Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

seen before. So, if you'll please rise with your hands and take a step back.

Karen? May we bow our heads? Dear Heavenly Father, we come at this time thanking you for this day. We thank you for our community. We thank you for the people in our community. As we review the request this evening, we ask that you give us the wisdom and the knowledge to make the better decision for all involved. In your son Jesus' name I pray. Amen. Amen.

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.

Thank you.

We now have the reading and approval of the previous minutes.

We have no whole business tonight. We have three items on new business. So we'll open a hearing.

Excuse me. RZ191191. Curtis Rook.

Charles? Yes. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. Let me first state that I hereby incorporate the entirety of my office's file and the video recording of the Planning Commission hearing, including but not limited to all witnesses' testimony, in order that this information be made part of the record. Also, all future developments shall comply with all proposed to ensure that all building structures on the property meet safety regulations to protect the health and welfare of surrounding residents. First case we have for this evening is referenced as RZ-191190. We happen to be in Curtis Rover. The property is located at 580 Eagles, Curtis Road, Ball Brown. The requested zoning is for a change from AG, which is agricultural, to RR, rural residential. Total acreage is 13.55 acres. The parcel is identified as 069027009. The applicant's intent is to create fillable lots. Here's the location map of the subject property. also the aerial view. This property is within the Crossroads Community Marble Hill character area. And here's our staff's findings as follows. The purpose of the request is to allow low density residential use, including the potential destruction of two additional single family homes for family members while maintaining the rural is located along Eagle Perch Road in an area primarily characterized by agricultural uses with rural residential properties nearby and in the state residential tract to the east. Staff finds the proposed RR zoning compatible with surrounding uses because it supports low density single family residential development and does not introduce an intensity of use inconsistent with the existing rural development pattern. Key factors supporting the request include the property's elongated shape, the presence of a stream along the western border, sorry, western boundary, limited subdivision potential under the current aging zoning, minimal expected impact on public facilities, and consistency with the Crossroads community, Marble Hill character area of the area. because of the plan. Staff, our recommendation is for approval of the zoning from AG to RR. Staff concludes that the request provides a reasonable and compatible use of the property, supports family-oriented low-density residential development, preserves the area's rural character, and aligns with the long-term land use goals of King's County. Any questions?

All right. Thank you, Charles. Mr. Roper, come forward, please. You can state your name and address for the record.

Curtis Roper. Hi, lady. So you're going to build two homes? Actually, when this started, I was going to give my kids five acres back. I was going to buy that and give each one of them two and a half acres if they wanted to build on it and live there. But they couldn't sell it until something happened in my life. And then it would all be theirs. They could do what they wanted to. But they're not going to build there. So we decided we would just sell the whole place. And this gentleman, Mr. Jeff Sheen, and his family are going to buy it. But he needed it. His own daughter ought to do what they want to be able for their daughter. the son-in-law would put a house on it, and for their son-in-law's mother and father to put a house on it. So it needed to be zoned RR for it to work for them. And we done had it in the motion, so we just left it as is so it could work for them to have a family compound that needs to be RR.

So he's going to do the same thing you're going to do.

Exactly. Where are you going to go? We're buying over in Jordan County.

We're buying some property over there. Thank you, sir. Do I have a motion? I make a move. We approve the recommendation. We have a motion to approve the recommendation as stated. Is there a second? I'll second. Further discussion? All in favor? Raise your right hands. Motion carries. Thank you. Do you understand? All right, we'll close that hearing and open a hearing on RZ191195. Yes, as you mentioned,

The location of the property is 977 Mullinax Road and 0 Mullinax Road. The request is to resell the subject property from AG to RR, or agricultural to rural residential. The site is approximately 19.27 acres combined, and this represents two parcel numbers, 039-01201. 039-012, and parcel 039-011-001. This is a location map of the subject property, aerial view. The site is within the rural residential character area. The area surrounding the property predominantly has AG and RR zoning with adjacent RR properties making the proposed change compatible with the established land use patterns. District zoning is not expected to adversely affect neighboring properties, rather it supports the community's rural character. The request aims to combine a .23 acre parcel with 1.271 acres from the the agricultural integrity of the remaining land. The applicant intends to establish a home site for a family member reflecting a family-oriented approach to this particular land use. Rezoning will have a minimal impact on local infrastructure as one additional residential lot is unlikely to place significant demands on services like roads or utilities. Future development building and permitting requirements. This proposal aligns with the comprehensive plan which promotes the preservation of rural character and low density residential development. By allowing for one additional residential lot while maintaining the majority of the land for agriculture, the rezoning supports these objectives. Staff therefore recommends approval of the rezoning for parcel 039011001 and approximately 1.271 acres of parcel 039012001 from agricultural to rural residential. This recommendation is based on compatibility with surrounding zoning, minimal public impact, and support for family-oriented residential use while preserving agricultural land. Any questions or comments?

Ms. Stanfield. She can't hear very well. State your name and address for us, Ms. Stanfield.

Patricia Stanfield, 977 Mullamax Road.

We can hear you loud and clear. Thank you. So what would you add to what Charles has outlined in his presentation and his own request? Yes, if you have anything else to add.

No.

So you're going to move some of the family in? Is that what we're doing? He's asking if we're moving some of the family in. He's asking if we're moving some of the family in.

