Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll call the meeting to order. Um, roll call. Do we have a quorum? One, two, three, four, seven. All right, we got a quorum. Thank you for those that that made it tonight. Um, first off, we'll go to staff for announcements.

U, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item number 28 from your agenda has been withdrawn. Items number 19 and 20 are on your consent agenda as deferrals. And we do have a request for a non-aggenda item for the Terra Vista roads drainage and erosion control bond update. We will also need an action in order to add that to the end of your agenda. Okay, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um, we need to take action on the uh item 29, Miss Sharon. Yes, I am recusing myself of that motion.

Okay, thank you. Um, we need to take action to add the non-aggenda item and uh do I have a motion to add that? Motion to add the non agenda item. Second. Uh, all those in favor say I. All those opposed? Motion passes. All right, we move on to um the public comment period. And so let's just make sure I've got this right. These are the agenda items, right? And this is okay.

And uh so uh during the public comment period, we we do have two people signed up. There will be a three minute max uh for public comment. And um when you step to the podium, please tell us your name and address and and and we'll go from there. Uh p first person is Peggy Zakus. Zukus, sorry. Thank you. I'm going to say my name and where I live. Is that all right? Yeah, that' be great. Thank you.

My name is Peggy Zukas. I live on 66 Daily Cington Road in College Grove. And my question is with the Joy Bell subdivision that's going to be built right across the street from me. And I just have a couple of questions. Um I didn't know um there's 12 houses going in and if there if they are required to follow any dark sky lighting. I know was thought that was put in but I don't know certain subdivisions have that because my view right now is darkness and that's what I like and when the subdivision comes in I may lose that and I know the Grove came in near me I felt like they did a really good job not seeing a huge subdivision where Falls Grove when they moved in it looks like a city on a hill. They didn't use any dark sky lighting in my opinion. So, I'd like to know if that's possible. And um I didn't know if the number of homes could change. Could it increase or decrease after this hearing? Is it set at for 12 homes or could they build more? Um they said they would save 96 96% of the tree canopy. I don't know if that can change after this after they speak today. I don't know what can be done about that. I'm glad they're keeping 96%, but I don't know if that will stay put. And um the gated entrance, I don't know if it's going to be well lit. The Grove did a good job with their gated entrance. We don't have a lot of bright lights. Falls Grove, you see it. So, I didn't know if if as a um neighbor if I could request dark sky lighting in that in the gated area. Um I don't know how many months this might take for them to build these 12 homes. They're very large. Most of them are eight bedrooms and I think

the lowest one is five bedrooms. So, I don't know how many months. And our road we do have some I wouldn't call them bridges where they have culberts and um already we're having breakage on one side. I don't know how many heavy trucks are going to come back and forth across from me because the culvert it's just right over next to my well maybe 10 15 feet from my driveway. So I just curious about that and um I think that's it. But I do appreciate you keeping Williamson County as pretty as you have. I've been to other counties, Rutherford County, people who live there, they say, "How do you keep your county looking so pretty?" And I go, "Regulations, zoning. We have a good planning board." So, I appreciate what you've done. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. Next is uh Gerald Wigger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just uh out of an overabundance of caution making sure that we were going Excuse me. I represent Terra Vista Homeowners Association and I wanted to make sure that we were heard this evening. That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, that closes our public comment period. Um that commissioners can ask questions. Okay, cool. All right. The um consideration of minutes. Were there any comments on the minutes from last month? Thank you. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Um consent agenda, Miss Hatcher.

Yes, I am recusing myself of the consent agenda. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh we'll take up the uh consideration of the consent agenda. Um are there any items we need to discuss further or take it as a whole? Do I have a motion? Motion to accept consent. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I.

All those opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to item number 16, old business concept plan review for the keep at Arrington subdivision containing 13 lots on 88.83 acres located off of Haley Lane in the fifth voting district. Staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll zoom in on the um on the property and get a close-up view. Um here's a natural protection plan. They do have some moderate and very steep slopes on the property. Uh pocket of woodlands are shown in in the green. I do have some wetlands in the light green and 15% of the site will remain an open space and 64% of the trees will be retained. [Applause] Thank you. Is that it?

