Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

William County Regional Planning Commission is now called to order. There we do. We do have a quorum. Are there any announcement staff?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, items number 23, 24, and 32 are on your consent agenda for deferral. I've placed also in front of you a flyer for our greenways plans virtual meeting that will take place on January 22nd at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. You have to register to participate. There's a QR code on the flyer that you can scan to register or you can register from the county's website. There will also be a video of it posted after the meeting. Um, also a reminder to the to those of you that haven't done so, I know some of you have already, but your statements of interests are due to the state no later than January 31st. And I believe I sent everybody a link for that. If you need another one, just give me a shout and I'll send it to you. And then finally, we do have a request for a non-aggenda item. It's the James M. Soal large easement subdivision. It was approved in October and the approval expired. So, the applicant is requesting approval. so that it can be recorded. We've placed a staff report and the plat on your desk and you must take action on it in order for it to be placed onto your agenda. And so, Mr. Chairman, that would be the first thing you would ask for. That's all that I have.

Okay. Do we have a copy of that? Yeah, it's on your go at the end of the at the end of the agenda. Okay, go at the end of the agenda, but it's right here underneath underneath the Okay. Uh we'll start off with uh we have the non-aggenda item. If uh we'll look for a motion to make that item, I believe it's 35 will be the end. Motion to put it on the agenda. Second. Motion a second. All in favor signify by saying I.

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is a public comment. We've had it looks like three people signed up, but is Martin Leonard. Would you come forward? Give us your name, address. Yeah, I meant to sign up on the uh the one that was over here. You just take my name off that. Okay. And it was twice down here. Did you put your name down twice? Yeah, I did. Okay. All right. The next person will be Cindy Jennings.

Would you come forward, please?

Do I stand here? Yes. Do I stand here? Great day. And give us your name and address, please. Okay. Cindy Jennings. I live at 5486. Iana Drive. Okay. And you have three minutes to to tell us whatever you want us to hear.

Okay. What we understand is that there are two alternatives for phase four of high or five and six on High Park Hill to get ingress and egress from their community. One of them is to take Floren to Ayana Drive. Ayanna Drive is a very narrow street. We can't even park on the streets overnight. And a lot of times when you're going down there, uh, when you're going down Ayana, which is a short street, you have to pull over to let the other car come forward. That kind of thing. It's not meant for 78 more houses, potentially 150 more cars to be using. I live on the corner and my office points out to the street. I sit there all day long watching. Well, don't sit there watching, but I can see the kids riding their motorized bikes and their scooters and feeling very safe coming into the our culde-sac. What I don't want to see is a car flying down Floren and hitting one of those kids. We have a lot of kids in the neighborhood. I worry about the traffic. I don't have skin in the game on on that. I don't have any of my own kids living here. But to have an alternative for a street that has no houses and no kids and direct access to 96, I don't even see what the discussion is about. Truthfully, it just makes more sense to me for the egress and ingress to be in an unpopulated area on a street that's already there than to bring it through another neighborhood with a lot of kids on the street.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no others at this time, we'll go to the commission for the uh December 11th, 2025 minutes. Has everybody had a chance to read them? Is there any questions, corrections, or do we have a motion to accept them for approval based on staff recommendations? We have a motion to second. And all in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Consideration of the consent agenda. Commissioner Hatcher.

Yes. I am recusing myself of the consent agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone that would like to pull any item from the consent agenda? If not, we'll hear it as a whole. Seeing none, do we have a motion to accept the consent agenda? So move second. Motion is second. All in favor signify by saying I.

Motion carries. Thank you. Under old business number 22. The first item is Terra Vista road drainage and erosion control bond update. The applicant present Brenty with True Land representing Jones. Um update on phase two. The majority of the RD checklist items are done. There's a few small items. The contractor still needs to touch up the stone at some of the outfalls. Um there's one spot where there's some erosion that we'll take some material from the slope repairs and fill that in. Um the two bigger items that remain are the wastewater road that is essentially done except for the road isn't finalized because we're waiting for the engineer to get with the county and they're providing some information to get the material for the road uh determined. Once that's determined, we'll finish the road. Um there's currently material on the road so the company can service the wastewater area. Um there's a little bit of haul off there and in the next week or two we should start the two slope area repairs. Um that's been worked through with the geotech and we're waiting on the final estimate which we should have tomorrow or next week and then begin that process and happy to answer any questions from there.

So everything at this point is going according to schedule and you don't see any problems? Yeah, I mean I would hope to be a little faster but weather and sometimes working through some items but yes so that it does any questions of the applicant. I have a question. Um we received an email from the Terra Vista Owners Association board of directors. are you it's I have the impression you all aren't necessarily updating them regularly or what what's your communication with the homeowners association?

Um typically what's happened in the past we were and then due to some issues we basically if the HOA guy reaches out or if they um it had been their attorney contacting us then we would happy to update them through their attorney. Okay. So, one of the questions they asked about when they contact contacted us was about eight mature trees that were cut down. Can you give us an update on

Well, that was I I think what you're referring to or there was on the RD checklist there was a request to remove eight trees that were um planted on the essentially the top of the burm that comprise the uh detention pond. and the county had asked for those to be removed um because they essentially um the integrity of the burm and root system. So, and those weren't on the original landscaping plan.

And so, staff, one of the questions in here talked about tree canopy question. Is that is that standard met without those trees? Commissioner, I'd have to look at the landscaping plan to see whether or not that has been met. And that should be reviewed as part of the overall site plan that for the common area that'll be coming. So that determination will be should be determined here in the near future. So you're saying with the county's like next site visit or something on work you're doing? Well, that that is a separate area

where all that landscaping is. So, it's kind of tied into that. And do you have a timeline on the roadway for the wastewater treatment plant access? Um, that depends a little bit on the engineer and and the county. Hopefully, I'm hoping in the next next week or two. Um, because that's all we lack really to finish that. So, is a sign off or what what do you uh the material to be determined to what to build the road base out of? Okay. going up to the wastewater plant. So you need that determination. Then it has to be constructed. I'm just want you know

Yeah, exactly. We we've put a temporary road, if you will, there, but to finish it to what the county will require, that material needs to be what what stone makeup material is that going to comprise of to be able to build it? Can staff give us any updates on that?

Sure. Um so they've made some some great strides toward the checklist. Um as far as the um wastewater road, the alignment's in and it looks good, but um the crusher run is washing and that's not really a good material to keep from washing. So the engineer has reached out and [clears throat] um I've asked for them to provide additional information on how they can stabilize it. So, I'm kind of waiting on them right now, the um engineering [clears throat] Tsquare, but um I mean there's still some things that are are going to have to be done out there, but they they've made some improvements, so

Okay. Thank you. Sure. No other questions.

Okay. on the new business. Then we'll go to item number 23, Artisan Acre Subdivision is on the consent agenda for a deferral. Uh item 24, Coleman Road subdivision was on the consent agenda for a deferral. Item number 25, final plat review for revised by Violin Meadows LLE subdivision containing five lots on 32.55 acres located off Violin Meadows Lane in the fifth voting district. Staff,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. The property is located off of Spantown Road shown in red on the left side of the screen. The development total is 32.55 acres in size and contains five lots shown in the pink. They're revising the plaid in order to add three fire hydrants to reduce fire separation to the minimum requirement. The lots will be accessed via an access easement which is shown in yellow on the left and middle of the screen. Resource protection standards have been met. Water is provided by Nolanville College Grove Utility District. Wastewater is handled via individual on-site septic systems which the Department of Sue disposal management has approved. This final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and staff records approval of the standard conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Any questions? The commission. Is the applicant present?

Kelsey McGee T Square Engineering representing the client on this. Thank you. Any question of the applicant or staff on this item? Do we have a motion on this item? I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Item numbers 26 is final plan review for Stone Ridge LLE subdivision containing five lots on 69.98 acres located off the Harpet School Road in the second voting district. staff.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. This particular project is located off Harper School Road. You can see Harper School Road in the red. The development totals uh 69.98 acres. [clears throat] Uh consists of five lots. You can see them in pink. Uh the lots will be accessed via an access easement shown in yellow. Uh the resource protection standards have been met. Water will be provided by the HV and TS utility district. Uh waste water will be handled via individual on-site septic systems and the department of sewage disposal management has approved the request. The final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and staff recommends approval with standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Thank you. Is applicant present? Hey guys, Taylor Husky and my brother Austin. Do you have anything to add to staff report? No sir. Would you hold on to any questions of the applicant or the staff at this time?

Motion for approval for second. We have a motion and second. All in favor signify by saying I. I motion passes. Thank you. Item number 27, final ply review for Stevens Valley containing a section 12 containing zero lots on 777 acres located off of Stevens Valley Boulevard in the eighth voting district. Staff,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. The propertyy's located off Stevens Valley Boulevard. There you see Stevens Valley Boulevard in red. The section total is 77 acres. There you see the property outlined in the blue. There'll be zero buildable lots. They're designating 0.53 acres as open space shown in the green. Water's provided, water and sewer is provided by the Harpath Valley Utility District. The final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and staff recommends approval with the condition outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Is a applicant present on this one?

