Land Use & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Make me nervous when I handle a woman with a weapon. Hey, that front of yours is good.

It looks real nice. I like how y'all do that. It's Saturday morning, the first time I pass in front of them.

I like that. I like that. I like that. Did you get my email about me chairing? Yes.

I didn't want you to be surprised.

I now call this meeting to order. We're going to do it this way. I'll be chairman for the first item since this is a holding commission except Jonathan. We don't have a chairman and vice chairman right now. So I'm going to call roll. Mr. LeBlanc? Here. Mr. DeSalle? Here. Mr. Thomas? Here. Mr. Farr? Here. Mr. Brazil?

Here.

Okay. I'm going to offer up a nomination for chairman. We're going to do chairman now. Do I have a nomination?

I'm moved with Jonathan. Second.

Okay. I'm going to do roll call. Do I have any more nominations? None? Okay. Okay. Mr. LeBlanc? Yes. Mr. DeSalle? Yes. Mr. Thomas? Yes. Mr. Farr? Yes. Mr. Brazil?

Yes.

Okay. Okay, motion carries. So now we're going to do vice chairman. Do I have a nomination?

Does that matter? Say that again. In other words, there's three come to my seat and I go to theirs.

No, because he's four, so he'll stay there until vice chairman.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

So he should be here.

Randy Farr.

Randy Farr. I second. Any other nominations?

Okay, so repeat that.

Randy Farr.

Okay, for Vice Chairman.

Vice Chairman.

Johnny seconded it.

Okay, roll call. Mr. Lamont? Yes. Mr. DeSalle? Yes. Mr. Thomas? Yes. Mr. Farr? Yes. Mr. Rizzo?

Yes.

Now we swap back.

I don't know what it is with us. That's why I did that.

All right, now we need, please stand for the invocation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Heavenly Father, we ask for your wisdom as we begin this meeting. We acknowledge that we need your wisdom and insights, and we welcome your presence among us, guide us in our discussions and decisions, helping us to seek what is best for all involved. We trust in your protection and wisdom and ask that you direct our meeting according to your will. In Jesus' name, amen. Amen.

United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, and indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Let's see. Motion for approval of the minutes of previous meeting.

Can I hit that button? Hold on just a second. We have to change this to where everybody's at.

All right, second? Second. All right, got a motion and a second. All right, please vote.

All right.

If you could announce that motion carries.

Motion carried. All right, I need a motion for the approval of the agenda. so somebody else hit the button all right please vote not much occurred all right we did that all right all right the first item up is resolution granting appearance to 797 North Claiborne Street to allow for two mobile homes to sit on 68 foot of road furniture rather than the required 100 feet.

The applicant is on vacation, so he's not here. Yeah. We had told them if y'all have any other questions that we could call on. I spoke to him.

You did? Yes. He wants to put the trailer side by side, well, back to back, end to end, just like I saw in the picture. And that'll give him 68 foot of frontage. And the driveway's already on that north side.

And what is, do we know what the reason that for two is? Is this private?

I didn't ask him that, Jonathan, but the thing about it is I think that we need to do something about making some type of stipulation in there that those two should be the only two. Isn't that right, Austin? You can't load it up. I know one of them is for him.

There's room for four. They would have to come back and get another variance. Right.

Okay.

One of them is personally for him. He said they were here for about five years working. Yep. And it's for his family.

So the other one's for Rennie. Do we know that for a fact? No, we don't know that for a fact. He never mentioned that. It may be for some of his people.

Yeah, his four family members are on leave right now.

It's probably going to look a lot better than north of there.

Yeah. All right. We need a motion to keep going. I'll move. All right. So motion second. Is anybody else here to speak on this item from the audience? Any other questions from the board? I wish I knew. I wish I had known about the rental there. But we're not sure of that, John.

I know.

Mr. Chairman, can I speak? Yes, sir. Do I need a valid card?

Please.

