Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. I'll go ahead and follow up with the invitation. We're going to pray.

our most gracious and loving heavenly father be with our time here tonight 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'll go ahead with the roll call. Gary Thomas Ward one's present Ronald Woody Ward three Troy Hollingsworth present Ward four Calvin Waters present Ward five is vacant at large Terran Biddens present four members present we have a quorum item number three on your agenda approve the minutes of the April twenty first two thousand twenty six Temple Planning Commission meeting you receive those by email and they were also in your hard copy packets if you had a chance to review those I'll entertain a motion I make a motion we receive the minutes as they stand I'll second we have a motion by Miss Bivens a second by Mr Waters to approve the minutes of the April twenty first two thousand twenty six Temple Planning Commission meeting as printed. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. The minutes are approved as printed. Item number four, status report on council action taken from the April 21, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

We had four items on our April 21, 2026 meeting. The first was 461 Sage Street. You guys had recommended approval for rezoning from residential to government. The council agreed, and their vote was 5 to 0. The second was 471 Sage Street, which is directly beside the first item number one. You guys voted 4-0 recommendation, and the council agreed with a vote 5-0. Item number three was withdrawn and will be presented tonight. Item number four was the request by Zane Gilliani of Temple Holdings for a variance regarding the minimum setback at 359 Sage Street. You guys voted 4-0. You recommended approval. The council agreed and voted 5-0. Another vote.

Thank you, Deidre. Any questions for Deidre in reference to the status report? Item number five, request by Ridge Cole of Southern Ridge Homes regarding the final flat approval. of Briarley Place, Ridgeland Trail, a total of 16 parcels. Parcels T040070199, 0070200, 0070201, 0070202, 0070203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, and T040070192, all in land lot 148, land lots 148 and 149 of District 6. Any comments from staff?

No comments.

No comment. No comments from the staff. We'll move on to item number six, hold a public hearing regarding the final plat approval made by Ridge Coal.

I assume you're the applicant, Mr. Cole, is that correct? I'm not Mr. Cole, but I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

Okay.

You'll state your name and go ahead and make your presentation, please. My name is Michael Forlaw. I represent the engineering firm who produced the final plat for Ridge Coal. This is 16 parcels that were previously zoned office institutional, and they were rezoned with the City of Templeton Residential maybe two years ago. I don't know the exact date. We went through a process of development. The lots were mostly developed, but we did have to do some sewer improvements. That work is complete. We have submitted a final plat and as-builts to the city for approval, and that is what this request is. It's just a request to approve the final plat.

Okay. Deidre has a comment. Go ahead.

So the only thing that has not been done that is required is some logs need to be removed and it needs to be hydro-seated. Some equipment broke down. They plan to have that done before the council votes on it so we can approve it if necessary contingent upon those things being finished out.

Any questions for the applicant? Anyone else here tonight to speak in favor of this application? Anyone here tonight to speak in opposition of this application? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing in reference to the request by Ridge Cole of Southern Ridge Homes. Item number seven, consider making a recommendation regarding the request made by Ridge Cole. Planning Commission.

I'll make a motion contingent on getting everything else done that needs to be done before city council.

And that motion is recommending approval?

Yes, recommending approval.

We have a motion by Mr. Waters to recommend approval to the city council contingent on taking care of the items indicated by the city. Is there a second?

I'll second that.

I have a second by Ms. Bivins. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of recommending approval to the City Council for the request by Ridgecold for Southern Ridge Homes regarding the final plat approval of Briarley Place, Ridgeland Trail, which is a total of 16 parcels. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. And I was an aye with that as well. OK. All right. This will go before the City Council on June 1st, 6 PM, right here. Very good. Thank you, guys. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to item number 8, a request by Dave Stitcher of 89 Old Bremen Road, a parcel join of parcels T02, 008, 003, .06 acres of parcel T02, 08, 0004, land lot 180, district 6. Any comments by staff?

This request is just a small portion, 0.6 acres, of the neighbor's property is going to be joined to Mr. Stitcher's property to kind of straighten up the property lines.

Okay. All right. Any questions for staff?

No, sir.

Okay. Item number nine, hold a public hearing regarding the parcel join request by Dave Stitcher. Mr. Stitcher, any comments, sir? Not much. Anybody got any questions? OK. And pretty much what Deidre said is correct. You're just trying to straighten up your property line with Ms. Cheek, with the Cheek family? OK. All right. Anyone else here tonight to speak in favor of this application? Anyone here to speak in opposition to this application? Hearing none, we will close the public hearing portion of this request. Item number 10, consider taking action regarding the request made by Dave Stitcher. Is there a motion?

I make a motion that we approve the request by Mr. Stitcher to join that parcel so that it does even out his landlines and stuff. Yes, sir.

We have a motion for approval by Ms. Bivens. Is there a second?

I'll second.