Good evening. Uh, Andrew Hawkins with Land Innovations representing the client. Do you have anything to add to staff's report? Uh, no sir. Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant or staff on this item? Do we have a motion on this item for approval based on staff recommendations? I have a motion to second. All in favor signify by saying I. Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

The next item will be the public hearing section. In the public hearing on this, the staff will read the report and then we'll open it up to the public for public comment. There are 27 people that have signed up on this item. So, we'll it'll be 1 minute 15 seconds per person because of the amount that signed up on it. And I'd asked if uh you would kind of not repeat what other people have said so we can get all the details that you want us to get have. staff. Item 28, concept plan for King's Chapel sub uh subdivision containing 449 lots on 6.1528 acres located off of Mullen Road in the fifth voting district. Staff,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. This property is located off of Murreey'sboro Road. There were two revised concept plans. One was approved in September of 2023 and the second one in June of 2024. Both revised concept plans contained a condition that there be a single gated entry between King's Chapel and the adjoining High Park Hill subdivision and that entry be limited to emergency vehicles and utility service providers. You can see the location of the emergency gate on the screen. The applicant is now requesting approval to remove that condition from both King's Chapel and High Park Hill. A revised concept plan for High Park Hill does appear as the next item on your agenda. And just a point of note for you, we've received several numerous emails outlining Fox Farms, but I wanted to point out that Fox Farms is part of High Park Hill. It is sections what will become sections five and six of the development and that was approved with the revision to the concept plan in September of 2023. So, specific to King's Chapel, the June 2024 approval allowed the relocation of the entry gate north of Floren Drive. On the screen in the green circle, that's the location where the gate will be moved. Majestic Meadows Drive is the blue line and then Floren Drive is the red line extending from the utility gate. The entry gate has not yet been relocated, so it is still located in its present location approximately 1300 ft from Murreey'sboro Road. The developer has noted to staff that when this entry gate is relocated, residents from High Park Hill will not be able to access King's Chapel. Additionally, the developer has also noted to the staff that after the entry gate has been relocated, the residents of High Park Hill would be responsible

for the maintenance of Majestic Meadows Drive from the relocated entry gate to Murphreey'sboro Road. So on the screen from the green line all the way approximately south to Murphy'sboro Road would be the responsibility of the residents of High Park Hill. Staff is of the opinion that the relocated entry gate for the exclusive use of the residents of King's Chapel and prohibits entry by the residents of High Park Hill serves to delineate the development as two separate and distinct developments. The applicant's traffic consultant submitted a revive revised traffic analysis that was reviewed by the county's traffic consultant and the county's traffic consultant concurred with those findings. And finally, staff recommends approval of this revised concept plan with the previous conditions and removing the stipulation that the one gated connection between King's Chapel and High Park Hill be restricted to emergency vehicles and utility service providers. That the HOA documents must be revised to provide for the maintenance of Majestic Meadows Drive by High Park Hill. And that those revised HOA documents be submitted with the next final plat of both developments. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. At this time, we'll open up the public hearing. I'll ask to call the name and you'll come to the podium. You'll have a minute and a half. You'll give us your name and address. And please direct all comments to the commission and to the staff. The first person on item is Jeff Swinghole. 15. I'm sorry, minute 15.

Good evening. I'm Jeff Swingholm. I live at 4712 Majestic Meadows Drive. Uh I'm gonna have to cut this shorter than I expected, but uh my main concern is the safety. You heard the other uh uh participant a few minutes ago talk about the safety in Hyde Park, but my my concern is at the intersection of Majestic Meadows in Murphy'sboro Road. I know everybody here's grown up with Nashville. Okay, what I mean by that is in the last six years, the traffic on this road has it's just it's horrendous. I when you pull off on Majestic Meadows Drive onto Murphy'sboro, cars are coming from your left from Triune at 55 miles an hour on a two-lane road. If you look to your right, they're coming at you at 55 miles an hour on a two-lane road. When you pull off, there is no place to get off for me to get off when I I'm heading into Franklin because there's a bridge 30 yards the width of this room. I have no place to go except straight ahead.

What I'm predicting is that uh there is a turn lane when you're coming from Franklin, sir to Majestic. Um there is a turning lane that only holds two cars. Okay. And I I mark my words, there'll be people rearended because, you know, at this at the post office in Arrington, the road takes off and then narrows down into two lanes and everybody's in a rush.

Thank you. Appreciate your time. The next person, it's Jeff Forest. Jennifer, I'm sorry. Jennifer Forest. You have a minute and 15 seconds, ma'am.

Hello. My name is Jennifer Forest. I'm a resident of King's Chapel and I live at 4713 Majestic Meadows Drive. I have attended all three meetings that were at King's Chapel held by Greg Davis regarding the proposal. Based on those meetings, I want to make it clear for the record that there is significant opposition within King's Chapel to converting the emergency access restriction into a full access road for the High Park Hill subdivision lots. King's Chapel residents deeply value Majestic Meadows Drive. It is one of the reasons we bought our home. Residents walk, jog, walk, dogs, children ride their bikes, their electric bicycles. It's used every day all the way to Murphy'sboro Road. It's a private road. The proposal would put our residents and children at risk. At the meeting Greg Davis held, residents were presented with financial promises and assurance that were repeatedly changed. These shifting offers created confusion and division among our residents, and it demonstrates the neighborhood does not view this proposal as acceptable. Most concerning, residents were told that one of Davis's promises, including forgiveness of a debt of supposedly 130,000, would only be covered if this passes.

Thank you. Thank you. [applause] Let's see. Uh Martin Leonard. Good evening. I'm Marty Leonard. I live at 4789 Woodro Place in King's Chapel. Uh my biggest concern about this whole thing is what if we want to expand out and put a the big fields beside of Majestic would be past the gate that we're having to be moved back. What if we wanted to put a soccer field out there, a baseball field out there, a playground for kids? That's all our open area now. We can't go in and then later on move that back so the kids can't get past it. They don't have to get past it to get to any of that common area. any amenity any amenities we build out there will not be accessible without going through the gate and we don't want that. The other thing is if what if somebody comes off that road and it has a wreck on our road. They're coming out of through that gate and they come out have a wreck on our road. Who's going to handle the liability of that? We own it. Okay. They don't own it. We own it. So who's going to be the legal responsibility? And you say you're going to put in there in the HOA documents they're going to take care of it. How much are they going to take care of? What if the the cost is exorbitant and that decision says no? [applause]

Thank you. Uh Kevin Man.

Good evening. Kevin man, 4717 Majestic Meadows. I'll keep this short. Since this commission's previous approvals over this concept plan, nothing has changed. the same homes existed at the time you approved it to the extent there are traffic concerns raised by high park health folks. I understand that but that condition existed at the time you approved the restriction. That was the time to deal with it. Nothing has changed procedurally. I don't even see how you can address this and I want to ensure that the the minutes reflect the procedural objection that this is actually before you because nothing has changed. The same concept plan was presented. This commission required the restriction and that has not changed. Now the developers come in because they want to market these lots and access through that channel provides a greater value to those lots on the marketing side and I submitted some of those marketing materials to you already where they made a claim that this had already been approved which it had not and I feel like this commission with this process is being taken advantage of and I would encourage you to stand behind uh the previous decisions and deny this request. Thank you.

THANK YOU. [applause] JUNE Kermit Kersimus. I can't read their writing. K U Z M A R K U Z M I C H. Yes. Jim,

my name is Jim Kmitch. I am actually a board member for the High Park Hill uh uh homeowners association and a resident in High Park Hill. Uh what's not clear on your drawing is what you see here. High Park Hill was originally this okay on the left hand side. What is being added are phases five and six. They are included in High Park Hill, but they're distinctly different. Okay. Opening up this road, Majestic Meadows, to High Park Hill phases five and six will in fact give quicker access to five and six. It will not impose any burden on Kings uh King's Chapel and it will reduce any kind of burden on Ayana and High Park Hill. Now the condition that the staff has uh um uh put on this in a recommendation is that High Park Hill pay for all this maintenance. We approve. We're in favor of opening this up, but we think High Park Hill 5 and six should be the only ones responsible. We believe that a sub uh HOA should be created and that this commission should make it a condition that a sub uh uh HOA be created for five and six in High Park Hill and put the responsibility on them because none of these homes get any time

benefit from it. Thank you. [applause]

JUNITH BELL.

Good evening. My name is Justine Dell. I'm a resident of High Park Hill. Um the revised concept plan um is a revision. We're requesting that it be approved to give full access to Majestic Meadows, not to King's Chapel. There won't be King's Chapel access and exclusivity of King's Chapel from High Park Hill should not be the priority for safety of every resident in Arrington, especially King's Chapel and High Park Hill. Right now, the proposal makes all traffic go through our streets where we have numerous children and there are none on Majestic Meadows. None. There's not a driveway, not a home, and the gates will be pushed back at no cost to King's Chapel. Um, exclusivity cannot be the priority here over the safety of others, at no cost to King's Chapel.