Troy Darby, 1107 West Crocker, Sulphur. Jonathan, you're probably struggling with this a little bit. I see you up there thinking about it. I looked at it, Miles looked at it, and what I look at is in that neighborhood, there's several other ones with two deep like that. And Bill, I know you probably looked at that as well. Now, I agree with what Bill said, definitely stipulate that no more than two can go on that property. But when you look at those two square footage of trailers, there's plenty of square footage on that lot to accommodate that, okay? And normally, Miles and I were talking about this because he's new, we wouldn't do that. But in this exception, because of the part of town we're looking at, and they are similar properties in that area that are the same thing. So I just wanted to bring that to y'all's attention in case you didn't look at it good, but everybody knows that area. This isn't a normal exception normally in other locations. But in this one, I think it fits. So just think about it, and y'all vote the way you want to vote. But as a council person, I would be in favor of it. So just to let y'all know. Thank you.

Mr. Chair uh to add on to Mr. Darby's point um this this uh property is sitting on about a half acre uh so from density standpoint it does have plenty of uh space um and again it's not changing the character of the neighborhood here so it's just when you do a zoning adjustment you got to be very careful and you know income is one of those criteria

All right.

So I have a question for Arlene. Arlene, is that does, is there just one address for that location?

There's not actually, um, I mean, I see it there.

I just didn't know if that was yes. Okay.

I'll fill that out in a minute. James LeDoux, 812 North Cleveland. This house, this lot is kind of corner from where I live at. This is my great uncle's old lot and they sold it and then that guy sold it again and so forth that way. But yeah, it's just got one 911 address. So what they would have to do is maybe go to the post office and get two separate addresses. you know 797 797 and a half or something like that but they would have to definitely get two different addresses because you're going to have to have two different mailboxes for two different residents i i would say that would probably need to be a stipulation or something it needs to have two addresses there So if you have a problem, you know you're having a problem with the front one. You know you're having a problem with the back one. But yeah, that lot is a real deep lot, and I don't have any opposition of putting one in front of the other like that on one side.

I agree. I echo what Mr. Darby said. It's conducive to the neighborhood. You know, if you can, I know where Jonathan's coming from as well, but if you can have two, you know, income generating locations for the city for taxes and, you know, people to live, you know, you got, you know, water tap, sewer tap, trash. I mean, we're not, it's not like they're dropping it into Carla somewhere. So, go ahead.

all right i got all this yeah um and also i will say uh you know having the two different addresses it's going to require a separate water tax that's right he just answered it yeah

The only thing that I think I think public works and my public works could verify this, but I think it would definitely have to have two water taps. But I think the sewer line, they can run a trunk line if it's large enough, you know, just like you do any other. That's correct.

So, Mr. Chair, if I may. Everybody had good comments. The one thing I didn't say a while ago is we need to make sure the setbacks between the two are correct, that they're not too close. That would be my only other concern. So if there is a 30 foot, well, not 30, it's 10. correct yeah so as long as we stick with those i think we're okay and as long as we don't let any other ones pile in there but as long as we keep our setbacks we should be good all right so out of all this discussion i heard some members want to entertain a motion for a amendment i'll move well what was the amendment

We need to make sure that there's no additional trailers added, you know, other than the two. And he has to meet all setbacks and all the, you know, he'll have to deal with the water department on two taps. There are three-quarter-inch taps in that area. Sewer line, if it's four-inch, it'll do. All right, sir.

Do we have to make amendments to the addition?

Because all these are required. No, I don't think we do. They're all required. You'd have to come back with an additional variance. So even just to allow them to, right? Correct.

Yeah, you'd have to come back to the third one.

The one thing I will say, I've got several of them over there like that, and usually they use an A and B. I don't know what the requirement is as far as having a separate water and sewer tap.

I know water tap is absolutely required. sewer tap separate is supposed to be required as well from from what i understand even though it's a four inch if he decides to ever rent this out it's completely separate it's a money-making property so it needs to be separated and so if you're getting into an issue of that nature i think we need to cover our grounds to try to prevent that it's not going to be that much harder uh If we're looking at, if they come up with a six inch tap right there, and it's to take and put a split in the wall, because it goes in six and put two separate four inch stands to run from, because if you got one that's stopped up and one that's not, you're fixing to cause a problem with both of them backing up at the same time. So.

