for vegetation to grow up and not be an eyesore. So my recommendation would be if the B1 is adjacent to a residential and they're going to use this to require opaque fencing so that it's immediate.

True. I agree. I agree.

And that will fall in page 53. I make an adjustment 53, section number 7.

I want to just kind of clarify. So we're going to vote on page 50 through 53 with the changes that Kate mentioned, and they don't include the two out of the four recommendations from the planning. Is that what we're voting on?

Councilman, if that's what you'd like to say in your motion, that's what you need to say. You need to say we're voting on the pages of page 49 through 53 with recommendations from Councilwoman Burns with denial of the recommendations from the Planning Board. And if you want to accept the recommendation from the planning board...

The two changes are in the pages correctly. Yes, sir. The other two are not. Yes, sir. So I'll make a motion that we... Page 49 to 53 with the... I think it was three or four changes that Kate gave us to adopt this. In the last deflation, she just mentioned about...

The fencing. Fencing the...

The section three, number one, section four, number six. Is that right, Kate?

Yes.

And then the fencing. And then taking that lattice, so there's four changes. Is that right, or is there more?

I think that's it.

I think that's it too. Oh, and the two acres, striking that.

Yes, we're striking that out on section, page 52, paragraph 3, section 2.

I'll make a motion for all that.

We'll send it out to council to review. Okay, so Bill has made the motion for us to approve Ordinance 2026-10, amending the zoning ordinance to allow use of these shipping containers with the appropriate changes that have been suggested. Do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. The next item on our agenda is the CDBG-NR housing application. Sean?

Thank you. Once again, Mayor and Council, Mr. Ben Jones from Faulkner Consulting truly apologized that he could not be here this evening. He had to be at another town hall meeting, and he kind of conceded with timing without me tonight because he had to drive up to Bethel, so he encouraged me to have this forum, which I told him we could. As you know, the town of Nashville did apply for a CDBG grant. We were awarded $950,000 from the Department of Commerce for this grant. Mr. Jones feels like the town is at a good place again to apply for another community development block grant, which will be separate from the one that's already approved for an additional $950,000. Would that be the maximum we could get from the state? Ben feels like we're at a good place with our first grant. The state has recommended that we try for another one. We don't know what the answer would be, but we have to get all these things done before October so Ben can make the submits. So this will be the first public hearing for this this evening. And town anticipates that we felt that the council would be okay with going for another submission application. So town planning staff has began doing some intake, which we have been having several citizens come by to do the intake application to be considered.

So, Sean, those that are here that they do not know what this grant does, can you just tell them briefly what it does?

The Community Development Block Grant Non-Residential is for homeowners that have a house that is in need of repair and need to be fixed. You can submit your information to the town staff if you own the house. We will submit that over to our consultant that's handling the grant, Mr. Ben Jones. He will set up an intake interview along with the one we've done, which then he will go out and assess the house. and then the town selection committee selects the four houses that we think are the most severe and then we select three alternates depending on how much funding we are if we get 950 000 you can do four houses because that can come from tearing the house down completely to rebuilding a brand new house back at the house or going into a major renovation repair to get the house back up to color

Thank you, Sean. And this is really beneficial to our community, to the people who are in need for the home repairs or even if it needs to be demolished and rebuilt. So at this time, do I hear a motion that we go into open public hearing concerning this?

I'll make a motion we go to public hearing for the CBGD.

Second. All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Is there anyone that would like to comment on this issue?

Yes, sir.

Yes. And E. T. J. D. T. J. Is included in the city limits. Yes.

But the county does have their own program that they apply for also.

Do I hear motion for us to come out of this public hearing?

WHO TO COME OUT. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. SO AT THIS TIME, DO I HEAR A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE WITH THE APPLICATIONS FOR THIS CDBG IN OUR HOUSING APPLICATION? ONE QUICK QUESTION. YES.

What's the timeline on the last one? Are we close to starting?

We are. Ben has submitted environmental reports today and he has not heard back from the state. He followed up with additional email today to see where we are at. But the state, when I had our kickoff meeting a week ago, the state said that Ben is doing a good job and has us at a good point. So we feel very confident that Ben will continue going on the path he's going on.

And how many houses do we have under the first program?

We have four that has been selected and three alternates. And of course, if something happens, one of the alternatives could get bumped up.