They already live with me.

Oh, so you're moving them out. Oh, God. Any questions for Ms. Tenfield? Thank you. All right. Do I have a motion?

I make a motion to put it through.

I do have a motion to accept the recommendation of the staff. Is there a second? Second. Further discussion? All in favor? All right, we'll close that hearing. And to the good folks that came that we've already addressed, if you'd like to excuse yourself, you can go. If you would like to stay for the last item, which is going to take a little time, you're welcome to do that. Whatever works for you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, we will now open a hearing on RZ191204. Nancy Maddox on behalf of TWC LLC.

Yes, the applicant is Nancy Maddox on behalf of TWC LLC. The location of the property is 3418 Refuge Road. The request is to rezone subject property from rural residential to neighborhood commercial. And the intent is just to rezone the 4.5 acres of the overall 16.63 acre tract. The parcel is identified as 0540 D as in dog, 043. And the intent of this application is for relocation of administrative offices. This is the location map that shows it along Refuge Road. Also an aerial view. and the subject site is within the suburban residential character area. The property is located along Refuge Road in an area that remains primarily residential. Although the broader corridor includes some limited commercial and service oriented neighborhood commercial zoning would be less intensive than a highway business zoning and could function as a transitional zoning category in appropriate locations. However, staff finds that introducing neighborhood commercial zoning at this site would be premature because the immediate surrounding area has not developed into a commercial or mixed-use corridor. and that the intent is to responsibly restore and preserve the existing buildings for a relatively low intensity office use. Staff acknowledges this restoration goal and the limited anticipated traffic impact, but notes that zoning decisions must consider all uses permitted under requested neighborhood commercial district, not only the applicant's proposed use. Staff identifies several concerns, including compatibility with nearby residential properties and subdivisions, lack of demonstrated need for additional neighborhood commercial zoning in this location, and the risk of encouraging future commercial encroachment into established residential areas. Staff also finds that the property retains reasonable economic use under its current rural residential zoning classification. Based on these findings, Staff recommends a denial of rezoning requests from RR to NC or rural residential to neighborhood commercial for the approximately 4.5-acre portion of the property.

Okay. Thank you, Charles. Ms. Maddox, it's good to see you again.

Good to see you, sir.

Thank you. He knows the drill.

Yes, I do. Okay. Good afternoon, board. Thank you so much for your service. I've been thinking about this case coming up, and I realize you guys have just a thankless job, but let me be the first one. Many people deep in thanking you for your service to the board.

Nancy, we do this for love. Somebody's got to do it.