THANK YOU. [applause] PAUL FOREST.

Good evening. My name is Paul Force. I live at 4713 Majestic Metals Drive. I agree with what's been stated earlier that safety should be a primary concern and the numbers in this situation do matter. The fact of the matter is King's Chapel has 449 homes served by two private entrances on Murphy'sboro. This means there's 225 homes per entrance and they enter on a 55 mph section of the road with short turn lanes and limited visibility. On the other hand, Hide Park Hill, including sections five and six, has only 235 homes also served by two entrances. That means there are and that and that that section of road is only 45 miles per hour. If the if this proposal is approved to reallocate 78 homes to one of the King's Chapel's entrance, that means there will be 248 homes using the Majestic Meadows Drive and only 80 homes using each of the entrances on Hide Hide Park Hill.

Second, sir. That is not an equal distribution of traffic. It's unreasonably burdening one section of road that has a higher speed limit with less visibility with 248 homes versus 80 homes each of the other ones. That's not a safe distribution. Thank you. Thank you, [applause]

Kevin Atwood. Hello, I'm Kevin Atwood. I live at 1149 Meadowbridge Lane um in phase one of King's Chapel. I've lived there for over 19 years. And um I'm I have a different opinion than some of the other King's Chapel residents. the the um the proposition by the developer I think will be of great benefit to us with the extension of a fence and walking trail in that open space that's going to I heard somebody say it's going to be cut off but that fence goes all the way up to the where the current gate is now and then we'd cut over to the trees which I think would give us more privacy instead of less and there's a walking trail proposed that would be in that um open space that um extends from the covered bridge all the way around and I think that would be of benefit to And then also they've proposed to pave our main entrance road which hasn't been paved in years. And that would uh save us money from our reserves. And um so I just wanted to say I'm in favor. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause]

Brian Berman.

Brian Berman. I'm a resident of King's Chapel 4092 King's Camp Pass. Um, after many years of no communication from the HOA, uh, we were finally reached out to um by, uh, Greg here, uh, who is, uh, the developer of, uh, of High Park Hill and this project in question here. Um, he came in and, uh, his his priority has been this road. um you know why is he concerned about this road? Um and after many conversations I believe that it is about the marketability of his development. Uh Majestic Meadows certainly lives up to its name. It is certainly what sold me on the King's Chapel community and uh it helps his prestigious community as uh he has said that it is going to be upscale larger homes uh trying to create exclusivity. He wants an exclusive road into that development and does not want to share that

with the residents of uh King's Chapel or High Park Hill. Sorry. Thank you, [applause]

Christine Holland. Hi, Christine Holland. I live at 4770 Woodro Place. Um, I'm here to say that we are in support of the change in the road status. It's We've met with the developer several times. We've got extra safety in place. As others have mentioned, with the plan of moving the existing road back and additional fencing, it does provide a safer place for people to walk and ride their bikes on a sidewalk versus on a road with cars. So, just came here to say we're supportive. Thank you. [applause]

Is it James or Jim Holland?

Same thing my wife said. We'll make it easy. We We've met with the builder, the the developer. We looked at the plans. We understand what's going on. We completely support what they want to do. I think it's a benefit to to where we're at. King's Chapel 4770 Woodward, please. Thank you. [applause]

Thank you, Bruce Collins. Hi, Bruce Kowalsski, 4314 Kings Camp Court. Just to give you a little perspective, I walk this road, Majestic Meadows, all the time. So, from the bridge to uh Murphreey'sboro Road and back is about a mile. When I walk it with my wife, a little slower, call it 20 minutes. In that 20 minutes, by the way, there's not kids playing all over the place. There's not bikes all over. Not true. I see one other person when I walk all and I do it nine o'clock in the morning, noon, 4:00 in the afternoon. And while I'm walking, if I see zero cars some days, maybe one, maybe two, maybe three. Let's take the worst case scenario. We see three cars that day. Now, we're adding 40% more homes onto this road because it's 175 that are using that gate. Not 225, 175 are using that gate. So, we add 40% more. Okay, let's pretend now I'm going to add 67%. So, we're going to say five cars. I'm going to see that is not a traffic issue. People are making this out like it's going to be 65 at rush hour

15 seconds, sir. So, and on the main gate, keep in mind that one is 275 homes that are using the main gate, plus all the Uber Eats, plus all the construction, plus all the other uh deliveries that come through that gate. I never stand in line more than two cars. So, I am 100% in favor.

Thank you, [applause] Carrie Gordon. Hi, I'm Carrie Gordon, resident of King's Chapel at 1309 Ashby Valley. I agree with the last couple of people that have spoken. If I'd been here a year ago, I would have been in disagreement because if the idea was not to have two gates, there would have been one gate with High Park Hills Fox Farms and ours. But now with the gates being moved and there being two private accesses, I have no problem with that and I just want to say I'm in support. Thank you. [applause]

Bryson. Hello, my name is Bryson Bryan. I'm a long-term resident of King's Chapel 19 years. I was one of the first 20 homes built. I've seen the subdivision grow substantially. I respect the thoughts of others. What I want to say today is I support the road plan that is being presented. I support sharing that road with High Park Hill. I will also say as one who often walks or runs that road as well, I never see kids going up and down that road. I don't see that there's a problem. However, my hope is based on what the developer is sharing with us, adding the sidewalks, there will be more people who will enjoy the road because it will be safer by having the plan as the developer is requesting now. So, I respectfully ask for that consideration. Again, as a 19-year resident, I've seen a lot happen. There are things that I've not agreed with, but I full support this agreement. So, thank you for your time.

Thank you. [applause] Uh, Kelly Bowman. I'll represent my wife Rob Kilborn. Uh, 1400 Orchard Hill Lane. Uh, to keep it simple, we're both in support of this proposal. Nothing else to add. [applause] You say you're Robin. I'm Robert Kil. Yeah, Rob. Okay. Next on the list. All right. Thank you, Becky. Those

Backer. Good evening. Becky Dorsbacher, 1233 Old Spring Trail. I am here in support of the gate being shared with High Park Hill Fox Farms. Um, as stated earlier, um, if we would like to build a soccer field or whatever, that land still would belong to King's Chapel and we would have the ability to do that. We're only talking about sharing, which is what one of the reasons why I moved to the South is the kindness and willing to give to other people. Uh the developer has been nothing but to me open and communicative with us and I support it. As said before, there aren't many children there more dear than I see kids playing. Um having the sidewalks is great. The fact that they're offering to do things for us um before they turn over the HOA is also much appreciated. Um again, the roads that were mentioned being paved um the main entry, that's something that'll be done no matter what happens. and the developer has said that to us. I just want to point out quickly that the main entrance that's there now is much shorter

than the one that's going that we're planning to share and we have many more cars coming in and out of there without any issues. Thank you so MUCH [applause]

Susan Rush. Hello. Uh, Susan Russ, uh, 10004 Orchard Hill Court. I've been a resident of King Chapel for 13 years. Um, I am in full support of this proposal. Um, being able to have High Park Hill pay for the maintenance and the landscaping of this entrance will help to keep our HOA fees at a minimum. Um and um I think we all would be in support of keeping um HOA fees down. So, thank you.

Thank [applause] you,

Mike Kilbridge. Good evening, Mike Kirk Bride, 4582 Majestic Meadows Drive. I probably live 15 houses or so from from where the uh proposed road and gate would be for the new development. And I've lived uh in the development about three and a half years. I bought it brand new and there's been a lot of conversation. It's very interesting how people uh see things see the same picture and see it very differently. I will tell you that uh there is traffic on that road. Uh there are uh kids on that road. I walk or run that road every day. Uh it would be hazardous uh in my opinion to have additional traffic run through there. And I'll also say this because I've been in HOAs before. Uh I've been VPs and and presidents of HOAs before and if we acquies Jessic Meadows uh and King's Chapel acquieses that area uh and lose control of it then

15 seconds we lose control of of the fate of it. Thank you. THANK YOU [applause]

Steve Sman. Good evening. My name is Steve Sentman. I'm at 1205 Old Spring Trail and I've lived there eight months. So, I'm not going to have too much to say other than I appreciate the time and listening to our neighbors here, but I am in support of what's happening. Thank you. Thank you. [applause] Cindy May.

Hello, I'm Cindy May and my husband and I moved into King's Chapel in February 2007. And when we moved in, there wasn't a whole lot there, but we saw a vision of what might be there one day. And some of the things that happened exceeded my expectations. And one of the reasons I support this amended uh resolution is because I see the houses they're going to put in High Park Hill. And that section to me, even if it is about their marketability, it's going to match ours. And so I don't see this being in any way detracting from my home. And um I'm for this. Thank you.

Thank [applause] you. Martin Leonard.

Not here. Yeah, he spoke.