Mine is stuck as well. I can go down to the computer if you want.

Technical difficulties, sir. It's frozen. Yeah, just go ahead and close it out. Let's restart it real quick. Mr. Chairman, give us just a moment to get it restarted.

Yes, sounds good. Speech. Speech. Speech. should be right on your desktop.

No, it should be right there. It takes go up one more up. Should say October. How are they protecting these rocks? Yeah. October action. What's that in England? Stony at the bottom.

Okay. There's the there's the property. I've gone over the natural resource protection plan. And here's the concept plan. It's located off of Haley Lane. There you see Haley Lane Haley Lane in the red. Property total is 88.03 acres. It's a 13 lot traditional subdivision. There you you see the lots coming up in in the aqua. The density is 74 units per 5 acres. The lots are between 5.04 to 6.23 acres in size. There'll be 13.2 acres of open space in the dark green. The roads will be public and no turn no turn lanes are required. There you see the road network in in the yellow. This is the Nollesville College Grove Utility District for water service. The service will be handled by individual septic systems and staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Thank you. Any further questions here on item number 16? Chairman, I'd like to recuse myself. Okay. Thank you. Make a motion. I have a motion and a second for item 16. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to item 17, preliminary plat review for Marlo Meadows at Carl Carl Road large lot easement subdivision containing five lots on 108.66 acres located off Carl Road in the 9inth voting district. Staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this property is located off Carl Road. There you see Carl Road in red. The development total is 108.66 acres. Consists of five lots is large lot easement subdivision. The lots that will be accessed by an access easement. There you see the access easements in the yellow. The resource protection standards have been met. The building envelopes have been separated by 200 200 feet and the fire apparatus standards will will apply. The water will be provided by the HB&Ts utility district. Waste water will be handled via individual on-site septic systems and staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Thank you. Any questions on item 17? Thank you. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I.

All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to item 18, final plat review for James Soal large lot easement subdivision aka James M. Soal and Kendall Soal property large lot easement subdivision containing two lots on 11.95 acres located off Meek's road in the fifth voting district. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The property is located off of Meeks Road, shown in red in the top left of the screen. The development total is 11.95 acres in size and will contain two lots shown in the teal. Uh the property will be accessed via a shared access easement shown in the yellow on the left of the screen. Building envelopes will be separated by 200 feet and all habitable structures will have fire sprinklers. Water is provided by the Milcraftoft and Utility District. Wastewater is handled by non-traditional wastewater treatment and disposal system and apologies that is from Stags Leap. This plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and staff recommends approval of the standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Thank you. Any questions on item 18 for approval based on staff? I have a motion to have a second. I have a motion and second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Items 19 and 20 were on consent agenda. So we will move on to public hearings. Item 21, amendments to articles 11 and 23 of the Williamson County zoning ordinance regarding private airports, landing strips, and helports. So we'll start with staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, this item was deferred in at your August planning commission in order to allow staff to um excuse me to look at the amendment again. So, an a potential applicant approached the staff to relocate an existing runway that was on his property. The applicant does reside on the property and the landing strip is for his own personal use. And the relocated part the relocated landing strip would be on a group of parcels to totaling around 1300 acres and that's in the RP5 zoning district. When we initially classified the use, we classified it as an airport landing strip and helport private. And as we started to look at this, we felt it was overly broad. And so we felt that the airports for personal use should be carved out and we should create a specific accessory use for those. So this will take several amendments to the zoning orders. First one that you see on the screen in front of you is to rename the airport landing strips and helports private to airport and helport private. So this will differentiate the accessory one we're about to discuss. And so we also have to rename the specific subsection in which that appears. So on your screen in front of you, this is what we are proposing. We're proposing to change to add a new use type called landing strip and teleport private. This will be an accessory use and it must be accessory to an existing agricultural or residential use. It will be considered a special use in our voluntary a district, the RP5 district, the RD5 district, and the village districts. And so there are a couple of um things I want to point out. So first, they must be accessory to the egg use and residential use. As I just mentioned, there would be a maximum of