And that is the truth. That is the truth. So as you recall, we were here last month. We were requesting to rezone the entire parcel. We heard the concerns of the community. We heard the concerns of the board in regard to the amount of land being requested to be rezoned. And so at this point, we are asking that approximately 4.5 acres be be rezoned that encompasses the buildings, the infrastructure, and as you can see in page one of the PowerPoint, we have built in a 60-foot strip on the north side, a 60-foot strip on the south side for buffers for any neighboring parcels. So overview of the request. The owner of the property is TWC LLC. The principal of that is Jeff Miller. He owns 1-800-PAC-OUTS Georgia LLC, and he's a franchisee of the 1-800-PAC-OUTS brand. He established his business here in Jasper in 2019. He was renting the space downtown, not really downtown, but north of town. The space was, it was too much. in the amount of space there, and it was too expensive. So he went to search for another place to have his office workers. That's when he identified this parcel and purchased it for the purpose of rehabilitating the 1950s home and creating some offices in there for six to eight employees. Right now he has six administrative workers. So what will be done on the property? He plans to, again, rehabilitate and restore the existing 1950s home. It's approximately just over 1,800 square feet. He's already kind of started that process, refinished floors, put in single heat and air. He's a very optimistic person, and he really wants to make this work. He does intend to rehab. a barn for a small conference room for administrative staff use, construct a small driveway and a parking area out of sight to accommodate approximately eight employee vehicles, and then some paths and sidewalks leading between the different parking lot and the home and the barn. He is proposing to maintain a buffer, essentially, That would be five times that required under the current zoning regulations. Right now, between a neighborhood commercial and a rural residential, it requires a 12-foot buffer. He is building in 60 feet. So no one will see. or be able to see through that buffer to what's going on on the property. And from the street, it will look like the woods live there again. Basically, that's the folks that owned it before and Joe and passed away. I'll point out that neighborhood commercial allows no more than 5,000 square feet for business establishments. He's only going to be using the home and a small barn for a conference room. What will not be done? There really won't be any significant alterations to the appearance of the property. There'll be no other uses other than those that were in the letter of intent, and those are going to be repeated throughout this presentation. There will be no cell storage, no mini warehouses or other warehouses. Neighborhood commercial limits the size of business establishments and does not allow warehouses. I may have misspoken at the last meeting. I missed the section where it said you could have self-storage in many warehouses in neighborhood commercial, but that's not his purpose. He's willing to self-condition to that. Of course, no subdivisions happen in neighborhood commercial. There will be no sale of items, food products, retail or wholesale, no manufacturing, no data centers or call centers, no cell towers whatsoever. No facilities really open to the public. No convenience stores. And that, again, if you look at the limitation on the size of a business establishment, has to be less than 5,000 square feet. I was kind of curious. I couldn't visualize what that was. I looked at dollar generals. They're almost twice that here, typical dollar general. So that's not going to be happening, I guess. Concerns. From the last meeting, there was a concern about rezoning the entire 16.62 acres. In response, we're proposing to rezone only the 4.5 acres, and that is to encompass all of the different buildings, the septic systems, and also provide enough room for replacement of that installation of the small parking area. There was concerns regarding increasing traffic. The rezoned area is going to serve as administrative offices for six to eight employees. That's a minuscule comparison to the amount of traffic on that road every day. And I understand that there's a lot of traffic, but this will not be adding to it, especially not to the extent that a rural residential use would lead to if there's subdivision in it now. there was some concerns about trees being removed. Again, neighborhood commercial requires level one buffers of 12 feet, minimum or maximum lot coverage of 35%. Applicant will place 60 feet buffers and the lot coverage is less than 3%. And basically the remaining property would remain status quo other than improvements. And of course the 12 acres in the back is just gonna stay the way that it is. There were concerns about neighboring residential property values. The neighborhood commercial use of the property is actually going to enhance the property values by rehabilitating the historic home and maintaining the land. Of course, after someone passes away, there's no mowing, there's no bush hogging of pastures, there's no maintenance happening. And of course, that's what happened here. But The intended use of this is going to be, again, for administrative offices, and there will be upkeep, obviously, of the grounds. The immediate surrounding properties, even though they are predominantly residential in character, that was a concern. We will point out that the use of this property will look like it's still residential. There will be a driveway going around back. That's all you'll see from the revenue. We also heard from the public at that meeting, and there were certain allegations that were made at that time regarding the possibility of tractor trailers running on the property. The fact is the LLC doesn't own or use tractor trailers. 24-7 operations was a concern. In administrative offices, they are open from Monday through Friday, 7.30 to 4.30. There were concerns expressed that the rezoning was for the purpose of having commercial warehouses built and mini-storage, self-storage. That is not what, one, is allowed in regard to warehouses, but that is not at all what my client's business is, what he would intend to do. In fact, he's actually acquired two other warehouse properties elsewhere within the state of Georgia to meet those operational needs. And then there was a mention that he had deep pockets and some nefarious plans going on. But in reality, he has had to terminate his current lease. so that he can pay for this property. And the good news about that is, is if we're able to get the rezoning and he can put his administrative offices there, the cost of this, buying this, is going to be about a third the cost of this lease that he had for administrative offices before. So just to review the Pittsburgh County Joint Comprehensive Plan, because I'm going to do a little bit of a deep dive for us all. When we talk about the Joint Comprehensive Plan, this is a suburban residential area, and it is because it is mixed uses. And the vision was that basically this would continue to be suburban residential, but with complementing uses of lands throughout that area. The suburban residential specifically contemplates neighborhood promotional uses, and it includes neighborhood promotional uses already. And we'll get into spot zoning in just a moment, but, well, I'll wait and get to that. So this is based on the last meeting. We, of course, didn't know what was going to be said exactly at this meeting regarding from the staff to the board, but we got a sneak peek at the last meeting. So I wanted to address and sort of give some rebuttal on some of the points that the staff intended to make. So the first thing, their little PowerPoint talks about compatibility. with adjacent uses and districts. So, first of all, staff admits that refugee-run corridor contains a mixture, and that includes repair shops, storage facilities, and other limited commercial activity. The staff admits that there is a small, or at the last meeting, they admitted that there was a small neighborhood commercial zone parcel existing in the general vicinity, but then they argued that it wasn't, I guess, close enough, so this would be considered spot zoning. So when we look at the surrounding properties, and people that drive down that road every day see the scene that I have here in the PowerPoint. This is, you can actually see bushes of our property in this photo. These businesses are so very close to the parcel that we were requesting to be resold. And with the neighborhood commercial, again, designation, that would allow for sort of an infill that would not be residential, rural residential, which would be a subdivision that's taxing on all the resources of the county. And it's not going to be an R&R or a Showtime car repair place or anything that's really noticeable from the street. So when we get into this spot zoning, at the last meeting, I touched on this regarding the Bobo case out of Cherokee County. It's a 1981 case. And in that case, spot zoning was defined as the process of singling out a small parcel of land for use classification that is one, totally different from the surrounding area. That is, two, for the benefit of the owner of that property, and three, that is a detriment to the other owners. And then there's even a fourth category that we have to address, which is whether the zoning is arbitrary or whether it's done in accordance with a comprehensive plan. So in all of the PowerPoints that the staff give to the board, rightfully so, they reference the comprehensive plan because that is one of the key elements of whether or not a rezoning can happen. We don't want to put something that's completely oddball in an area that doesn't look like that. But again, anyone driving down Red Beach Road, this area is suburban residential. There are neighborhood commercial businesses already. And the key thing here is this will not be a detriment to the other owners. So the next page, again, not spot zoning continued. We are arguing that this is compatible with the surrounding areas. It is consistent with a comprehensive plan, and this will not impact the neighbors. The infrastructure will not increase traffic, and it will preserve the natural landscape of the property. So another issue is property values. So in the prior presentation, the staff agreed that the resigning may increase the value of the site, but alleged that neighborhood commercial could create uncertainty regarding future land use patterns and potentially impact neighborhood residential property values. The position of the staff is speculative. And it's unsupported by evidence of any negative impact on residential property values. There's a case on this, and I've provided that case to the board. Bear it in handy. It's a 1975 case. A landowner appealed a resounding denial from a residential use to commercial use for a 26.5-acre tract in Cobb County. This is 1975. In the case, the court weighed the individual's right to the unfettered use of his property versus the police power under which zoning is done. In the next page, under the Barrett case, the court found that the balance of all strikes is that a zoning classification may only be justified if it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morality, or general welfare. Lacking such justification, the zoning may be set aside as arbitrary or unreasonable. And as these critical interests are balanced, if the zoning regulation results in relatively little gain or benefit to the public while inflicting serious injury or loss to the owner, such regulation is confiscatory and void. In the present case, without any evidence of negative effects on public health, safety, morality, or general welfare, refusing to rezone the two-neighborhood commercial would be a civil breach. The neighborhood commercial designation is the highest and best use of the property, particularly in light of challenges surrounding residential development in this community, such as lack of water, and then the impact on the community, impact on schools, policing, fire, emergency response, and increases in traffic that come along with subdivisions. Suitability. So in prior PowerPoint, the staff alleged that the property is suitable for continued rural residential use consistent. I'm sorry, I keep blowing into this microphone. Consistent with the existing development pattern of the surrounding area and expresses concern regarding long-term commercial zoning of this location. The applicant alleges that the property is not best suited for residential use due to unavailability of public water and sewer ducts, installation of subdivision infrastructure, individual wells, and septic systems are cost prohibitive. When applying the well-established law concerning the zoning of property, the balancing of the public's interest and that of the landowner is paramount. As these critical interests are balanced, If the zoning regulation results in relatively little gain or benefit to the public while inflicting serious injury or loss on the owner, again, such regulation is compensating his property and should be void. For such unlawful confiscation to occur, requiring that the zoning be voided, it is not necessary that the property be totally useless for the purposes of classified, it suffices to void it that the damage to the owner is significant and not justified by the benefit to the public. And that's our argument here. Any potential harm is speculative as to the public if this zoning goes through. It is not speculative as to my client. He would be harmed greatly if this is not approved. So continuing with the suitability discussion, there's a case, Gould versus Holcomb Ridge Road Corporation out of 1997. You can tell this is about the time that zoning came in in Georgia. The court established a six-part test concerning the validity of zoning ordinances. So the general lines of inquiry that are to be used You're to look at existing uses and zoning of nearby property. And I'll point out here, it doesn't say adjacent property. It says nearby property. And then to the extent to which property values will be diminished by the particular zoning restrictions, the extent to which the destruction of the applicant's property values promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of The relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner. The suitability. So these are sounding familiar. We're talking about all of these different things already. And then the length of time the property was vacant, as it is considered in the context of land development in the area and the vicinity. So that's, I take that to mean we have to look at, again, how suitable is it for a residential room?