So did we make a motion? We did.

No, we didn't make a motion.

Who would like to make a motion that we do approve and proceed with the grant application to rehabilitate housing in Nashville owned and occupied by low income homeowners?

I make that motion.

Is there a second? I'll second. All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. Thank you, Sean.

Good stuff.

The next item on our agenda is a stormwater drainage request.

Mayor and Council, at the last meeting under speakers from the floor, Mr. Morris Gupton had addressed the council regarding some drainage concerns in his neighborhood. He's had a chance to get together with the town staff and we put together an agenda report on what his requests are. He's requesting that a pond on his property at 818 East Birchwood Drive be dredged, that a open concrete flume, partially in the right of way, partially on his property that conveys storm water from land upstream of his underneath of Birchwood Drive and ultimately into his pond be rebuilt as one side of it is caved in and that another storm sewer culvert in the neighborhood that's under a driveway be cleaned. And I don't know if Morris is here this evening.

He is, yeah.

Morris, if you wouldn't mind.

Any questions? I mean, I think I presented to y'all last meeting.

Did any of you have any questions for him since his presentation to us?

I have a question for the town, for Randy, but I don't know if it's now or later.

Well, thank you, Laura.

Okay, I was going to make one little comment about how bad this field is. The other day I let my dogs out and looked down there at the pond, and there was actually a blue heron standing in the middle of the pond, and his feet just were in the water. That's how severely it's in. Kate asked me a question when I called her about... Long-term, the only thing I thought about, and I thought about it as of today, where the culverts come from Colbert Myers' place, and the cement over there, the town's been over there and had to clean out some dirt since that. On my side, from what the town's told me, that their property is the culvert and a section of concrete in front of the culverts on my side. If they might want to put maybe brick across there to stop it, and then maybe the town could come on a regular maintenance and get that out prior to this filling the pond back in again. As far as my part on my side of the street, stuff that's coming down from up at the old L&L way, I told you all I purchased a property next to mine, and I'm clearing trees now. I will probably put a berm there to slow the water down and have it where I can actually clean that out and keep it nice. I'm planning on that whole area to be filled in. Hopefully, if you all agree and move on this and get this pond clean for me, the dirt that comes out of the pond will go on that property to fill it in and make it a nice slope so that I can grass it and maybe put some trees on it and all to stop the erosion.

Bill, what was your question? Thank you, Lawrence.

Thank you. So, you know, if we do this, but so in the future, so we wanted to take care of Power Drive. We had to take that over and now this one. So, you know, is there something in place on new subdivisions where HOA or somebody's taking care of this instead of on the town because I don't want to talk about this again in 20 years or 10 years or I mean so when you know.

Well hard drive was an HOA and went defunct and so we still ended up with that part. Right that's a problem too. I think we need to be doing curb and gutter or we need to be lining our drainage ditches with cement. And when I say we, I mean we put it in our ordinance so that developers, when they come to do it, that's what happens. Because it seems that, you know, 10, 15, 20 years later, it's on the town again for us to be cleaning.

Windy Oak, too. Windy Oak with the cul-de-sac.

Yes, that was a huge...

This is not the first time we've had to deal with something like this, and it's not our fault.

So I think curb and gutter or the cement lining is the only way to go.

Agreed.

So we need to reevaluate and make sure that we're looking good for the next development and not after they build something.

We are getting ready to start working on our subdivision order sub-dates now that we have got some other order dates put behind us.

We have time to do things now. Yes, sir. Thank you.

So is there anyone else? Did I bring this out of this public hearing? I can't even remember.

We're out of public hearing.

Oh, this is not a public hearing. Okay. We've had so many tonight. So do I hear a recommendation to receive Morris Gupton's stormwater damage request and determine the town's involvement in it, in them?

Yes, ma'am.

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

So we're just receiving it?

What?

We're receiving it?

To investigate. To investigate. Okay.

Yeah, sorry.

And press forward.

Make sure I'm still voting for it. Yeah, I agree, yes.