two aircraft and one helicopter stored on the property. There would only be one landing strip or hel he helipad on the property. So either or, not both. And then the setbacks we feel are most important is 1,000 ft from the property line to the end of the runway. This is measured collinear, a straight line from the center line of the landing strip. And this accommodates the flight patterns. 200 feet from the property line on either side of the runway along all points on the runway. So at all points the runway will have to be 200 feet away from the property line, a minimum of 1,000 ft from any residential structure, and then all buildings shall be set back a minimum of 100 ft from any roadway or the property line. And additionally, that no storage of of aircraft or helicopters is permitted in the above setbacks except when stored inside. And then we would have to amend the definitions to add the definition of collinear. What you see at the bottom of the screen. Staff does recommend approval of this of the proposed amendments and that the attached resolution be presented forwarded to the county commission for consideration.

Thank you. So first item is to open the public meeting but we do not have nobody signed up for this article. So that's correct. Um we will we will close the public meeting and uh our public hearing on this item and move to questions from planning commissioners. Yes sir. Mr. Question foot from residential structures if the the land next to it is vacant uh does does this affect the way the people can put uh their house on their property? keep it a th000 foot away.

It does not. No. So, they can place it wherever. They're aware that the runway is there when they purchase the property and begin to build their home. Okay. And how about the lighting and the the time period that be used? So, that would be that would the lighting would be the FAA part of it, the Federal Administration, whatever or aviation administration, what they require for it. And then the the time of use. Are you referring to land takeoff and landings? What time they could do it? That would also be an FAA requirement. But it my question on that is if it goes before the board of zoning appeals, uh, we keep the lighting from going onto other people's property.

Yes, that's correct. Yes. And so that would pertain to this also. That is correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Do we have any other questions? [Applause] Do we have a a motion on item number 21? Thank you. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to item number 22. Again, under public hearings, amendment to articles 10, 14, and 20 of the Williamson County zoning ordinance regarding conservation subdivisions. Staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, recently the planning commission reviewed a concept plan and a site uh for a conservation subdivision and a site plan for a non-traditional wastewater item. You deferred this item both 19 and 20 this evening for that. And so following that meeting, we had um several county commissioners express their concerns to us about the existing regulations for conservation subdivisions. More specifically, they were regarding the minimum lot size permitted for conservation subdivisions, the width of the open space strip required between adjoining properties and the development, the visibility of those homes within the development from existing roads, and the lack of a buffer or a setback requirement for components of a wastewater system uh treatment and disposal system to a cemetery. So presently within the RD5 and RP5 districts, the minimum lot size for a lot within a conservation subdivision is a quarter of quarter of an acre, 1/4 of an acre. And the required open space strip varies in size between 50 and 150 ft depending upon the size of the lot nearest the adjoining property. And finally, the current regulations, there are no setback requirements for any of the components of a wastewater system from a cemetery. So on the screen and on your screen, we are proposing that we change the minimum lot area in conservation subdivisions within the RP5 and RD5 district, that's the first two, from a quarter of an acre to a half an acre. Then in article 14, we are going to we're asking to add a new table for the required open space strip buffer between building lots and the adjoining properties that will also be within the RP5 and RD5 districts. So as you can see on your screen for for a track of 5