The next page.

In analyzing each line of inquiry under the Gould case, the applicant has very strong arguments in favor of neighborhood commercial rezoning. First, existing uses of zoning nearby property. Maybe kind of hard to see, but other nearby properties are already zoning neighborhood commercial and highway business even. And then there are several non-conforming commercial uses also. But there are at least five different businesses that are within about 600 feet of this property. They're not right next door, but that's not what the law says. And then we have also one that's up about 1,300 feet away. Next slide. Continuing that thought. All of the property to the south is residential. We are building in a 60-foot buffer. The property to the north belongs to the applicant, but there will be a 60-foot buffer up there as well. And that minimizes any impact on the neighboring tracks. The next page. suitability continue to the extent that property values are diminished by the particular restrictions. Retaining rural residential. Again, we talked about how extremely expensive it would be to create a subdivision in this area. And I don't think the neighborhood would want a subdivision there, but I can't, I wouldn't, but homes on one and a half acre lots, that would be a lot of grading, tearing down trees, clearing and that was one of the specific things that a member of the public last time several members of the public last time expressed they did not want so this is kind of best of both worlds neighborhood commercial use of the property we believe wholeheartedly that it would increase the property values of the neighborhood properties this is going to look nice it's going to still look residential And it's not going to, again, contribute to the proliferation of subdivisions, which lead to the deforestation and excessive land disturbance and our taxing on the community resources. So the third criteria, the extent to which destruction of applicants' property values promotes the health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Again, for reasons noted above, the denial of the rezoning request will destroy the owner's property value for his purposes, rendering it unusable. for the purposes that he needs it for. And that actually there's no legitimate benefit to health safety morals or general welfare of the public that I can identify or that the staff has identified. Okay, the next page. Relative gain to the public is compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner. This property owner is all in. He purchased the property. He's committed to the proposed uses as administrative offices. And this rezoning, we don't have that many classifications in Pickens County. The Barrett case, he was trying to go from R-20 to commercial. Well, R-20 tells me that there were probably 19 other classifications in rural Umland. So we're trying to go with the most restrictive zoning classification that would allow him to do what he needs to do on that property. So, again, we've worked in the 60-foot buffers, and in the back 12 and a half acres or 12-plus acres is going to just remain like it is. And, again, the owner will suffer tremendous hardship.