The next item on our agenda... Mayor, if I may just interject, I apologize. That's fine. Since you have this item, I'll just make two points. When stormwater drainage issues come up and you have... these scenarios where there is is flooding in that transition area between the public right of way and private property. Traditionally, cities have tried to avoid having responsibility for drainage problems that are primarily on private property and due to private causes. but it's not a bright line distinction, and there are some cases that relate to city's responsibility. Two questions are, if you're going to spend public money to correct a problem like this, is it for a public purpose? And there's a lot of law on that. Second issue is, is there legal responsibility that the city might have, which translates to liability? And it probably would be appropriate to have a conversation with your attorney about that because there are some legal issues that probably should be in the mix, I would think, of your conversation.

That should be part of our investigative process.

Okay.

Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the Body Street Storm Sewer Improvement Project. Randy?

Mayor and Council, as you know, the Council approved a contract with Stocks Engineering to design some storage sewer intakes, some new ones on Body Street, and to re-engineer an existing one that is not performing well. They've gone ahead and done that because the dollar amount is under half a million dollars. There was an informal bid. Stocks sent plans and specifications out to five area contractors to get prices on building these three storm sewer intakes. And those came back, the low bidder and the one the engineer is recommending is Reedy Contractors from Wilson. And to construct all three of those storm sewer intakes on Body Street, their bid was $105,374. Stocks Engineering is recommending award. a contract to redeem this amount plus a lot, 10%. In addition, because the storm sewer intake to be redesigned and reconstructed at Railroad and Body Street, we may find something unexpected there once we open it up. So that's what his recommendation was for. That contingency would put the total project at $115,911. This along with the $23,300 in engineering to do this project brings the total project cost to $139,211. And we have $170,000 in our fund 40 storm sewer for small storm sewer improvements.

Are there any questions for the council to Randy?

Yeah, I have one. So the vice of our legal council a minute ago, we're on private property on part of this. So are we okay?

Actually, Bill, I don't believe we are on private property. Everywhere one of these storm sewer intakes is going to be constructed is in the right of way of a body street or it's intersecting. The only one that gets a little, it's where the appliance store is on Church Street. There's an unofficial alley behind that whole row of Church Street businesses. And what this will do is in the curb line of Body Street itself, it will install a storm sewer intake so that water coming down Body Street doesn't jump the curb and go behind those buildings. It gets picked up and dropped into that big diameter storm sewer directly beneath Body Street and has no chance of going back behind those businesses. Is that kind of what you're alluding to as far as being a private property?

Well, I mean...

Looking at the pictures, the drawing on page 66.

We don't own the alley.

Right, correct. All that work is in the right-of-way of Body Street.

So it's a right-of-way already?

Yes. Okay.

And Randy, you mentioned that once we open this up, we may find something. What are you alluding to? What may we find?

Well, that storm sewer intake at Body and Railroad we know has a sewer line that goes through it already. We're thinking we can reconstruct that storm sewer intake so that the sewer line doesn't go through it anymore, but there's also other drainage lines in there that will have to be shifted and realigned and maybe reconstructed for that all to fit back in and not conflict with each other.

So we may get into it where we have to do some moving of the sewer line?

A change order of some type, yes, to accommodate something that's existing in the field that isn't totally null.

So I understand the body street at railroad, it's going to go under the railroad. Where is the water going to go on the lower end of body street behind the businesses? I don't see where it ends. Does it just end up there behind The old war drug?

I can probably show that better on area photo of that area. The engineering drawings don't necessarily show that in detail, but this is the intersection we're talking about here of church and body. And right here, is that unofficial alley that goes... I mean, you can drive through there behind all those buildings on an asphalt street surface. It's all private property. There is a large 48-inch diameter storm sewer that comes down Alston Street, begins at the school property, heads north along Alston Street. Once it gets to that... Well, actually, it goes under Alston Street behind... Glasgow's house in his rear yard. There's a large drainage way through here. And then that continues from there to this side of Body Street, goes back to Church Street, and then down Church Street to here. It goes diagonally underneath the storage units and discharges in this area here.

Okay.

And most of that storm sewer, a good share of it, is on private property. The town doesn't own it. We don't have any, any say on it really whatsoever. But where it is on, in the right of way, on Church Street and along Body Street here, you know, that portion of it that's on the rec center, obviously, we own and control and maintain, so. I don't know if that gives you a better idea of how the drainage flows through that neighborhood.

Right now it doesn't flow properly, right?

Well, it flows through there. What we're looking at is doing some enhancements.