All right, any other comments for Bowdoin?

So would we have to stipulate that it would be two separate sewer lines?

That's all covered? Yes. Okay.

All right, anything else before we vote? All right, we vote. Motion passed. All right, next item up is resolution granting adherence to Edwin Holmes. 1152 Cyber Street to allow for expansion and non-performing use. Currently mobile home is 12 by 60. New mobile home is 16 by 70. Is there anybody here from that to speak? Please, would you like to come to the podium to talk about that?

I'm too wild.

Yeah. We'll let you sit there. OK. So what do you plan on doing?

Bring in the ground and put another mobile home in there. There's one there and another one. I knew we were going to put that one out of the way and put it in the place where that was at.

Same location. Take the old one out and put a new one in. Same location. Well, what you told me is you're going to put it across. That would have been a good thing to do, I think. It's going to be squared up with the property line and everything. It's sitting crooked now. The new one's going to be squared up. It's not straight now. Yeah, but it's kind of crooked. It needs to be squared up with the property line. It's not that far. It's just a little bit to turn it.

All right. Can I get a motion to proceed?

Make a motion.

Motion. We have a second.

We have a motion and a second. Do we still have discussion? Yeah. OK, well, I got something to say about that. Yeah, that's where we'll go first.

You know, well, hang on. Let's vote on this first. OK. Well, no.

Yeah, so now it's discussion time.

Okay. Thank you. You know, when Johnny started and fixed to find out how old I am, you know, we had a grandfather clause. Somebody brought the thing to a halt. It was a lawyer, I'm sure. Excuse me, sir. In the event that we were still in the thing that was sold to the public years ago when I was on this thing, I was on the regional committee when we were writing the thing, then this man would not have to be here. He could put a trailer back, I forget whether it was a year or two years. Right, Austin?

That's right. And to add on to your point, we wouldn't have to be here if they were replacing it with the same size trailer.

Okay. Same size trailer.

Same size.

I didn't know the size restriction had anything to do with it. But you can't hardly buy a trailer the size he's got right now. Right. My concern with this, in the event that we decide to turn this down, in the place I live, there are a lot of 45- and 48-foot lots, a lot of nonconforming lots, more than you want to count. If we get a storm through here and those people's house gets torn down by over 50%, what we're telling them right here, you got to pay the taxes on it, but you can't build back. Now, you told me in the past, well, they can come up here for an exception and all that stuff, but I mean, when your house is in shambles, you wanna come up here and fork out 75 bucks, but I mean, I can show you houses that if this little storm comes in and tears the roof off of them and it costs, and it takes 50% of the original value of that house off, which a roof would cost, would take that, and those people, by this ordinance that we have right here, can't build back, which I think is ridiculous. We're supposed to be here to help people. I mean, maybe not everybody's in that situation. I'm not in it, thank God, but I know I've got a lot of friends that are in it. I mean, I hope nothing like that ever happens, but if it does, what are you gonna tell these people? Tear your house down, you're not conforming, pay the taxes on it from now on, but you can't live there.

So a lot of the properties that you're talking about on the north side of the home have 5,000 square foot lots. Those are all the originally platted lots. And we do allow single family dwellings to be built back as long as they learn common ownership with an adjacent lot.

I can show you about 60 of them that are not platted originally. Because I've checked with Arlene through the years trying to buy property. And those people have, one of them's got a brick home that's about seven inches from the property line. Rook is torn off that thing and it cost him half as much. Can't build back. You know, unless he comes up here and gets on his knees and begs us, you know. I think we need to look at that real close, you know, because we're supposed to be up there to help people.

Understood.

And I think we got a new council and they're going to get everything in gear and they're going to start helping people. And that's what we want to do. We want to be fair with everybody.