Right.

And you can compare that to really no evidence of hardship or no benefit to the public by retaining it as R. Number five, suitability. Again, we've talked about it's really not that suitable for rural residential due to lack of sufficient water in our county. And it would just add to the traffic issues on that road. And then the length of time it was vacant, it was vacant since June of 25, and then my client purchased it in May of 2026. Right. So the next slide, vacancy and marketing. So staff in previous presentations alerted. that the property lacks reasonable use under its current RR classification and alleged that it appeared that this was based primarily on accommodating a desired business relocation rather than addressing a hardship. Again, the highest to best use of rural residential property is a subdivision. One and a half acre lots, lots of clearing, lots of installation of curbs, cutters, drainage what individual wells individual septic systems for each lot and other infrastructure creation of another subdivision is unreasonable at this time given the limitations on existing public resources and they resolve that cost of development the owner's use would require relatively inexpensive improvements to the existing structures with minimal impact on the public no impact on community resources, and would drastically reduce his operating costs associated with leasing or purchasing commercial office space. Evidence of need. Staff alleged in a previous report to the board that there is not sufficient evidence that the area currently necessitates additional number of commercial design meetings. Staff further stated that existing commercial opportunities remain available elsewhere along established commercial corridors. Applicant disagrees. When we look at the welfare of the community, the court in fair addressed the issues of allegations of there being enough commercial opportunities as a justification for not allowing resuming. So the commissioners in that case said that too. The court stated that As we consider its welfare, we find merely the board's policy determination that the county already has enough commercially zoned property as an attempt at justification. Though it's relevant, it cannot alone suffice. It completely fails to scrutinize the merits of the land in question and the impact of the decision upon the landowner's property rights. This alleged community welfare interest is too vague and thus weighs too lightly in the balance to offset the other substantial injury by the R-20 designation. So the court said, well, you know, you think about that, but it's not just positive. It doesn't outweigh the injury that you're going to do to this person. And then regarding evidence of need in the next slide, there are very few commercially zoned spaces in the community of like character, nothing like this actually, But even just office space release, I did a quick Google search on three or four different sites that came up with two buildings, both of which, well, one is the laundromat downtown. That used to be the homeless shelter, the unofficial homeless shelter. And the other is at Gateway Retail Center. But this would be leasing the retail center. And the price of that is commensurate with him buying and owning this piece of property. But that's two places. The place he left, again, the rent was three times what he's paying for this entire piece of property. The building on 35 West Church Street, the Eastview Post Office, they want $2.4 million for that. It's not anywhere economically feasible in this situation for my clients.

Public facilities impact.

In the previous report, Planning and Zoning admitted the applicant's use of the property as a commercial would have minimal impact. That's on the whole almost 17 acres. They cited that there would be limited traffic and limited public facilities impact. So we state that that would be the case as well if this 4.5 acres is rezoned. So in summary, the rezoning request and proposed use is compatible with surrounding areas. The zoning request is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan. The plan of use will not negatively impact any surrounding properties. In fact, the intended use will result in drastic improvements to the property with no impact on neighbors. Infrastructure, which is police, fire, schools, hospitals, roads, will not increase traffic and will preserve the natural landscape of the property. So, again, the comprehensive plan contemplates, provides for neighborhood commercial. And interesting, I was looking at the buffers. Here's a buffer requirement between neighborhood commercial and rural residential, meaning that those two things can be side-by-side. In response to the comments at the last hearing, the amount of property requested through D-Zone was reduced to road frontage and includes the 60-foot wine buffers. Local business. This is a local business of eight years, relocating just administrative offices from previously rented space in the city of Jasper to rehabilitated existing historic home and barn with private employee-only parking. It's a great fit. Applicant's intended use under neighborhood commercial is compatible with adjacent uses and includes buffers five times larger than those required. It is not spot zoning. Neighborhood commercial is not totally different from the surrounding areas. It is specifically contemplated in the comprehensive plan. Again, it is not detrimental to surrounding property ownership. Georgia law establishes that rezoning decisions must balance the property owner's right to unfittered use of this property versus police power under which zoning is done. The validity of zoning designations must be determined on facts applicable to each case, considering the existing uses of zoning, property values, promotion of health, safety, morals, origin and welfare of the public, gain to the public versus hardship imposed on the individual property owner, suitability, and context of development in the area. This request checks all those boxes. There's no evidence presented that the subject property is unsuitable for neighborhood commercial, but there is evidence that rural residential is not a practical use of the property. and there's no evidence presented that the values of adjacent owners' property values would decline. And I feel like I got redundant here, but we would just ask the board to take into consideration all that we've presented, and we are certainly open to any questions. And I'm sure any comments.

Thank you. Ms. Maddox, what about signage? What was the applicant's plans for signage on that piece of property? I don't believe he was planning on putting any signage. So it would be no signage?

No signage.

And for the balance of the property, what are the plans?

It will just stay like it is.

So it could be developed into a residential area? It could be. There's really, that's not what he does. Albeit there's no water for it.

Exactly. And you'll note, I put back up the slide of the survey, there's several creeks and wet areas and things throughout that property. I just don't know how feasible it would be.

Other questions for schismatics before we bring on, we have some folks that want to speak on the other side of this. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We have, I have four requests to speak. Let me make sure I've got everybody here. I've got Lamar Long, Carol Wilson, James Fleming, and Andy Holt. Is that, those are the speakers? Yes, sir. Are you Andy? All right. Well, I'll just take these in the order in which I've done. So we've got four speakers. We try to hold the line in terms of 10 minutes total. In mathematics, the applicant always gets a longer piece, but pros and cons against it. We try to hold that to 10 minutes. So I'd like to ask that You try to keep your comments to two and a half minutes. That'll give us 10 minutes total for those. And if we need a little more time, then I'll consider that. Okay? So, Lamar Long. We won't count the time, Lamar. It'll take you a while. I'm tired as I am.

It'll take longer than 10 minutes. Well, that was painful. There's nothing like a lawyer lecture. I've got a lawyer in my family. But I've got about six things here. First of all, we're the same parcel, different wrapping. That's all this is. It just doesn't make business sense to me buy 17 acres only to use four of it. I mean, it just doesn't make that much sense. It's hard for me to believe that. And as far as his financial strife, does that mean the neighborhood has to take up the financial strife? Because that's what it's going to be. Everything we heard talking about speculation, speculation, speculative and all of that. What they're saying is speculative also because we just have to go on his word that this is all he's going to do. If we let him do this four acres, at the end of the day, there's nothing really that's going to stop him from using the remainder of And I appreciate someone who thinks he's better. But at the end of the day, if we give him this, then he can go on further and say, well, this was given to me. And traffic, let's get with traffic. First of all, I have about five grandkids right there in that area. We have a hard enough time with the traffic as it is. The dumpster trucks, somebody's got to address that mess. But anyway, I blow my grass out in the road now. I will not turn my back on those trucks and the speedsters running up through there. If he gets this and he does continue to develop that property, there will be more traffic. there will be those six-wheel trucks. I've already seen him moving in, and those six-wheel trucks are there already. And so my concern is on this traffic, it's my grandchildren getting on and off the bus. They get off the bus at my house many times. And so that's a concern. We already have to step out into the road to make traffic stop so that we can cross our children. And that's not hyperbole. That is truth right there. My other grandchildren live below the backside of his property. So that if he develops this, that's what they're going to see every day that they come out on their front porch is they will look up there and see the development that shouldn't be there. This property cuts right through all of us as a residence, as a residential neighborhood. I mean, it cuts right in the middle of us. And whereas the former commercial properties, they were, am I out of time? You're okay.

He said three minutes and 48 seconds. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

You're the president of the chairmen. All right. They tried this sometime back, and you all turned them down. Everybody turned them down. Frank Martin, all of that. They tried that. The fact is they wouldn't want this in their neighborhood. And to say that they all live in Cherokee County, they wouldn't allow this down there. They wouldn't let them put this in neighborhoods down there So somewhere this has to stop. And I know the other commercial properties over there, but somewhere this has to stop. So I would say this is the place to stop. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

All right. Carol Wilson.

Yes, sir.

Welcome back, Carol.

Thank you for having me.

I was here several years ago. Yeah, Danny, come here. I'm sorry.

Carol Wilson, 81 Bolling Fountain Road, Jasper. Our property is not adjacent to this, but in the general neighborhood. I was here several years ago when there was a smaller property just south on Refuge Road that wanted to convert the space into a real estate office. And thankfully, because of our objections I've seen, the board... denied that request. The basis for my request then, and it remains today, is the history of the refuge community. It is a residential neighborhood, and all around us, all around us, those things are changing. I've been there for 40 years, all along Harmony School Road, all along 515, all along Refuge Road. And as Mr. Long stated, I'm basically here to say, well, it's just time to stop. It's time to leave us alone and let us live in our little neighborhood community. Neighborhood commercial, I know I looked it up to see what kinds of things are allowed there. Mr., the owner, I'm sorry, I forgot your name, but I apologize for that. The list is a long list of no's that he had promised that he would not do there. What guarantee do we have for those no's? Is there a guarantee that we have for all those no's? I'm sure you're a good person, and I'm not questioning your personhood at all in that regard. It's just there's no guarantee for that. And those additional 12 or 14 or whatever acres, I don't know what could happen with that. I still feel like four and a half acres for an administrative office with only six to eight employees seems like a lot of property to want to rezone for that purpose. I also looked at comprehensive planning. And there are a few things in the land use and future development map and narrative that jumped out at me that I wanted to kind of bring up here just because I felt like they were relevant to what's taking place here. I'm sorry, I don't remember your name either, but my apologies for that. You mentioned earlier, and the council did as well, that all along Refuge Road, that is currently identified as suburban residential property. And somehow the comprehensive plan mentions that They want to encourage neighborhood commercial uses at strategic locations along collector roads. And I would assume that means, I'm assuming that means then, well, it states it, South Main Street, Camp Road, State Roads 53 and 108, and then of course sits then, probably this was written, Highway 515. Also, in economic development, it said we will encourage reinvestment in older, declining commercial corridors. This is not an investment in an older, declining commercial corridor. I'm afraid it's going to turn into a commercial corridor, but currently it is not an older commercial corridor, and I still believe wholeheartedly that there are spaces available that would meet his needs. Under natural and cultural resources, under that comprehensive plan, it also states that one of the objectives is to embrace our history by supporting the preservation of historic resources and neighborhoods for the coming generations to enjoy. I missed the boat. I didn't get here soon enough. I should have been here a fall back before some of the other rezoning took place along Refuge Road and along Harmony School Road. I would have had an opinion about that. I have an opinion about that now. I would have been against it. But the more I see the changes taking place, the more I become concerned about the livability of our neighborhood. I'm sorry that you didn't make this purchase and have had the rezoning needed that you needed beforehand. I appreciate the monetary difficulties this might be causing for you. I appreciate that. But I just feel like we got to change our ways. This comprehensive plan, as I understand it, is through 2027. And if I say nothing else more here today, It is that in developing our next comprehensive plan, I feel that we need to give a lot more consideration to the rezoning and definitions of our rezoning areas. It can become a lot more complicated than it is now. I understand that. And I appreciate what you people do. I really do. And I appreciate the opportunity that I'm given to come here and speak to you. History is a neighborhood. Let's keep it a neighborhood. Let's not let it turn into a commercial quarter. Thank you. Thank you.