Any other questions? If not, the recommendation is that we accept and to the Body Street Storm Sewer Improvement Project that we grant it to Ready Contractors, Wilson, North Carolina for $115,374. Do I hear a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

The next item on our agenda is the nuisance abatement.

Good evening, once again, Mayor and Council. Tonight, Mayor and Council, our code enforcement officer, Ms. Thomasine Jones, our ordinance enforcement officer, Ms. Brittany Richardson, both have been doing a diligent job out here keeping the town clean and free of nuisances. We do have a property that was cited, 922 East Washington Street. was cited back on July 8, 2026 by Ms. Thomasine Jones for the overgrowth of noxious weeds and grass, accumulation of junk and trash, and dismantling a RV camper at the property. It does violate Section 32, 62 of the Town of Nashville's code of ordinances. Thomasine did mail out a first class notice mail to the property owner, Town Creek Rentals, LLC, on July the 8th. She gave them a compliance deadline of July 20th, 2026, to remove all of the nuisance conditions from the property. She went out and did a re-inspection on July 21 and 22nd with Ms. Brittany Richardson, and both of them concluded that the property had not been cleaned up to town ordinance standards. We did send our town vendor Horn Landscape it out to give us a bid and conduct a site inspection on the property. He did tell us for the cleanup of the property, which consists of cutting the grass, removing all of the junk, trash accumulation of trash, would be $500. And if he had to tow the RV camper that has been dismantled, there will be an additional $200 for a total of $700. If you turn to page 72 in your packet, you will see the letter that will sit out by Tomasin on July 8th, giving the owner a compliance to July 20th. I myself went out there on July 23rd and got these photos to add to your packet. On page 73 you can see the high grass. 74 you can see the accumulation of junk and trash. You can see the dismantled RV on 74. 75 same thing, accumulation of junk and trash. on 76, high grass and other violations. I did send a letter out to the LLC and the property owner on July 23rd, inviting them to come to the town council meeting or submit something to the town by noon of yesterday. And we did find out today when we went by and did an inspection that the property had started working on it. Ms. Jones was able to talk with the property manager of the site. And they did call to let her know that they are working on the cleanup. They found out this was on the council agenda and began working on it today. And they are hoping to have this done by the end of the week, no later than next week, if we don't get rain. So my suggestion tonight, Mayor, versus us voting on the ordinance 2026-24. to continue just to our daytime meeting in August. If it has not been completed, then we'll move forward. Or the council can vote on the orders tonight and put a deadline on it to be done by this day. If not, the orders go to the feds to send our vendor out.

What is the wishes of the council?

Well, Mayor, the product manager is here if you want to. Oh, is the manager here?

Yes. Oh, okay. Would you like to speak, sir? Mm-hmm.

Good evening. This came to my attention last week, actually, on Thursday. The owner of the property did not see the letter. We've immediately reached out to the tenant, and he has agreed to vacate the property also with his belongings and junk that are in the yard. The RV, I believe, has already been removed, and he's already hauled a couple trailers of trash and junk away today, and he will be vacating by the end of the week.

Thank you for coming out tonight and sharing that with us. We appreciate it. So what are the wishes of the council? I think we just readdressed it in our next council meeting. Okay, do I hear that in the form of a motion? I make that motion.

Is there a second? I'll second.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay, the next item is the public comment policy amendment.

Okay. At the July 22nd town council meeting, council members expressed a desire to allow additional speaking time during the public comment portion of the meeting at the discretion of the mayor. I have drafted two revisions for the council's consideration, one that authorizes the mayor to extend speaking time at her discretion, and the second one allows the town council to extend the speaking time by majority vote. The current policy limits speakers to three minutes during the public comment period and five minutes during the public hearings. However, the policy does not specify who has the authority to grant additional speaking time when circumstances warrant it. If the council prefers the majority vote option, the proposed amendment would allow the town council to vote to extend the speaker's allotted time when it believes additional comments from the speaker would be helpful to the council. This approach has several advantages. It ensures the decision is made by the elected governing body rather than one single individual. It helps to avoid the appearance that one person is deciding who receives additional speaking time. It promotes fairness by requiring any extension to be approved in public by majority vote. And it creates a clear record of the council's decision in the meeting minutes. neither draft changes the standard three minute limit for public comments or five minute limit for public hearings instead each proposal simply establishes a clear process for extending the speaker's time when the council determines it's appropriate although two draft options have been prepared for the council's staff does not recommend changing the current policy. The three minute time limit for public comment is the standard used by most local governments and is considered the best practice. And having a time limit for every speaker helps ensure that everyone is treated fairly and consistently and leads to speakers concise and to the point with their topic. allowing additional time on a case-by-case basis, whether by the mayor or by vote of the council, may create the perception that some speakers are receiving preferential treatment. Their current policy provides all speakers with an equal opportunity to address the council while allowing meetings to be conducted on an orderly and efficient manner. For these reasons, staff recommends maintaining the existing policy without any amendments.