Jim Kenz Jim De Janney and I'm a resident of High Park Hill, 5035 High Park Hill Drive. Um I'm not really sure how you're swayed one way or the other on this type of this type of vote. Um, but I I do believe in that gate on Majestic that would help everybody involved, the new homeowners as well as High Park Hill. On on one road on High Park Hill, High Park Hill has roughly around 35 homes and Ayana has around 38 homes. Uh, there's at least 25 to 30 kids at each street that are under about 14 15 years old. They've already been you've already heard that they're small streets. Um and and you talk about hazards. Um I would think that you would look at safety and besides that, what about the construction traffic that would come through there and only through there? So, those are things that I would like you to really think about about the safety of the kids that are in those neighborhoods and how small those roads are where you have another alternative that doesn't have any homes on it. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. [applause] I think this is Stacy Vanwave. Okay, I that's what it looks like to me, but it's kind of scribbled down here. Fresco Samco, say it again. Yeah, yes. Uh, sorry about that. Excuse me. Sorry about that.

You're good. Uh, Falsto Sango, 4112 Banner Square Lane. I've been a resident of King's Chapel for over 10 years. Um, I'm just here to support the the move of the gate. Um, I'm here to support the the developer along with my other neighbors. Um, so that's all I have to say.

Thank you. [applause] Uh, Tracy Thomas, Tracy Thomas, 4108 Banner Square Lane, been a resident of King's Chapel for just under five years, and I love everything about King's Chapel. I love the vision of the developer and what he's done. So, I fully support what they're doing now. [applause] Thank you, Danielle Kosenkin. Let's go kids. I can't read your last name. Kazinski.

It's Kazinski. Kazinski. Thank you. Um, my name is Danielle Kazinski. I live at 4112 Catherine's Branch. I've only lived there a year, but I absolutely love uh King's Chapel. I go in and out of the back gate exclusively. So, I see the traffic. I see no kids. I see no traffic that anyone should be concerned about. I appreciate what the developer is offering to help the when the uh community is turned over to the HOA. Uh the gates um being moved back, a fence being put in, sidewalks, repaving. Those are things that will help the community. And moving that g gate back 800 feet will not affect any uh productivity or anything with our community. So, I'm in full support of it. So, thank you. Thank you, [applause]

Marcus Owen. Hi, Marcus Owen. Uh, 4804 Woodro Place. This is in the best interest of our community. I'm fully in support. We're going to improve the safety by having sidewalks in a place where people are walking on the roaded. Today, we'll have sidewalks and that'll be a better use of the property. And I'm fully in support. THANK YOU. [applause]

KEN Mangram [clears throat] Ken Mangum 4801 Woodrow Place. I'm in full support of the concept of of the gate. I think it'll make our community safer. It's better for us financially and we'll have a sidewalk where these guys that walk will be out of my road now. [applause] J Run Runs Russ J Russ

My name is Jay Russ Orchard Hill Court. I've been a resident of the King Chopper for 13 years, but as the staff knows, I'm also part of the development um out there. So I won't you there's been a lot of things said. I just want to say one thing different than they they've said as a as part of the development team. One of the things that I always look at and and I first of all I I understand people have different points of views and that's what this country is about and people can agree and disagree and and have different points of view and that's and that's perfectly fine. What I do is when I look at a situation like this because I'm part of the development team is how it affects not only their property value but how it affects my property value because I'm part of the community as well. And for the past six years that I've been part of the development team that's one of the things that I've always done as well. And so I, you know, I I wouldn't be part of development team if I didn't believe what we're doing is is good. So I just wanted to say that. Thank you. [applause]

Okay, that will close the public hearing for this item and we'll go to the commission and the staff for any questions on this item. Pardon?

Would the applicant please come forward? Hi there. My name is Will Krunk with Krunk Engineering. I'm the applicant representing the developer for this item. The application for the revised uh concept plan is not proposing any lot, roadway, or any other layout changes. Our intent is to remove one of the condition items that was part of the original approval of the concept plans for both King's Chapel and High Park Hill phases five and six that restricts the gated connection to Majestic Meadows Drive to be for emergency use only. Uh Crank Engineering nor myself was part of the original initial application for the concept plans, but having gone back and looked at past meetings, it was clear that there's been a lot of confusion about this subdivision. Uh, High Park Hill phases five and six is being developed by the same developer as King's Chapel and the initial intent was to have the subdivision be an expansion of King's Chapel. But after discussion with the county, the developer sought an agreement with the developer of High Park Hill phases 1 through 4 uh to allow the 78 homes to be submitted as an expansion of the High Park Hill subdivision. due the differences of the developer due the differences in developers and lot sizes and the way High Park Hill phases five and six are physically separated from the initial four phases. Uh there's in the original application two gates were proposed. One to the west of uh phases five and six along foreign drive and one in between uh phases five and six and Majestic Meadows and King Chapel. These gates are not planned to be moved or removed as part of this app new application. During the approval of the subdivision, residents of King Chapel had concerns

about allowing Hart Park Hill residents to access King's Chapel. And as part of the original plan, the part of the developer plan today, the existing gate on Majestic Meadows will be relocated to behind the High Park Hill entrance, preventing any residents or traffic from High Park Hill and uh to enter King's Chapel or King's Chapel to enter High Park Hill. in reviewing the original traffic impact study for the High Park Hill phase five and six development that was completed and submitted as part of the original application in 2013 uh 2023. The full use of Majestic Meadows Drive for the residents of phases five and six was accounted for. As part of that this application, we've consulted a second traffic engineer to review the currently approved subdivision access and our proposed access to help determine if our proposed removal of the emergency access restriction would be a benefit in and in the traffic engineers letter that was sent to you all by the developer, it showed that the use of Majestic Meadows would help disperse traffic and better allow for less traffic through High Park Hill phases 1 through 4. The developers had held several public meetings for the residents of King's Chapel to present this plan and get feedback from them and has decided to have the HOA of High Park Hill phases 5 and six bear the sole cost of maintenance for Majestic Meadows from its entrance drive to Majestic Meadows to Highway 96. Removing the maintenance from King's Chapel. Additionally, coinciding with the relocation of the existing King's Chapel Gate on Majestic Meadows Drive to behind High Park Hill phases five and six entrance, the open space along Majestic Meadows will be fenced and a trail constructed to allow the open space to better serve as an amenity to the King's Chapel subdivision. Uh, I'd

like to defer my time to the developer uh for the subdivision, Greg Davis. [applause]

Chairman, members of the planning commission and staff, uh my name is Greg Davis. I know that I am a new name and face to you. Um but I've actually been involved in King's Chapel for over 10 years. Uh we were originally a lender uh to the project and in 2015 and then we've been actually the owner of King's Chapel since 2019. At that time, we reached an agreement with John Powell, who's the name I I know that you recognize, uh, for him to stay and remain the face of the project. And so, that's why you continue to see him, and he represented us in the development, but we've been the owner. Uh, and so the homes that you've seen developed, 170 homes in the back, this road that's been built, the bridge that was built, that was done by uh, my company with um, we we paid for it and we and we still own those things. Um, I'm very proud of King Chapel. I'm I'm proud of what we've done. And I think you've heard tonight uh people love it and it's a wonderful community and we're trying to do the same thing uh as we extend for High Park Hill sections five and six. Just to clarify something, I do not have anything to do with High Park Hill 1 through 4. Uh we've I'm not involved in that. I think the proposal tonight makes sense. I think it's what's best for both communities. I just will quickly share three points. Um one on the safety. We're taking a road that has no homes on it that is as we've heard. I know there's a difference of opinion, but I believe it's mostly empty. Every time I drive on it, I don't see a lot of cars. And we're shifting traffic from a very densely populated road in High Park Hill to this empty road. And that I think is better traffic flow for Williamson County. I think it makes sense. Um secondly, we're keeping we're maintaining separation between the two communities. I know that's been something that's been important. Uh with the gate moved back, the no traffic will go between the the two communities. there's no internal connection. So the communities will be separate and the integrity of those communities will remain remain um and the exclusivity of those communities will remain. Uh lastly, I

think it it relieves some of the financial burden for King Chapel. Uh as you've heard, High Park Hill sections five and six will pay for the maintenance of the road and also the landscaping along the road. They'll make sure it's maintained and cut down. And then we proposed some other things if uh this if this is approved tonight. Uh as you've heard some of the things that we proposed to the community that we're uh we're building additional walking trails. Um we're building a gate from the new gate entrance that protects the open space so the cars couldn't go around and makes it we believe safer. Uh we're putting a new top coat on a main section of of King Chapel and we're relieving some debt that is owed to the estate of John Powell. Uh my company is going to pay that instead of the HOA. So, we feel like we're we're helping the residents of the King Chapel, and we think it makes sense. So, I appreciate you listening. Um, I'm asking for your support tonight to approve this change. And I'm going to close by turning over to my attorney, um, Sean Henry, to say something. And I'm happy to stay and answer questions. Um, but I'll be here if it's okay.

Please stay here. Yes. Okay.

Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, my name is Sean Henry. I'm a land use attorney representing Mr. Davis and his uh company that owns the property in which Majestic Drives is located. One of the reasons we want to get back in front of you all was to clarify some of the statements that we had seen on prior videos during prior meetings that that occurred last year and years before. Uh this property again is owned by Ashb Communities HPH LLC. That's Mr. Davis's company. It's not owned by that property and the road is not owned by King's Chapel HOA. In fact, none of the roads yet have been turned over to the HOA. They will be and that process is is getting underway and will be done this year in 2026, but presently Mr. Davis and his development company owns owns those streets. Um, one of the important things here, and I think you've probably heard it as basis for supporting this proposal, is that uh the the section of this road for maintenance purposes, the folks in King's Chapel uh will be relieved of that maintenance burden uh and and frankly the liability burden that they that they presently have uh that'll be borne by the new section five and six within High Park Hill. uh the character of Majestic Meadows. You've heard a lot of people comment that they're concerned about the change in Majestic Meadows Drive, particularly if they're using that for walking, running, biking, or what have you. Uh of course, some of those things are not supposed to occur on a on a street, whether the street's public or private. Uh the separation of that kind of activity is safer for those individuals and those residents who are who are doing that activity. Uh and my client is proposing to do just that. So, the use of uh Majestic Meadows will become safer because it'll be limited to vehicle traffic and not a joint use road uh for pedestrians. Um, and I want to

read real quick the conclusion by the traffic engineer Gillian Fishbach, who uh concluded her analysis, stating that it's appropriate to include connectivity to Majestic Meadows Drive in order to adequately distribute the traffic and it would help limit the impact of the traffic volumes on the residents of High Park Hill without adding traffic volumes within the gated roadways inside King's Chapel. So you have a cohesive development pattern here with two subdivisions using private roads and we're talking about this one very limited change that will only increase the safety and security uh of of all the residents that live within it and so we ask for your support and your approval. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause] ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO TO THE COMMISSION NOW IF there's any questions of the applicant or of staff on this item. I I do have a question. One of the original reasons for having this as emergency access only was because the max lock count had been hit and there was not a desire to co-mingle amenities and things like that and have access between the two. um staff is comfortable that this still maintains and and addresses that.

Yes, sir. So, the the the relocation of the gate will make them still two distinct individual subdivisions. So, the residents of High Park Hill won't be able to access King's Chapel and the residents of King's Chapel will not be able to access High Park Hill. So, is there ever a scenario where access codes could be shared or given um between the two HOAs? And just just a thought and a question. So, I'll leave that to the developer. I'm not I I don't know how to answer. Of course, that's making the assumption of residents and how they interact with each other

or even the HOA could make that decision to give access to amenities and things like that. So, I know some of that may be beyond your control after it's turned over, but yeah, I it is not our intent to have any code shared. Any other questions? I have some comments. Yes, ma'am.

Uh I'm glad you clarified about the subdivisions being uh some of the emails we were getting, it kept referring to a subdivision called Fox Farm, and I'd not heard of Fox Farm before. So, I'm glad I'm glad that you clarified that it is part of uh the High Park Hill. You know, when we approved this uh subdivision, even we talked about this gate last year when John was still with us. Um everyone knew that this was going to be a part of High Park Hills. That's why it was approved. It was going to be a gated part of High Park Hills. Like, we have a lot of subdivisions. So, it's not a part of King's Chapel. And I think we were very clear on that. back when we approved the emergency gate. I know out in Stevens Valley there's an emergency gate through another subdivision as well. We talked a lot about that. So, um I'm just wondering when when the residents in High Park Hills, have they always known that this was going to be a gated part part of their subdivision and that all those cars from that part would be coming through their sub I mean they would be coming through the main entrances. There was never a talk about it going through the King's Chapel private road. I know you own the road now, but it it is actually going to be King's Chapel when you turn it over. So, it's still their road even if the high even if sections five and six main do the maintenance on it. It still belongs to King's Chapel, not High Park Hills. Correct.

That is the intent that it would be turned over to the HOA. And also the other comment um someone made about it being it's going to be the common area and what if they want to do something future there and um you know you've got what 235 homes that are going to be in sections five and six. No 78 homes. Oh 78 homes. So you've got 78 homes and I don't know two or 300 cars that going to be coming through there when it's completed. It's a lot of cars to me going on a private road that's owned by someone else. even if you're maintaining it. And I'm just there's not a question. I'm just making comments about it.

Different people were talking about the uh the legal process. If there was an accident there or someone got hit that's that lives in King's Chapel. I mean, who's going to be responsible with that? Is my mic on? Okay. Yeah, I can hear. Okay. Thanks. Um, I was saying that it's still a private road. It's owned by King's Chapel and it's going to be used by a whole completely different subdivision. So, if there is accidents on it, who's actually going to be responsible for that? Uh, I mean, it would be I think in the insurance of the HOA, they would that's where it would be covered. Uh, which HOA?

Well, the maintenance of the the maintenance of the road is is taken by H Park Hill, sections five and six. Um, and I actually I don't know the answer on that in terms of I mean normally HOAs I've been on a board of an HOA is my own personal residence and they carry liability insurance with that type of thing but this would be carrying liability insurance for another HOA's property right but you because there's an easement that would be granted you can have an insurance policy that would cover that. Any other questions on this item?

I've got a question about the traffic study. Did the traffic study indicate a necessity to upgrade the turning lane into Majestic Meadows as part of the findings of the traffic study? Um, I can I can answer.

Somebody had raised a question about the concern of of the the volume of traffic turning into Magic Meadows and then maybe the necessity to upgrade that turning lane. Did the traffic study reflect? read an original traffic study in uh 2023 and accounted for that. It did a study and determined that the turn lanes had already been installed at that time and they were adequate for the added trips. You know, one thing I will add about the trip distribution, you know, it um you know, when when our traffic engineer looked at it, she looked at the entire King's Chapel subdivision determined it was about 170 homes towards the back that would primarily use Majestic Meadows. And looking at the peak hour trips, the total peak hour trips that are existing from King's Chapel. Uh in the AM total about um 120 both entering and exiting and in the evening peak hour it is about 160. Um the added trips from High Park Hill would total about 60 during the AM and PE and PM peak hours. So, we're talking about adding maybe a car a minute is essentially how to how to view that.

I've got a question on that same topic, but was that traffic study adding the extra houses that's coming off of five and six? Correct. Yeah, that that extra 60 cars a minute is is specifically from phases five and six. Got it. But not not 60 a minute. Not 60. No, sorry. Yeah, 60 60 cars per the AM peak hour and PM pick hour. Sorry. Thanks.

I have a question. Um, in the letter that you provided to us, Mr. Davis, that's dated January 5th, in your third bullet point, you say reduced cost burden for King's Chapel. The HOA for High Park Hill sections five and six will assume the cost for the shared portion of Majestic Meadows Drive equitably redistributing the road maintenance burden between the two communities. But I think tonight you're saying actually High Park Hill 5 and six just that HOA would take on the road maintenance burden. Is that true?

Yes. And that's what I meant to say there. if that is confusing. I did not I meant to say that what you just said five and six will carry the maintenance. And so that was a point that was brought up by someone earlier um that the High Park Hill phases one through four and a financial burden on them versus High Park Hill section five and six. And you're making that clear that it would be only five and six the HOA for that would be responsible for this additional road maintenance.

Correct. Any other questions? I have a question. Also, I'm thinking maybe for um Christy Ransom regarding this whole like ownership of this road versus maintenance and how liability, how might that work and how does that come into play?

Well, so there's a couple of different ways that it can be accomplished and and and given the different parties involved, I'll probably be looking to developers attorney for like a belt and suspenders aspect to it. um the ownership would remain with the HOA of King's Chapel, but I would think that they would have to address it not only in the CCRs of both entities. It sounds like there's going to be a separate uh CCR section covenants and restrictions for that section five and six. So, I would look for the CCRs of the entities to address that. But then also, it it sounds to me like, and again, I would discuss this with the developer's attorney, um that there would need to be perhaps an access easement, um a maintenance agreement. Um so any one of those things could probably address it, but in this case, I think for extreme clarity purposes, I'd be looking to a couple of those different instruments to address it. And that's something that the staff would require to be submitted um that I would have to review and advise you all on before um those sections are allowed to access it. One more question um related to the idea of the fence and the walking trail. Is that something that I I don't see that in writing before us? And how does that factor into um how this could all work out? I mean, it seems like that's what the residents are in favor of and it's something that you're offering as a kind of not compromise, but you know, an added benefit to the King's Chapel neighborhood with this change. And so I'm just wondering how you are going to document that for them.

Just fair comment and you are right that is it was a concession. I don't know the right word, but we're we're trying to make it so it's a win-win for both communities. Um, and I have publicly uh represented that we're doing those things and you are correct. It's not in a legal contract right now. Um, but we're happy to stipulate that that would be the case of what we're doing. Um, if that's a requirement from the planning commission. So, but I have I have shared it publicly in documents with the community that we're doing that. So, those approval should you approve this? Okay. question.