Understood. We have a great opportunity to do that right now. All right. Thank you. I'm going to text.

so right now it's it it boils down to there's 400 square foot increase in size and that's really the only reason we're here because they don't fit the same footprint of the existing trailer okay i think it's improving

Hey, it'll make setbacks, though, correct, Austin? Oh, yeah. Yeah, so that's a main thing I think we should look at is making sure setbacks. And, Bill, I agree with you. But to my understanding, if it gets torn up 50%, people still have an opportunity to build back. in those non-conforming lots. So we're going to double check that now that you kind of brought a little attention, a little birdie to fly.

I've asked that question many times.

Well, I don't want to argue with on that. I understand it different. So we need to make darn sure what's right and wrong are not available. But to my understanding, you still have a right. What happened after the last hurricanes, people waited over the year's allowance. And then they got in a pickle because they didn't do it in a timely manner. So that's where the ordinance got some teeth. But I think in all these lots that you're talking about, even if it's 80% tore up, they have a right to build back there on that same lot because it was a previously built home there to begin with.

On the same lot, do they have to meet the new setbacks and everything?

Well, probably.

It's kind of hard to move it.

Probably not, in my opinion, because that's where we'll give them an exception or variance to make sure they can get back on the footprint they were on to begin with, is my stance. Because we've talked about that in meetings to where people on that side of town, when they lost their properties, what did they do with them? There's nothing standard about it. Well, we've still got to let those folks, they own their lots. If they've got to put a 500-square-foot house, I'm okay with it.

Your ordinance is an ordinance.

It's got to be 1,000 square foot. Well, I think 600 is actually the ordinance. But if it needs to be 100 and that person can live in that, I'd be willing to give them an exception for that. Because once somebody owns a piece of property, we can't tell them they can't build back on it. We may have some.

Well, this is going to be a learning experience because he just told me something that was told to me by the inspection department that I couldn't do. You know, I had to build a 1,000-square-foot house. Mixed residential. Mixed residential. A lot of children are mixed residential.

Well, I think like somebody said earlier, we got a new council, a new mayor, a new staff. All you guys are new except Jonathan. Y'all got stuck with him on the same board, but no, I'm just kidding. But no, we have a great opportunity, I think. And we have a lot of intelligent people on this board. And I'm excited for you guys, to be honest. So just keep all that in mind when we're looking at properties and where they're at. And right, Mr. Bill, we have to be fair to everybody.

Austin, what is actually the time frame if they have to build back? What is the time frame that's allotted for them to build back if they have a loss on their property that's over 50%?

Like Mr. Neal said before, the grandfather clause was removed. It ain't had to.

if some of these people didn't settle their settlement to be able to build back into almost, I got one I'm doing work on right now, just here shortly. I mean, that's crazy. So is there a stipulation or provision in there that we're going to be able to look at to be able to do that?

I mean, there's always an option for an exception.

Right. I just want to make sure that we're not, if that is the case, that we're not excluding people that have been caught up, I mean, no fault of their own.

That's true.

Right, okay, okay, gotcha.

Good question.

But it might be a good idea to change the ordinance to show a disaster declaration. Would you have an extended length of time for that? That would probably be the best thing. Put it in there for the disaster declaration. It has to be a disaster declaration.

All right, any other discussion? Anybody else from the audience? All right, please move. All right, motion passed. All right, now we'll open it up for public comment. Thank you. Any public comment? All right, hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. So do we want to do the chair and vice chair first?

Yeah.

We're going to change them again.

Thank you.

I call this land use meeting to order. I'll have a roll call. Mr. LeBlanc? Here. Mr. DeSalle? Here. Mr. Thomas? Here. Mr. Farr? Here. Mr. Brazil? Here. Open it up for chairman. Have any nominations?

I motion Jonathan. I second.

Motion and second. Roll call. Mr. LeBlanc? Yes. Mr. DeSalle? Yes. Mr. Thomas? Yes. Mr. Ford? Yes.

Mr. Brazil? Yes.

All right. Now I'll open up nominations for vice chairman. I'll second that. There's a motion All right, roll call, please.

Mr. Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. Motion for approval of previous meeting minutes. All right.

So you got it.

Yep. All right. Please vote. motion passed all right approval of an agenda motion all right please vote motion passed all right next item up is public comment is there anybody

Just a button right here.

I shut it off.