We have a second by Mr. Waters. Is there any discussion? Since this is a parcel join, this does not have to go to the city council for approval. Any further discussion? All in favor of approving the request by Dave Stitcher of 89 Old Raymond Road for the parcel join, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. The motion carries.

at most your partial join has been approved it does not have to go any further action it does not have to go to city council I need two more copies first though because I keep one you keep one and you record one it has to be a full size copy though I'm sorry it is okay I need one more

You need three total.

You get one signed.

I keep one, you keep one and your engineer has to record it.

No it's okay because I'll have to bring the other one to him anyway. Any other business to come before the Planning Commission tonight? No.

We did want to address what was brought to you last time while we do not have to discuss the alcohol standards.

OK. OK.

so I don't think I did the best job explaining the last time about the alcohol the liquor ordinance but after talking with Carrie about it there's really no need for us to preplan an ordinance because state law requires it to go to a referendum and go before voters and then At that point is when you would draft the ordinance while you're waiting for it to go on a referendum. I think there's also certain times a year it has to be on a referendum. So if it got to a point where there was a liquor ordinance wanted or requested in Temple, it would have to go before. You'd have to draft the referendum. It would go before the council to put it on the ballot. and then it would have to be voted on and at that point you would have all that time to draft the ordinance so it's not like somebody could come in here tomorrow and open a license and in order to get the state license there has to be a local ordinance to get a local license to get the state license so there's a lot of steps and so in the interest of saving the city legal fees and time on everybody's you know part it's better to wait until there's that need for it and you have plenty of downtown in waiting for the vote and after the vote waiting for the meetings to get that drama just for like reference in Floyd County they passed they had the referendum in November on the ballot they still haven't implemented a liquor ordinance there's still and there are I mean still in the drafting stages and that's been from what I call it kind of standard bill records of the law

any questions on that topic one other thing I had some emails with Deidre and she's looking at a couple of other places that obtained some additional information for rezoning request and other things that we would be able to incorporate in our packets that would not be just done she would bring that for us to review and agree on as a planning commission that we wanted to start including those items in our packets for review it's things like asking the fire department to look at applications to see if they have any comments and generally those type of things so she's working on that we'll have that at a later date just wanted to make you aware that that will be coming at some point so no other cities actually have implemented this

But anything that goes before rezoning within Carroll County, not in any of the cities, but just the county, everything has to be submitted to the Carroll County Board of Education, the fire marshal, and We're thinking to be more proactive with our rezoning and stuff all of that stuff has to be submitted and comments returned to the city before it can even come to rezoning. So when it's presented to the Planning Commission, you will have the recommendation from all of those.

It's a full recommendation from all parties.

And it's not necessarily that they'll say, oh yeah, go ahead and approve. they'll say for instance this is going to be a burden on our roads this is going to be you know so they'll just give their opinions about what we're looking to resolve that's what I've seen previously is not necessarily a recommendation just

we don't see any impact to fire safety for this particular use or we see that this will impact roads in this area or whatever we say that this is going to be an impact on water and we estimate that impact to be this but they won't say yea or nay that that that still falls to us but it's just provide us additional information to make them make a proper decision good deal everybody

without going into anything just there was a discussion or maybe it's just a thought that maybe if we bring on our new members that at some point in time we need to make sure that we all understand the zoning that we're asking people to vote on stuff that really we're throwing them in here. We're swearing them in in January and in February we're voting on stuff. And just it was a discussion that maybe at some point we can just have a meeting of the Planning Commission and let's look at the zoning. You know, go through the zoning. Is there something you don't understand? We changed this because some of our things we've changed and we've not taken out or we've not updated. So I would like to at some point address that timeline that we can do that.

have some orientation very much so yes sir sounds good good idea okay anything else to come before the planning commission tonight so last and i say last meeting i don't know have you y'all have one made for or was there one the last one april 21st april 21st okay so the last meeting there was a brief discussion about on variances requiring the neighboring property owners be notified so looking into that we legal does not recommend requiring that notification because that's in addition to what state law requires. And when you, you know, put more restrictions on yourself than what state law requires, it gives you more steps and potential to kind of trip over yourself or to leave out a step or forget a step that's not required by state law. So we wouldn't recommend requiring that notification of neighboring property owners just because it could create more headache for yourself in the future.

State law does require notification of neighboring property owners with a rezoning.

Yes. Yeah. Or not. Yeah.

So you're saying like when I was asking in front of or behind the store, they're going to know that we it's not required to notify her that a business is coming in and going to move there and having all that that is not required. OK.

Just to clarify, though, there is nothing in state law that precludes us

from making that requirement, if the Planning Commission so desires.

Even though it's not legal?

Legal just sees that as a risk to the city if we miss that step in the future.

Let me double check with Kerry, but I believe that's what he said, is that it's not required in state law for variances. It is for zoning, but not for variances.