acres or greater it would be 50 ft. And between 1 acre and 5 acres the new distance would be 150 ft. and then a half a acre to an acre is 250 ft. The next one is to add a new subsection regarding the streetscape. And so where it cannot be conclusively determined through cross-section drawings, tree surveys, etc. that the homes within the development will not be seen from an existing public road any time during the year. The streetscape landscaping outlined in article 15 of the zoning ordinance shall be doubled. And then finally, two additional ones. We do need to change some numbering systems. So that's the next one down. And then finally is to amend article 20 to add a minimum of a 100 ft buffer from a cemetery for the disposal and storage pond, the treatment the disposal and storage pond for the nontraditional wastewater system and a 300 ft buffer from a cemetery and the the treatment facility. So those we sent those out to you. We sent the amendments in their entirety out to you in your package. We do recommend approval of all of the proposed text amendments and that the attached resolution be forwarded to the county commission with a recommendation for adoption. Thank you. Um we first have a public hearing and so we'll open that up and and hear from uh three people. And I ask that you keep your time limit to three minutes on this. And uh first will be Judy Herbert. Good afternoon y'all. I'm Judy Herbert and I'm the second district county

commissioner. And when I heard these amendments, I was so excited. I can't begin to tell y'all. I'm begging you to vote yes. It is wonderful. It it it does that fine line between allowing growth and but preserving the rural area. And I just want to thank Aaron and Mike and Christie for getting to this so quickly and getting this done. And please vote yes because I think this is wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Mark Gerald Gerard, I believe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is Mark Gerard. Uh, I'm a retired attorney and my wife is a retired college and hospital vice president. We live in College Grove here in the county. So, I appear tonight on behalf of a number of concerned county homeowners. I rise tonight to object to the proposed amendments for three principal reasons. First, I would submit that deferment is appropriate. Um, to my knowledge, the public was not given adequate notice and has not had a fair opportunity to review or comment on these proposed changes which we believe were just made available. Given their importance, it would be premature and improper to proceed without further public engagement. Second, the underlying zoning ordinance concerning conservation subdivisions is flawed. While staff acknowledges that multiple concerns have been raised, including by some of you uh regarding the existing rags, the proposed amendments do not address those concerns satisfactorily. And while I appreciate Miss Herbert's comments, I' I'd uh respectfully offer a few of my thoughts on this. Um they are only mean minor tweaks uh that are being proposed to what is a deeply flawed framework to begin with. On behalf of many county residents, particularly those in the rural districts, the RD and RP5 districts, we maintain that the exemption should be repealed in its entirety. The exemption itself squarely contradicts this county's comprehensive growth plan, one entitled Williamson 2040. The purpose and intent, which as stated is to preserve rural character, reduce traffic congestion, guide growth into and around existing limited developed areas, particularly around the I65 and I840 corridors. Yet, this exemption allows precisely the opposite, and subdivisions are being advanced

contrary to that county plan. Williamson County's allure, its charm, I would suggest you agree with, is directly threatened by this pattern of dense rural development that is now masquerading as conservation. It's time for the commission to acknowledge that developers are exploiting this exemption. They're turning these projects into distasteful subdivisions that our county, our community has rejected. We view these developments as harbingers of sharply increased traffic, dangerous and irreversible environmental hazards, human safety risks resulting in a reduction in property value. The community's message is unmistakable. Enough is enough. We ask that these uh guidelines be uh repealed in their entirety. But if the commission fails to acknowledge and act on the electorate's request for outright appeal, at a minimum, we would request meaningful amendments that be made. They should require a minimum lot size of 2 and 1/2 acres and a minimum average lot size of three acres. Uh we are pleased to provide a redline version delineating our proposed approach if that helps the commission. Furthermore, these standards should apply to all pending applications before this commission for which a concept plan has not been finally approved.

Thank you. In closing, the issue is not merely procedural. It's foundational. It concerns the future of this county and whether growth will be guided uh in conjunction with our plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And final is uh Dory BS.