James Fleming.

James Fleming, 27, . You know, this 4 1⁄2 acres, when I'm here, I'll touch on this a little bit. What's going to stop you from doing something else? I mean, are we just taking his word on it, or remind us now of something? I don't really get it.

I'm afraid he's going to... ...commercials and define a box that he's going to be in.

Well, I understand that, but the 4 1⁄2 acres, he's saying, well, I'm not going to have any big trucks, and I have two acres, and I can guarantee you I can get a lot of trucks on two acres. I can't imagine how many you can get on four and a half. So what's to stop that? Did I miss out on something? I don't know. He's just saying that I'm not saying you're a dishonest person or you're lying about it or anything like that, but we don't know. It's just what you're saying. So that concerns me big time. And bottom line, and I said this the last time we were up here, if you approve this, ladies and gentlemen, where is it going to stop? It's just going to spiral out of control. Carol already said about the house that they tried to do, which is on one side of me, and that was before we moved in on our property. But we also had another incident. What? three, four years ago, maybe, on the other side of me, and some people came in and bought the house out. This is down in the neighborhood, and they tried to turn it into a business, and thank goodness the board shot it down. So this isn't a new thing around here. You have people that just try to take advantage of a good thing that we have. It's the only thing we have. I mean, you know, and people are opportunists, and I'm sorry, sir, I don't know either of them, but you're an opportunist. I mean, you're looking for an opportunity. And apparently, you don't have a whole lot of feelings towards sticking around there. I just, I think with the turnout that we had in the last term, with all the people and all the comments that were made, and he's still continuing this. I just don't understand it. It shows me that he just doesn't care about the people in the area, in his community, like he claims. And I just don't want to spiral out of control. That's it. I'm sure other people will speak, but I appreciate y'all's time. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Andy Holdens.

Andy, you've got the last word on this assignment.

Well, if that's good enough, I'm going to get somebody up. My name is Andy Holder, and I live in 150 D.C. And my property does more than 16 acres. And I just cannot imagine, I mean, you're kind of naive, but you purchase 16 acres here. First, you know, the whole 16. Then it's four and a half. And then you go out and be too smart and then four and a half will turn into 16 in about six. But it is a neighborhood. That's the bottom line. Where kids play. And traffic is already terrible. And you know there's gonna be more traffic. I mean, it's his business. He's got the truck. you're going to buy what he gave for that property and not use that to put trucks on or then pods i mean i just don't believe it and i respect everybody here but i really do appreciate y'all listening and i really wish to follow the recommendation of the staff and disregard this because it will happen again Like you said, or he said, what's in writing to say after the four and a half acres in six months or a year, you can do the rest. And talk about a 60-foot buffer, I've got a 100% buffer right now. So that's all I've got to say.

Thank you, sir. All right. Is Maddox going to let you address?

Yes. Thank you. I hadn't heard it put that way before. 100% buffer. And that's what the neighborhood wants. They want to stay exactly like it is. I understand that. But my client has property rights. And we heard the concerns. We've tried to address those by providing A 60-foot buffer, that's huge. That's huge. Mr. Holden, I don't know where he bounds on that property, but if he's back near the 12.2 acres, nothing's going to happen. He'll still have his 100% buffer, or his 100-foot or 100% buffer. Trucks, if there were any trucks on that property, it was because there were workers out there. That was not my client's... Trucks. I don't know what six-wheel trucks were being discussed. There was a mention of the comprehensive plan and the collector roads, and there was a mention of Camp Room 53, 108, Highway 15. Refuge Road is in that list as a collector road, as where neighborhood commercial is contemplated. Traffic, a subdivision there, which is what rural residential, the current zoning is, would cause exponentially more traffic than what my client's i think the board can remove itself from considering personal attacks but my client's been in the community for eight years employing people here eight years um the place where he was before he no longer is there he needs this area for his offices only he's not going to be having commercial vehicles in there no tractor trailers nothing of that nature and we have to remember that this is a neighborhood commercial area and it's in the comprehensive plan that way this property checks all the boxes in regard to use as administrative offices. Talking about the historical character of that area, my client is going to preserve that. And any supposition or what's to prevent XYZ, well, the board, the rules. Neighborhood commercial is a box, a very stringent box. Rural residential, if he someone else decided to rezone their property from rural residential to something else, they have to come here first. So I really don't get that argument. But we would just ask the board to please consider that we are trying to address everyone's concerns here. My client has made a good faith investment in this community to try to better the area, maintain just workers here. We really appreciate your time.

Any questions for Ms. Maddox and the board? So you've made interesting arguments. And so have the community. So how should we balance, then, their interests? We've been there for a long time. Your client's interest, we've just been there for a very short time.

That's a great question. We have to work within, as a property owner, we have to work within the bounds of our zoning laws here. And if there were... Another category that would maybe satisfy people more, we would be happy to do that as long as he can do what we've explained. It just so happens neighborhood commercial is all that's available to us. There's a home business-based. My client's not going to tell people he's going to live there just so he can do a home business-based. I mean, he's not going to live there. It is going to be an office for his employees to work at it. He has facilities for all of his operational needs, as he calls it, which are storage needs, as he does restoration services. But that is not on the table for here. To balance that with what the public's concerns are, I get it. I get it. But I don't know how we can better serve the community and than what we're proposing. If it's lived or residential, I don't have a crystal ball, but someone's going to develop it potentially in the future. It may not be my client. He may have to sell it. And in so doing, it's going to lead to a lot of the problems that the community is complaining about that we have nothing to do with. So building in the buffers, we are willing to self-condition in regard to no any storage. That is something that's allowed in neighborhood commercial. It's not anything that we have any interest in doing or want to see there. No many warehouses. Warehouses already are not allowed. Neighborhood commercial limits to 5,000 square foot of business space. That's not conducive. to convenience stores or any of the other things that we said. So I really don't know. We're trying to make this work because we really want to make and have made an investment in this community. And we don't want to see another subdivision full of track houses, all the trees that have to be cut. I mean, it's a beautiful piece of property and If the neighborhood doesn't believe that that's what's going to happen, we really can't help that. But my client, again, is all in with this. He's made a huge investment. He's already trying to fix up the property. And his people are waiting eagerly to be able to get into their new space.

So what I've heard from the folks, our neighbors, one of their big concerns is This is a slippery slope. You do this one, then you gotta do this one, then you gotta do this one, then you gotta do this one. That I think summarizes their real concerns about this and what it means for them for

raised children so I think we can all understand absolutely absolutely but this board has has seen and this staff has seen and noted other instances where it isn't going to be detrimental to rezone in a particular area this board has done what if you use the definition of two pieces next to each other not being the same or like around an isolated spot, if you use that definition, this board has done that. And it's fine. We didn't put that in our actual presentation because we recognize that this board has the ability to look case by case, property by property, and this is a unique area. And I don't blame anyone for having concerns whatsoever, but In this regard, my client is showing good faith in purchasing, going ahead with improvements, making changes that were mentioned by the board, making self-conditioning in regard to warehouses, the 60-foot buffers, all of those things to try to make this palatable for the neighborhood. In our presentation, I think we were pretty clear that we think that this is going to be what's in the best interest. My client's here for the long haul. He's a fairly young person. He has a good business, and he's going to be here. But it's the board that has to balance those things, and it's private property rights versus the police powers of the state.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Well, that concludes that. Do I have a motion?

Make a motion for the staff recommendation to now be approved.

All right. We have a recommendation. We have a motion to accept the recommendation of staff, which was to disapprove the request of the applicant. Correct?

Correct.

Is there a second? I'll second.

We got two.

Double second. Is there further discussion about this?

I'll call for a vote. Hang on a second. I'm going to make a comment. Okay. There's, and back to Ms. Maddox's presentation, Personal property rights are a key and critical thing, and we have to weigh what the way the property is versus what other means. If Refuge Road is a commercial corridor, whether you like it or not, there are a lot of businesses down there already. I hear everything everybody is saying. I wouldn't want something in my backyard that I couldn't control. However, I've got stuff in my backyard that I can't control. I can go along with having been a small business person and having to deal with some of the challenges of small business. And another point I'll make is that, particularly with small business, the time it takes to get something like this done really weighs on the cost for the small business person. There's more and more government involvement that slows the process down and costs more money. I'm not really happy about when I see that happy. I hear what everybody's saying, but this is on a theater road, a commercial corridor that's been there for a long time. And if you don't have businesses in this county, then as homeowners, It's going to cost us a lot more in property taxes. She's going to pay more in taxes than I am. And that's something we have to take into consideration. So I just want to throw that down.

Okay. All right. So we have a motion and we have two seconds. So I'll call for all those in favor of the motion. Raise your right hand, please. Those against. I want to thank everybody. I want to thank you, Ms. Maddox. I want to thank you, Mr. Beller. I want to thank the participants here who came forward with their ideas. And everybody displayed good manners, I'll call it, in terms of addressing this. And so we're done. Public comments? Any public comments yet to be heard? Board of Commons, next month, Charles, what's on the agenda? We have four cases on the agenda. And the scope of those? We're in process of reviewing the cases. You write your comments. No comments. Okay, you have a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second? All in favor? Right hand. Thank you.