If the Planning Commission approve, if the Planning Commission agrees, I would like to get that in writing prior to our next meeting and that be listed as an agenda item on our meeting. Whether or not we want to consider to require that. Is the Planning Commission good with that? We would get the official from Cary from legal and then we would decide at that meeting if we wanted to require that. I think it was a good question by Ms. Bivins that this property was impinging on the neighboring property owner. And if that neighboring property owner didn't live in the city of Temple and didn't drive by that property, they would never know. Now, there's also the probability that if their address is not correct on file with the city, they wouldn't get notified anyway. But at least we would have tried to notify them.

Yeah, you could recommend that the property, the neighboring property owners be notified, but putting it in the ordinance where you're requiring yourself to do it, that's what messes you up.

Okay.

But now, that being said, wouldn't it put a hardship on the city, especially sometimes since we're low staff, because we only get these seven days prior to coming back and saying, hey, before we vote on this, we want to make sure. You've got seven days, and you've got to get a hold of me. Absolutely.

I think she's saying we'd have to table it. If it came before us and we wanted those property owners notified, we'd have to say that in that first meeting and table it to the next meeting to make sure those property owners were notified.

unless someone asks me what's going on with that initiative.

see that appears more risky to me because then you're treating two exactly the same situations in the city differently this one we didn't notify because the staff didn't catch it this one we are going to notify because staff caught it which is just as sticky as having it in the ordinance. In the ordinance, the checklist is there. We know we're going to notify those property owners. And to me, it seems simpler because then Deidre doesn't have to wonder. She knows if it's coming before the Planning Commission for action, adjacent property owners get notified.

So, for instance, the rezoning that we recently did on Highway 78, I knew that one was going to be but it was right but no this is what i'm saying so i knew it was going to be a sticky situation and i was concerned well would have had this stuff get lost in the mail so i literally personally delivered these letters door to door to all of these property owners so everybody was made well aware hey we don't have to worry about because the mail has been so slow and so i just went out there and delivered them door to door okay so

Well and the other situation comes up too is we don't know where these contractors are coming from so we have somebody come into a meeting that we're fixing to table it and they don't live here. Can we table it and make them have extra spend?

For that same topic at that same meeting could we determine if any of the other surrounding cities require that? because initially initially if I remember correctly initially we were not notifying adjacent property owners on these owners we were only no we didn't no we didn't I asked that question in the meeting and the answer was no we do not do it and then we started and I think we even had to ask the city council to approve that that we notify adjacent property owners we were not doing it ahead of time Yes, but we did not. I actually received some property at my work received notification in the mail. And I brought that and said, do we do this? And the answer was no. And then we started doing it. So I'm really concerned. I mean, we didn't do it before. And now we do. And we did that after Planning Commission action.

yeah I don't disagree with that part I just think

a variance could be we're going to allow you to put up a storage building and we're going to allow it to be ten foot closer to the property line than the code allows and the adjacent property owner is on vacation for two weeks doesn't see the sign comes back home boom already been approved done We're not gonna make a decision tonight anyway.

But as a property owner though, like saying devil's advocate, the question would then come up if the city allowed that property owner to move their building a little bit closer to the property line, it's still on private property. So should your neighbor be able to tell you what you can do in your own yard?

then the argument there is should the city be able to tell you what to do in your own yard if it's a variance and we're going to post it in the yard and say come make public comment then why would we not send it to that adjacent property owner and say hey this is we're considering a variance in your neighbor's yard you might want to come comment on it I just see in today's world with the amount of opposition we're starting to see to these applications I feel like we as a city should make every effort to give proper notification and if that's proper notification for rezoning I think it should be proper notification but the two things I do want to say is and then what we get from anybody else because I'd be interested and one would be the city of Carrollton because the city of Carrollton was the one that sent the original rezone and I don't know if I've ever gotten a variance from them for some of the property I have at work but they were the original one that sent us a rezone written notification and so did the city of

and we didn't at the time well and to play devil's advocate let's take Dave's situation here he had his property he marked off that what he thought they did they did when he had it rechecked it's not what they did he's been using that for putting the garden back there as long as I know he's been there what if the chiefs had come in and said no that's not the way it is stop it right now I just if they have an option to come here and say this is why we want to keep it this way or this is why we don't want to keep it this way I just think that's a common courtesy that we can take five minutes to listen to because he had no idea he thought the way it was marked was the way it was marked then and absolutely it was not they just messed it up

So it got reported wrong in the county, and now we're here to correct it.

And we see that.

Right, all the time.

We see that. I have one right now that the flat shows the legal description shows the back line being a hundred and sixty feet the flat shows a hundred and ten feet so you've got to re-survey and re-file alright so we we've got something to think about and talk about at our next meeting anything else to come before the planning commission tonight appreciate everybody's comment on this we look forward to discussing and is there a motion to adjourn all in favor say aye we are adjourned thank you very much