Hey, good evening. I'm Dory BS. I'm the founder and president of the Harpath Conservancy and um and we've all worked together for years. So, we all worked really hard on the Williamson County 2040 plan. A tremendous amount of work uh by everybody in this room and a lot of other folks. And one of its key things was rural preservation and maintaining working farmland. And uh as you know at the time we were all all of you all were working on all the amendments, zoning and everything. We also tweaked the subdivision rags and here we are again kind of tweaking them again. Those tweaks make sense in the sense that we're learning about how well they've worked in the attent for the intent of uh Williamson County's 2040 plan. It is a challenge and one of the reasons why we're seeing the continuing uh residential density growth out in the rural counties is because of the use of the decentralized sewer systems or the non-traditional sewer systems. So, I'm just here to sort of say, hey, and actually reason why I also wanted to talk about this a minute was I was at the governor's conservation um he every year he has an annual conservation summit and they were all discussing how much we're losing farmland in the state of Tennessee, 10 acres an hour and middle Tennessee is obviously one of the hot spot areas and so it really is a blend. How do we want to maintain farmland? How do we want to do the growth? Where do we want the density of the growth? The county has very much put it on paper. I'm not sure the subdivision conservation subdivision gets us exactly where we want to go. And what I'm asking us to think about probably more broadly is are we really incentivizing some of the agriculture and things that we want in the plan and maybe there are places where decentralized sewer systems aren't appropriate and we might need to ask that question. But thank you very much for all the effort and I just wanted to come up and speak on behalf of the latest tweaks. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, the public hearing for item 22 has is complete. And uh so I will turn it over to uh any questions or or comments about the uh article changes in front of us on item 22. I have a question. Yeah.

Um I also am really in favor of this lot size minimum changing. So thank you for that. Um, I'm realizing when I was reading the proposed amendments to article 14 14.04E about potentially doubling the landscape requirements. I know I'm reading that with a certain and interpreting it maybe like to double the density, but I'm wondering do we need to change that wording at all or I didn't look back at 1505A. Would that double the width of a buffer? Would it just double the density of the materials planted? Do we think that's clear enough or do we need any tweaks there?

Thank you. Yeah, Erin, you want to talk about it? I'm sorry. Yeah. So, uh, Commissioner, yes, it would double the the size of it and it would double the required caliper inches for it. So, it would be doubled in size, double in the required buffer, number of trees, shrubs, etc. that would go into the buffer. Okay. question. Yep.

I got a question around um so we've got just just for clarification, I guess. So, we're moving from quarter acre to halfacre minimum lot size, but we're not touching lot width at all with this. Correct. So, it's doubling the depth of of a lot in theory. Correct. That's correct. Yes, it possibly could double the depth. Yes.

Any other questions?

Do we uh do we have a motion? [Applause] Mr. Chairman, I'll just clarify that this would be just a recommendation to the county commission. There would be a public hearing at the county commission and then the county commission ultimately would adopt or not adopt the amendment. Um I believe it's scheduled to go before the county commission at their November meeting. That's correct. Yes. Thank you for that clarification. So, do I have a a um motion on item number 22? Do [Applause] you have a question or a motion? Both.

Okay. Uh I would like to say that uh I think we all know there's a lot more can be done and there's a lot more than we can look at. We've learned a lot more over the years, but I believe what we have in front of us is move us in the right direction and we we'll be tweaking this I'm sure in the future too. So, I would like to make a motion that we approve this. Thank you. I have a motion for approval. I have a second. All those in favor say I. I.

All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to item 23, amendment to article 11 of the Williams County zoning ordinance regarding telecommunication uses. Staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be handling this one as best I can. Um, as you all know, uh, a couple years ago, we made some, well, several years ago, we made some major overhaul changes to the, uh, telecommunication tower section of the zoning ordinance. And then, uh, two years ago, maybe one year ago, year and a half, uh, we made some changes to the notification section and the setbacks. We were going through that process. At the time, we were focused mainly on the setbacks from schools and homes. But during that discussion, several county commissioners mentioned to me they would they would like to study some uh additional um information that the residents can access that's part of the application for these towers. And on these I'm talking about the taller telecommunication towers, not what's known as small cells, okay? the traditional 200 feet, 250, 300 feet towers, um, which we have labeled in our zoning ordinance as WCFs. So, if you see that in the draft, the draft kind of gets in the weeds. So, we'll go through it some, but mainly I want to just kind of tell you what it does, right? So, the concerns that the county commissioners had raised to me at the time and raised to staff at the time was they wanted to see some more buffering around what's on the ground. We know you can't really buffer a 250 foot tower um but you can buffer what's on the ground a little better. They also wanted um a lot more notification um because what they were hearing from their constituents was unless you lived right next door to the site itself, you didn't know that a tower was going in until it was going up. Um and so they would like they asked me to look at a broader um notification process uh for the community because obviously more than just the properties that are adjacent to the site are going to see