And I'd like to say I agree with that because we say we are here for every citizen. And if I decide I'm going to let James have five minutes and let Helen have only three, then what are they going to assume? We need for every citizen to feel like they're valued by each one of us and we do that when we stick with the three minutes. And you know if something comes up and there's an exception we can adjust to that we have before. But I don't want to do anything for the people of Nashville not to think we're treating them fairly.

But I think that's what's happening right now is that sometimes we do give additional time to wrap up or whatever it might be but we don't have that policy and so We had a situation in our most recent meeting where someone was giving us the facts of the pond and the drainage issues and things like that. And it might have been able to be done in three minutes, but it felt like it needed more time. And he ended up leaving without making any formal requests. And all we needed was that one extra minute wrap up, you know, say what the request was or give us more time to ask some questions or whatever it may be. So I don't want anyone to feel like they're being treated differently. I don't want to give preferential treatment and we don't have to adopt this at all. I just think to have a strict cut off when all you need is just a little time to wrap up has been...

Excuse me, but when you start giving that little time to somebody and not to somebody else, it's going to be taken the wrong way. And the perception, I'm afraid, will not be fair. And that's just my thoughts. You're the council. I don't have a vote. But that's just my thoughts.

Well, my opinion is the mayor runs the meeting, and I'm going to take your words.

I mean, I still love you, but I'm just telling you.

I SAW A COUPLE OF TIMES WHERE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIME, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WE DO HAVE TO ADDRESS ONE OTHER THING IN HERE, THOUGH, EVEN IF WE DON'T WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. WE, WITHOUT CHANGING OUR POLICY, HAVE SAID THAT People, when they come up, just state their name and the town. And here it says stating their name and address. So we need to fix that portion of the policy. And I would love for it to not just be the town, but if it is a Nashville address, to say whether or not they're within city limits. And that's my only recommendation there.

I agree.

And I think it's sometimes pertinent to know if it's the neighbor next door. So I don't know how we handle that. But it would be nice to know that Mr. Morris' neighbor came to complain, whether instead of just saying they were a non-resident or resident, it would be nice to know they were the neighbor. So I don't know how we do that.

So do I just make a motion that we keep it the way it is right now? Do we have to make a motion or just don't act on what you presented?

Put it to your fellow council members, Mayor, what do they want to do?

Do I hear a motion one way or the other?

We're changing something, right?

We can change. That will change. And I think I did take it off our thing.

Some people still put their address up there. It's out of habit. It's sort of like the street up there where the sign's been taken out. We all still stop because it's out of habit. So do I hear a motion that we... THAT WE KEEP THE THREE MINUTES SPEAKING TIME FOR OUR SPEAKERS AND THE FIVE MINUTES FOR THE OTHERS.

I MAKE A MOTION WE KEEP EVERYTHING AS IS OTHER THAN SECTION 6, WHICH SPEAKS TO NAME AND ADDRESS THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye.

Mayor, if I may, just a reminder, your time limits do not apply to any of the quasi-judicial matters that are before you. This applies only to the legislative actions that you might be discussing.

Thank you for bringing that up. At this time, do I hear a motion for us to go into closed session pursuant to NCGS 143-318-11A3 to consult with an attorney employed or retained by public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body which privileges hereby acknowledge and pursuant to NCGS 143-318-11 to establish or to instruct the public body staff or negotiation agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in negotiation, the price and other material, terms of a contract or proposal contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease.

That's a mouthful.

It is. Now, do I hear a motion?

You have a motion.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye.