Remarks by Billie Jo Underwood
212 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 9
I'd just like for you to explain why they're asking that and also explain that C&D is not hazardous and what it is, just for the record.
Yes. So, OK, let me go ahead and do it. Yeah, that was why I asked you to explain because when I asked you about the agenda item prior to the meeting, I think it's worth giving an explanation to the public. Yes.
It is a mound. That's the difference. It's not a pit anymore.
Well, I'm thankful that we're not taking our own C&D into a landfill right now because, you know, by the grace of God, we dodged the brunt of that storm. And so... I think with the purchase of the McBride area and when we opened up East Fork just in the time frame that we've been on the commission, I think that that gives us a lot of space. And you said there's a lot of airspace for that. And we're not taking anything hazardous or anything like that. And, I mean, they're going to pay us, pay y'all to do it.
I'll make that motion that we ratify what the waste siting board just discussed.
I would gladly make that motion to vacate that right-of-way. I'm so happy to have the new road.
Different owner from the very first application, I believe. Correct, yes.
And I can go and clarify that for you real quick. That is true. It's 80,000 square foot minimum on an RSFE.
I just want to clarify, one of the speakers that came up said that the scorecard did not, said somewhat, but it strongly supports. I just want to correct that statement. It strongly supports. That's correct.
Yes, sir. I do have a question. I did not realize that this was a conditional use that was approved in 19, but now it's coming back to me. Can you give us a little more information about exactly what that conditional use contained or tell me where I can look that up? I should have done that ahead of time. I'm usually very, very... Good at taking care of those eyes and crossing those t's but for all my years of being on I won't even say it planning commissions and over 30 years of my life has been involved in this and it never gets easy but I will say that conditional uses are very specific…
And that was approved prior to our updated RV. Regulation regulations is how it doesn't have the paved streets and things like that, as it was grandfathered in under the prior regulations. Is that correct? Cause RVs are considered like a subdivision.
And permanent manufactured homes are not even taxed and stuff the same way, like if it's short term rentals and different things like that. Is that correct?
I know you don't regulate that, but there is a specific difference as to why you would have to have a mobile home or a manufactured home designation rather than an RV because an RV is supposed to be six months or less. And if it transitions longer than that, then it's questionable as to whether it's actually
And also, just to piggyback on what I asked earlier, if this rezoning and PRD request were to be approved, then I think I heard you say that the existing portion of this RV park would have to come into complete compliance with the current conditions. Is that correct?
as is, but if it is denied, if it was denied, the only thing would have to be is that the non-compliant manufactured housings would have to be removed. Yes, ma'am. They could continue to exist with the gravel park, right? Yes. Okay, I'm clear now. Thank you.
It's not, and it's very, very complicated because of what was happening and how it's transitioned over the years, and it's not easy just to walk in and hear what's happening now with not really understanding how we got to where we are. And I'm gonna say it for the record. Zoning in Baldwin County is a citizen-driven process. This government did not put it on you. But we have to abide by what is law. Zoning is law. So that's all I gotta say.
I think what I was trying to process in my head was no matter what transpires today, an approval or a denial is going to create additional financial investment by the property owner. Either removal or which is a financial situation, or bringing the, because that's only a request that they can stay as they were grandfathered in, is that correct?
Okay, okay. It just adds to that heaping mound of complicated situation.
Okay, okay, okay. And correct me if I'm wrong, and if you want her to explain it, that's fine. But it was grandfathered in as an RV park because we changed our regulations on RV parks after 2019, okay? And what they're asking is not just to be approved for this zoning and this PRD, but contained within the PRD is to keep the grandfathered-in gravel. And what my point was is that I thought that I didn't realize that was part of the PRD So what the request is, is to continue the RV park under the old grandfathered in rules and add manufactured housing to it. And so there would be no…
Well, she can. If it's denied, she just can't keep the manufactured housing. That's the whole problem. That's the whole reason I think we're here. That's correct. Are we here for any other reason?
We're trying to fix something with a zoning situation. I just want to make sure I'm
I'll make a motion we deny this request.
Oh, they have to be voted on separate? I thought they were contingent on the other.
I think I'm not mistaken. Then that one was on the first item, which was ES2.
Okay, I make a motion that we deny case number PRD 26-02. Okay.