the tower and have a potential effect from the tower. Um and so those were the two main concerns. But the other uh issues that they asked me to take a look at is just general information. there's a lot of information um that is generated when a new tower is proposed at the federal level. Um and they thought that it would be helpful for the residents to have access to that for the county to also have that information and review that information and then just make sure that there is um that the tower companies and the providers look to see if there's any other opportunity to colllocate and that building a new tower uh kind of be the last resort. So, with some of those marching orders in mind, um, and some research that I've done, keeping in mind that local government has very little authority to regulate telecommunications because of federal telecom act, right? Um, but you do have the authority to have some say in their location. And as with any zoning matter, you definitely have the authority to um provide notification to um people that could have potential potentially be affected by a new tower. At the same time, we want to balance the fact that having telecommunication towers is a benefit to the county. It's a benefit to provide safety um for people to have for their businesses. More people are working outside of their homes um in their homes rather. Um and so having access to that um technology is also something that the county sees a benefit in. So finding that balance between the two is what ultimately we've tried to do with these draft provisions. Um, so just generally I'll I'll go through the document, but you all have

it. It's been sent to the county commission. It's been out for a while. Um, so hopefully you've had an opportunity to review it. Um, so just on this screen, when we did our last action, we set back the towers, a specific setback from school properties, and that schools where children are actually being educated all day. we have quote unquote school properties that have been turned into community centers or whatever. So the first one is just removing properties owned by the school board in the hierarchy of choices for new towers. So that's the first amendment. The second amendment is increasing that landscaping requirement that I talked about just kind of raising it to a higher buffering level in terms of opacity and density. Um Erin's my clicker. So we go to the next page. Thanks. Um the notification that we have um proposed is kind of a it's a kind of a multi-phase thing. Um so there needs to be written notification that the applicant has to provide to properties within a 1500T radius of the tower of the site. And um and that's from the leased area, not the whole property, because as you know, often times the tower leased area is smaller than the property that it may be sitting on. Um and so that notice also has to contain more information than just, hey, we're putting up a tower. And so this, if you see in there, the notice provision specifies what it has to have, what what has to be shared as part of that notice. Um, and you know, it includes information about the tower itself, how tall it's going to be, um, how many providers, that type of thing. So, it's it's an information sharing as much as a

notice. Um, we ask that that notice be provided, sent out 14 days before the tower is applied for. And then part of that application is sharing with the county the properties that were notified um, and a copy of that notice. Um, and and the reason for that is because once we have an application at the county, we only have so much time once it's a complete application to review it. And so we want people to have the opportunity to be able to review the materials before the county is required to act on it. Um we are now this is asking that signs be posted. A sign on the property that's large enough that actually shares information so people driving by the property can see it. And so we've specified the size and the content. and then another sign be posted at the nearest intersection because again oftentimes these may be put in somewhat remote areas where people may not see that sign but if it's at an intersection of you know the nearest intersection of public roads then that will provide that broader notice that the county commission was looking for. Um, let's see. This just specifies, as I said, what um what has to be included in the notice. Keep on going, Erin. Thanks. Um Oh, you're going the wrong way.

I'm going back. Okay. I was like, wait, that looks the same.