So, if if it's approved and the fence and the walking trails and the sidewalks in your mind, what would be the timeline of all that being completed? I know that's a

right. That's it's I we are not in planning on holding off. It would just be it would be planned to do it the next I mean and we could put a stipulation on the timing but it's we were planning on doing it pretty quickly. I will say on the the re doing the retop coating of the one road we have to we want to let the construction traffic finish in section 15. There's still a few more homes being built because then that's where the trucks come in. So we want to let that be finished before we re top coat that road. But everything else could happen pretty quickly. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

And from everything I've heard so far, am I correct that both the homeowners associations are in agreement with this since they're going to be sharing expenses? Yeah. And I you can hear all this the chatter behind me. The declarant is still in control of the HOA. So the King Chapel HOA supports it, but it's is controlled by the declarant and the HO the HOA of High Park Hill. I believe I can't speak for them, but he spoke tonight and I believe he supports it. Thank you. Any other questions?

I just have one last comment. Um I'm going to go back to our meeting where we actually denied this for all the reasons that we denied it. it the road all we've gotten a lot of emails and I would probably say it's 5050ish for supporting it not supporting it um but I go back to when we denied it and put in the emergency gate because to me majestic is king's chap can you speak louder thank you

I said I go back to the meeting where we actually denied this so I'm I'm not totally sure why we're bringing it back up again other than uh John passed away John was here you know he was fine with us putting up the emergency gate. Um, so we're back here again voting and talking about the same thing. So I go back to that. It's two totally separate subdivisions. That is a King's Chapels Road. It's a it's a private road. You own it right now, but obviously it's going to the HOA because but you eventually it'll go back to the residents and you you manage the HOA currently. So, I mean, obviously y'all support this and the High Park Hills supports it as well, but I just go back to that road is a private road. It's their road. They bought into this subdivision knowing that that was going to be their own private road. All the residents of High Park Hill when they bought, they knew that this was going to be a gated part of their subdivisions and there are going to be winding roads. I know several people commented about the roads being so small and narrow, but they're actually approved standard subdivision roads, so there's really nothing, you know, they didn't go in and put small roads, you know, uh, in the subdivision, so they're standard. So, um, you know, maybe not a popular stance on it, but I just I go back to why we denied it to begin with because it is two totally different subdivisions. I know you're going to maintain it and all of that. There's a lot of legal issues that I'm sure you'll work out, but that's my comment on it and I'll probably

May I respond? Sure. Uh to me, as I watched the videos, I will admit I was not here in person when it was discussed. It seemed to me there was a lot of confusion on the planning commission and actually I felt like the feeling was that they actually were combining communities and that because of the where the gates were and emergency access it appeared and I remember there were several comments about not combining these two subdivisions and so we feel like we've handled that concern by moving the gate back and making them for sure two separate communities. So, they are sharing outside the gates the road, but there's no internal connection between the two communities.

That and you're correct. That is right. But it's still King's Chapel Road. It's still their road. So, that you now want access to for an area in another subdivision, which is not that common, but yes. So, that's all.

Anything else? I agree with Commissioner Bow and that we never at any time had thought of combining the subdivision. That was the biggest holdup we had was we didn't want them combined. There was no way of combining them and we are combining them now. So I think that's pretty that's kind of clear. Okay. There's any other questions? Seeing no other questions, do we have a motion on this item?

I move that we recommend approval in alignment with the staff recommendation with the amendment or that that a condition of approval is the publicly stated promises of a fence, walking trail, and road repaving. I think those are the three that I captured. Sidewalks. Sidewalks. Yes. Okay. So, fence, walking trail, sidewalks, and repaving and debt relief was also stated that those would be a condition of the approval plus all of the documents that will be required related to access, maintenance, etc.

Excuse me. Last time this came up, you guys. NO. [applause and cheering] NO. SIR, have a seat, sir. Have a seat, sir. Go back to the commission. Now, are you making You're making the motion. Do we have a second on that motion? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. Okay. Yeah. I

Well, can we have a raise of hands of ones? Let's have a raise of hands of the ones who want to approve this motion. One, two, three, five, six. Opposed. Two. Motion carries. [applause] Okay. The next next item on the public hearing is a concept plan uh revised for Highland Park subdivision containing 200.

It's High Park Hill. I'm sorry. High Park Hill subdivision containing 235 lots on 356 acres located on Murphy'sboro Road in the fifth voting district. Staff, Mr. Chairman, I'll wait just a moment while that's fine.

Yeah, we have to do it. We have to Six. Yes. And two. Yeah. There are 10. What was that? Two. Robin. Robin and Brian. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Steve, what about Steve?

Yes.

That's not What were you? I vote for Okay. Okay. So then that's

seven. Yes. Two no. And then one abstain.

Are we ready?

Okay. All right. Uh, this property is located off of Murreey'sboro Road. There was a revised concept plans were approved in both September 2023 and June 2024. Both revised concepts contained the condition that there be a single gated entry between High Park Hill and King's Chapel and that entry be limited to emergency vehicles and utilities utility service providers. And now the applicant is requesting approval to remove that condition from both High Park Hill and King's Chapel. The revised concept plan for King's Chapel was just was just voted on. [snorts] And again, one note for you is that we received the many emails about the Fox Farms that is part of High Park Hill for section five and six that was approved in September 23 as part of the development specific to High Park Hill. The June, excuse me, the June 2024 approval allowed the removal of the entry gates at the main entrance and the placement of an entry gate between section 3 and future sections of the development. You can see where the entry gate between section 3 and the future sections is located on Floren Drive. The developer noted that when the entry gate on Floren Drive is constructed that the residents from King's Chapel would not be able to access High Park Hill. The applicant's traffic consultant submitted a revised traffic analysis and it was reviewed by the county's traffic consultant. County's traffic consultant concurred with the findings. Additionally, the developer also noted that after the entry gate within High Park Hill has been constructed on Floren Drive, the residents of High Park Hill would be responsible for the maintenance of Majestics Meadows Drive from the relocated gate to Murphy'sboro Road. You can see the relocated gate there in the green. Majestic Meadows is the blue line and that goes to the south to Murphreey'sboro Road. Staff is of the

opinion that the construction of the entry gate for the exclusive use of the residents of High Park Hill and prohibits entry by the residents of King's Chapel serves to delineate the developments are two separate and distinct developments. And so long as item 28 was approved is recommended by the staff. Staff recommends approval of this revised concept plan with the previous conditions removing the stipulation that the one gate one gated connection between High Park Hill and King's Chapel be restricted to emergency vehicles and utility service providers be removed. That the HOA documents be revised to provide for the maintenance of Majestic Meadows Drive by High Park Hill. and that the revised HOA documents be submitted with the next final plat of both developments. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Okay. At this time, we will open up the for a public a public hearing. Uh you'll have a minute 15 seconds to state your case. I'll call your name and if you'll come forward and give us your name and address, please. I believe it's Justine Dell. Hi again, Justine Dell. Uh, High Park Hill, part of phase three. Um, for clarity asking for this to be approved, um, with the conditions that have been discussed to make sure that there's transparency. Uh the assumption that phases one through four knew anything about five and six is an assumption although there were public hearings that happened in 2023. High Park Hill started in 2022. So we would like the conditions that there is transparency and clarity on the HOAs and the CCRs for phase five and six also known as Fox Farms um or being referred to as such uh as well as all the liability associated with the gates from phase three end of uh off of Floren and Majestic Meadows. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. what I was trying to say earlier is last time you guys combined these two items because you're voting on the same thing and uh I didn't want to have to speak twice. So, but you guys have already voted. I'm not sure what you voted on because the restriction in the gate is actually on High Park Hill. So, I'm not sure what you guys just voted on with King's Chapel, but anyway, um this began as two separate private neighborhoods with no road connection. It became emergency only gate in the name of fire safety. I hope it's finally clear to some of you who have been

around that this was never about emergency access. It was always about connecting these neighborhoods. What should shock everyone here is the complete reversal in the staff's recommendation. They now recommend allowing full resident access when they previously recommended it be emergency only. Robin gets it. What she said was right on. Moving our entry gate up the road does not change the fact that this will be all King's Chapel property and that is our private roads that you're meddling in private property forcing one private neighborhood to allow another private neighborhood to use. Let me remind you because nobody seems to be talking about it. These lots already have an approved access through High Park Hill. This commission is not required to give a second entrance to them to build all the homes they've asked for.

They do not need King's Chapel Roads. Thank you, Cindy Jennings. James Kmitch. I am also a resident at 5428 uh Ayana Drive uh High Park Hill. Um I want to address a couple things. Um the exclusive use is I'm sorry, your name again, James Kuzzmich. Okay. Thank you.

Uh the exclusive access or exclusive use is only for five and six. One uh phases one and uh one through four of High Park Hill has no exclusivity whatsoever. Why we should have anything to do with paying for this road is beyond me. It should solely be for uh an expense for um five five and six. We are in favor of moving that gate and opening it up to uh um uh five and six, but we believe that those conditions that the costs be assessed only to five and six one through four have have nothing to do with it and we will never be on that road. Thank you, Cindy Jennings.

Okay. Uh Martin Leonard. Okay. Uh Jim Oh, Jim spoke earlier about that. Thank you. Uh Neil Barkley got you.

My name is Neil Booth. I live at 5435 Ayana Drive. Uh I just want to add two points to the approval here. We mentioned a lot about kids in High Park Hill. So this gate deviating traffic from going down streets that kids play on. I'll also add to that that there are two bus stops on Ayana and there are two bus stops on High Park Hill. Buses traverse those areas in the mornings, pick up children. Um so this traffic or this additional gate will move traffic to a road with no children with no bus stops. Um the second thing is the note of uh the HOA paying for the road and maintenance. Um it's been said a lot in this room tonight that it will be HOA burden of phase five and six. Uh I would like to see that clarified in the documentation. Um for us it says High Park Hill HOA will pay. That's where Jim's concern comes from. High Park Hill phase 1 through 4 will not have access to Majestic Meadows via a gate we don't have access to in our own community. So we do not feel as phase 1 through 4 we should be financially burdened by the maintenance of a road we cannot access. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause] First is Haley Katkov. My name's Haley Kaduth. I live at 5039 High Park Hill Drive. Um I don't have a lot to add um other than when High Park Hill residents were purchasing and writing our contracts to build in there. We were told that these lots we would be a part of King's Chapel, we were not told that these would be in High Park Hill. So that was news to us. who gave the wrong information, how they got it, I don't know. Um, but that message was not conveyed to us or personally, my family probably would not have bought in there. I have four kids and they are outside playing all the time with their friends. We have very small lots, very narrow driveways. There's a ton of parking on the streets. Um, so the kids play in the front yards, on the sidewalks, um, out in the street, they're out and about. So we that the concern of traffic and construction vehicles and emergency vehicles and at least 156 more cars coming through going to Fox Farms is a very big concern. So um and we don't want to go to King's Chapel. If we do, we have friends over there that, you know, come invite us over. So we're not trying to just peruse through King's Chapel and, you know, connecting the neighborhoods or anything like that. Thank you.

THANK YOU. [applause] OKAY, AT THIS TIME WE'LL CLOSE the public hearing. Is the applicant present?

Hi, Will Kronic with Kronic Engineering applicant representing the developer. Um, this time we don't have anything more to present, but we're here to answer any further questions you might have. Okay, feel hold there then. Anybody for any questions from the commission? I got a question and they they brought up a very valid point. Uh if five and six is basically going to be on their own and the one through four shouldn't have anything to do with paying for the upkeep of Majestic Meadows Drive or any of the other things. They're not even going to have access to it. Uh

that's correct. Yeah. Phases five and six will have their own HOA documents and own and the five and six HOA is going to take care of the costs and that's why you're calling it High Point Hill rather than and you're leaving out one through four as far as the cost of that.

Yeah, we we've been trying to say specifically five and six part of High Park Hills. Um, I'll just echo that because I don't think it was in our last amendment to that. We need to specifically say I don't I don't think there's going to be two different HOAs. I think there's one HOA and specifically five and six needs to it needs to be specific that they will be the um cover the maintenance of the roads and whatever else you're doing there. So maybe in this one we can amend it saying what you had plus specify it to five and six and hopefully all those homeowners will know that they have extra HOA dues because of it. I do want to clarify for some of our audience. Uh if they did not know that this sub five and six was not going to be a part of their subdivision, it was going to be called something else, then that's on I don't know who that's on. But when did when did we first approve this? Was it a year or so ago?

Yeah. When Yeah. So it's been over a year now that we know I mean this part of High Park Hills has been part of High Park Hills. So, if you didn't know about it, I'm sorry, but we've we've known about it here and um so yeah, thank you.

Any other questions on this item? Um, just wanted to make the statement that to me the difference between the request at in this meeting and when this came to us over a year ago is that we now have a traffic study that talks about the safety and the trip generation and how this is a good distribution for both neighborhoods and then also the maintenance responsibilities. What I remember from the last meeting, I don't remember any talk about that. So, to me, that's a change in what was presented. Um, as far as my condition of approval to the last item, I did mean for that to reference the High Park Hill HOA for phases five and six. So, I don't know if there's a way to clarify that for the record or if we state that in this item, that's enough. But, just wanted to ask that question. That was my understanding of your motion. Okay.

Um Okay. I I based on some of the conversation y'all had though, I want to make sure I understand um that specifically, if I recall, addressed the maintenance on Majestic Meadows. I don't believe that um which that you know it's King's Chapel. Now that we're talking about High Park Hill, you'all have mentioned Floor and Drive, the section of Flor and Drive that only five and six can access. So if that's a little bit different than the King's Chapel request. So if that's also part of the five and six maintenance issue, that would be a different condition of approval.

Any further questions? Seeing none, do we have a motion on this item? I would move for approval based on the staff's recommendation with a condition of approval that the High Park Hill phase five and six HOA has responsibility for both of the gates and the section of road roads all roads that are bounded by those gates. There we are.

And that they provide us with the documentation regarding the CCRs, the access easements, maintenance agreement, and other required legal documents. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second on this item? Second. We have a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed? Two opposed. Okay.

Yes. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Item number 30 is concept plan review for Clovercroft Estate subdivision containing 40 lots on 204 acres located off of Clovercraftoft Road in the fourth voting district. Staff,

Mr. Chairman, I'll wait just a moment. Okay. Okay. The property is located off of Clovercraftoft Road. Property totals 204.08 acres. 40 lot conservation subdivision is being proposed. This project will utilize is proposed to utilize the CR clovercraftoft preserve non-traditional wastewater treatment and disposal system for wastewater. And as required by article 20 section 20.05, a revised site plan for this system is required. For your reference, Clovercraftoft Preserve is to the west of the property or on the left hand side of the screen. A revised site plan for the system has not been submitted and therefore the use does not have an approved method of wastewater treatment and disposal. The applicant has set aside 4.33 acres of soils area for this, but no analysis was provided as to the area's capacity since the aforementioned site plan and the required detailed soils investigation report and design development report were not revised. Clovercross Preserves wastewater system was approved for 120 lots. The current clover preserve development is approved for 95 lots. The wastewater system for Clovercraftoft Preserve is insufficient to serve the proposed 40 lots. In order to submit a

revised wastewater site plan to address the wastewater treatment and disposal for the proposed development, a DDR, a DSIR, and a draft state operating permit from TC are required and also a certificate of convenience and necessity is required from TPU with proof that the property is in the utility service area. Now on the screen is the natural resource protection plan. staff reviewed this protection plan and noted that at least eight of the lots contain slopes in excess of 25%. You can see those slopes or excuse me those lots outlined in the circle in the blue and the red is the slopes in excess of 25%. These very steep slopes must be located in in open space. Staff notice noted numerous discrepancies with the submitted information regarding the development ownership including owner authorization and the deed showing ownership were not provided as a revised site plan for the wastewater treatment and disposal system has not been submitted let alone approved. The proposed use does not have an approved method of wastewater treatment and disposal. The application does not apply does not comply with the natural resource protection standards of the zoning among other noted deficiencies that were outlined in the staff report. And finally, staff does recommend denial of this concept plan. Now, earlier today, staff did receive a request by the applicant to defer the application, and Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we ask the the applicant to come up to for that deferral. Good evening, Mr. Chair, commissioners. My name is Joshua Denton. I'm a land use attorney uh here in Middle Tennessee. I live in Franklin. My office is in in Williamson County. I'm new to the team

as you all. I think Miss Ransom has sent my letter to the commission and I appreciate that. And I what I would say is um I was just engaged. My engagement letter was signed today. I started getting information on this yesterday. So, I'm the brand new guy and I am asking for a deferral uh so that we can continue to work on this. My understanding is that the applicant did not request to go on this agenda, but was placed on it. Um, and as detailed in my letter, I know it came late later today, but if you've had a chance to look at it, there was I don't know how else to say it, but kind of a snafu with another lawyer who had contacted Miss Ransom about this project. He did not represent the applicant. That was not made clear to her. But when that happened, as is normal course, because I've dealt with these folks many, many, many times, when we get involved, the lawyers are involved in communicating with staff. And so the applicant was trying to have communications with staff about these issues. And that was really not there was just a breakdown between the lawyer who had called and that message his message that he didn't actually represent the applicant didn't get made clear to Miss Ransom. So those lines of communications were stalled. Um when I when I got involved um just essentially yesterday, I've started talking to to Christie since yesterday and I think the evening before. Um we've submitted the owner I just got refreshed owner affidavits. I thought like let's neutralize this. So we've submitted those. We've submitted the deeds. There had been soil data and analysis done. We've gotten that in. Obviously, this is coming in late in the day for today, which again is why we're asking for the deferral. In addition, I've talked to the general counsel for Tennessee Wastewater, who has walked us through the the Tuck process, um, which is short of an application, which is a good thing, and that's that's already

underway, um, because it is contiguous and adjacent. Um, and the SOP is in the process of being drafted as well. So, we would ask that that the commission grant us a deferral. Again, to my understanding, we were we didn't ask to be on this agenda, and it is our first request for a deferral so that we can get that additional information into you and work with staff on this collaboratively. That's the hope. So, we would respectfully request that the development team is here, but um there's still much left to be to be worked through. So, we would appreciate the the commission's indulgence of that. Thank you. Any questions? Glad to take those. Well, that's fine. Okay.

Do we have a motion for a deferral for the applicant to defer this? I have a question. Um, is 30-day deferral adequate or does it need to be longer? I I wish I could say 30 would be great. I think I think March would be a better target. Um because some of the like the as I understand it the Tuck request which is again is in the process of being submitted by Tennessee Wastewater that's a noticed it's it's not an application but there is a waiting period once the notice is in. So I think March would be more realistic for us to have hopefully the draft SOP submitted very close to being submitted with all the additional information. So, we go.

I have a question. Um, if staff could confirm this, my understanding from my years on the planning commission is that the procedure outlined in the county's regulations is that you submit the wastewater plan first, that gets approved, and then you submit the concept plan. Is that correct? Can you walk us through what's outlined in the regulations?

The sub article 20 section 20.05 requires that a wastewater site plan be submitted for the wastewater treatment system on it and then the concept plan comes in for the for the system it's going to use and so that would be the process by which to this should have gone through. Yes. Right. and the staff's assessment, I think, in the report is that procedure wasn't followed and that's part of why you're recommending that we deny this concept plan. Yes, that is correct. And well, just just a minor point of clarification.

Um I I believe it's I believe it's set up to where the wastewater site plan doesn't have to be submitted and then the concept plan. they can be submitted in conjunction and and typically are submitted in conjunction. And so I wanted to make that clarification. And what we usually see from my memory is that there's an agenda item for the wastewater plan. We would vote to approve that and then maybe the next thing is the concept plan. That might be the next agenda item. Yes. Because you cannot approve a concept plan if there's not an approved source of wastewater.

Right. And in this case, um, there has to be a revised wastewater system site plan because the capacity of the existing system on the neighboring property isn't sufficient to also cover the 40 lots proposed here. Right. Based on that, then I move that we recommend denial in alliance with the staff's recommendation. I'm sorry. Was there a motion on the floor for deferral first? No. No. I asked for one, but we No, but I didn't get a vote on it. We asked a question. Is it accurate that they didn't request to be on the agenda? Hold up. Sorry.

Was there a motion for a deferral made? And if if there was one, there wasn't a second. Correct. And so you have made a motion for denial. I just ask a question. [clears throat] Just as about 30 or 60. I didn't make a motion. Okay. And so now there's a motion for denial. And so there needs to be a second of that or it die and then you can have further discussion. Right. Okay. So we have a a motion to for denial. Do we have a second on that motion? Second. Have a motion to second. All in favor say

now there's some additional discussion because you had some questions that were pending but I didn't want it to come up until there was a second on the motion. Did do you want me to restate the question? Yes, please. Did they did they in fact not ask to be on the agenda? I was not told they would did not want to be on the agenda. My impression they want it to be on the agenda. Okay. So, is second question is a deferral versus denial going to impede them from reapplying? I mean, it doesn't restrict anything in the future. It's more semantics if I'm

unless I'm missing. Yes, please. Okay. So, in this case, the zoning ordinance was amended to change the setbacks. This was filed before the county commission took action on the setback change. If this is denied, it will be a new application that they will come in with meeting the new standard in the zoning ordinance. If it's also not filed before Monday and assuming the county commission approves the new zoning section related to utility information, that will also have to be provided with a new application. So, there is a distinct difference to this applicant on a deferral versus a denial. Now, Josh and I had a conversation about pending ordinance doc doctrines that I haven't researched at all. So, I'm just going to throw that out there, but that may still be an issue. But in terms of the applicable zoning ordinance provisions, it does make a distinct difference in a deferral versus a denial. Now, you know, it's up to you all to decide that, but I want you to understand the implications of one versus the other.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. But at this time, we have a motion and a second on this item to defer it. To deny to deny it. I'm sorry. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. No. Have a show of hands on how many approve of it?

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Opposed? One, two, three. What's the 7 to three to deny it?

Thank you. Next item, item 31 is a site plan review for a vontra subdivision hilltop pavilion on 42.04 acres located off of Meek's Road in the fifth voting district. Staff,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. Property is located off of Bontter Drive. There you see Baron Drive in the red. This site plan contains zero buildable lots. The site plan is to add a pavilion in the blue, a fire pit in the yellow, and a walking trail in the brown located in 42.04 acres of open space. Hilltop protection standards have been met. Amenity center improvements requires planning commission review and staff recommends approval of the standard condition outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Is the applicant present?

Good evening. Allison Corola with Tsquare Engineering. I'm here to answer any questions. Really just requesting your approval. This is a pretty simple uh amenity request at at the existing Bonara subdivision. Um just hoping to get that um pavilion added for the residents as well as that fire pit up in there. Thank you. Yes, sir. Are any questions of the applicant? I have a question. Um, I don't know a lot about the Hilltop recommendations or regulations, I'm sorry. So, what exactly is it meeting? I'm familiar with this subdivision. So, what is it meeting? What are the hilltop regulations?

So, they can only disturb 20% of the hilltop and then 80% has to be preserved. So they're not disturbing more than 20% of the entire hilltop. Is the road up there to the top kind of the top right a little bit? Is that the main road coming in? The road arching around the amenity is the main road. Now from Meek's road, is that the road at the top here that's not in highlight? Correct. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. So when you come in, you'll turn right and you'll go down. There's not a there's not a lot of tree coverage there or anything, is there? I don't recall.

It's just a walking path that we're proposing, not a drive accessible up to the pavilion. Okay. The arching road is where a majority of the homes are located. I apologize for that confusion. Any other questions? Do we have a motion on this item? Move for approval based. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you all.

Item number 32 is Chestnut Hills Farms which was on the consent as a deferral. Item number 33, preliminary plant review for Grove subdivision containing 14 lots. I'm I'm sorry. Phase 14 containing seven lots on 6.49 acres located off of Udelli Coington Road in the second voting district. Staff, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The propertyy's located off Wildings Boulevard. There you see Wildings Boulevard in the red. This phase total 6.49 acres. There you see the property boundaries in the in the blue. This will consist of seven lots. There you see the seven lots in the pink and and white. It's in there's also 2.9 acres of open space in the green. The water is provided by Milcraftoft and utility district. Lots are served by a nontraditional wastewater treatment and disposal system. This phase is consistent with the revised concept plan and staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Is applicant present on this one? Nobody here. [laughter] Okay. All right. Do we have any questions on this item? Do we have a motion on this item? Move to approve for staff recommendations. Motion is second. All in favor signify by saying I.

Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Now item 34 is election offices but we'll if you with the permission of the commission we'll do this non agenda item first and then we'll do the election final PL review for James A. So LLC subdivision uh sub Soal and Kimble subdivision LLC containing two lots on 11.95 acres located off Meek's Road in the fifth voting district. Staff.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this project was originally approved at the October 2025 meeting. Uh the plat wasn't recorded within the required 60 days. Thus, it was um it uh was expired. It is located off Meeks Road, as you can see in red in the upper left corner of the screen. Uh the development totals 11.95 acres. It consists of two lots as you can see in green. Um the shared access easement is in yellow. Uh building envelopes are separated by 200 feet and all habitable structures will have fire sprinklers. Water will be provided by the Milcraftoft and utility district. Wastewater uh will be handled by a non-traditional wastewater treatment and disposal system. Uh this particular final plat is consistent still consistent with the preliminary plat and staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Any questions on this item? Yes, ma'am. Do we know why the applicant failed to record the final plat within the allotted time? uh they he didn't have there were some additional requirements of the water district uh that they didn't they didn't get those done in time. I'm not sure why it took them so long, but they they didn't get it done in time. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Do we have a motion on this item? A motion, a second. All in favor signify by saying I.

Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. The last item, item 34 is election of offices for 2026. We'll now open the nomination for chairman. Sammy. Okay. Have a motion, a second for Sammy McCoy. Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Seeing none, we'll close the nomination. All in fa favor of Sammy McCoy being chairman signify by saying I.

I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Now for the vice chairman. We'll open the nominations at this time for vice chairman from 2026. Nominate Don Crowan. Second. Do we have any other nominations? Any other nominations? Seeing none, we'll close the nominations. All in favor, signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. We'll open up nomination now for the secretary, our current secretary. Do we have nominations? Aaron Holmes for secretary. Have a motion and a second. I'm sorry. Motion and a second for Aaron Holmes for secretary. Any other nominations? Any other nominations? All in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.

Now we'll open up the nominations for current secretary pro 10. Do we have nominations? James. James. Any other nominations? Any other nominations? We'll now close the nominations. All in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Congratulations everybody. [laughter]

All right. Is any other business? It's It's early. Everybody wants to go home. [laughter] We're adjourned. Thank you.