Um, let's see. Now, they also need to provide in their application a map of existing other facilities. We had a two-m radius. This is increasing it to a three mile radius because part of the information that the county wants to see is what other providers are in the area. What opportunity have you looked into as an applicant to colllocate on other existing towers? Keep on moving sir. Thanks. um the proposed height and location and the um proof of a gap in coverage both in building and out. This is not something that we currently require. We require that they demonstrate the need, but this is more of a specific indication of the need. Is there a gap in coverage in that area um that they are trying to address? Um, and so when the application is filed, the proof of the notification, the proof of the signage, all that good stuff has to be part of the application. Now, the other aspect of this, if you want to keep going, Erin, um, is just information. So, we're asking for them to file their application materials, their registration materials with the FCC, what the FAA has determined, uh, their environmental assessment that they have to file with the federal government in according with the, you know, with NEPA. So, these are things that, as we understand, they're producing anyway for their federal application. It would just be something that's part of the local application here so that our residents have access to that and can evaluate that for themselves. The the intent is not to overly burden uh the telecom community more so than what they're already having to produce for their federal application. Um, one of the questions that has come up in prior regulation discussions is

radio frequency. And as you all know, the county does not and cannot regulate radio frequency. Um, the FCC determines that standard and the tower company and the providers, the carriers have to stay within that FCC standard. Um what this is proposing is that there be a statement that the uh RF we we will comply with the FCC RF. Um here is a evaluation of what the RF is now before there's a carrier and then after a carrier is activated and operating share what that RF is just confirming that it is within the FCC guidelines. Again, if it's not, the county has no authority to enforce that, but certainly that's something that the FCC would know presumably. Again, this is an educational aspect of it, but the county is not intending on regulating the RF. And again, we cannot is many people show up and speak in a public hearing about it. I appreciate that, but there's nothing that the county can do about it. But this amendment is just asking the carriers to provide information about that. Just confirming that they are consistent with the standard that the FCC requires. Um let's see. Have we gotten to the end of it? Yeah, this let's see. I've already mentioned these. Keep on going Aaron. And this is the language about the the report demonstrating that the radio frequency uh is within the required uh FCC limits. Um and then if the FCC should adopt changes to their limits, we would like just something confirming that they in fact do meet those as well. Um this would apply to towers going forward. Nothing that's in existence

now. So a new tower application only. Um, and so this is kind of just a a comprehensive way to hopefully educate our residents more and give them more notice. Um, again, this is something that's a staff level approval and we have very little discretion to turn them down if they meet all of our standards. Um, but it does give more notice to our residents and it gives uh some more protections in terms of landscaping and gives them the opportunity to understand what's going in on properties nearby and I can try and answer questions after the public hearing.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, we'll open up the public hearing on item 23 and we do have one person signed up for that. If you'll come forward, say state your name and address as well. Uh, I believe it is Michael Sandifer. Yes. Good deal.

Very good. Most people don't get that. Uh, good evening. My name is Michael Sander. I live in Georgia, actually, uh, with Bear Services Group out of Atlanta. I've been wireless since 1993. Uh, working with GT. I actually lived in Nashville many years ago. Um, worked with GTE, which became Verizon. At one point, I was in charge of our development for Tennessee, Kentucky, north half of Alabama, and the Carolinas. Uh so I've been building out tower sites for a long long time. Uh I now support both the infrastructure the tower side as well as wireless carriers uh in their buildout uh from everything from project management to zoning to uh into the construction and all the regulatory due diligence that uh was mentioned. Um I reviewed the Williamson County telecom ordinance uh specifically the sections here proposed to be amended. Um, Williamson County had a thorough but fair telecom ordinance uh just a few years ago and several towers were built in locations where the wireless coverage was and improvements were needed. Um, this provides better safety for both residents and especially emergency management. Having done hundreds of these zoning hearings, uh, the proposed changes here I think will continue to impede wireless development throughout this county. Uh, the changes, there's several changes that can be discussed. I wanted to point out just a couple of things. Um the increased notice area of 15 a radius of 1500 ft will encompass just over 162 acres. Now that in some places in the county won't be a whole lot of people getting noticed, but in others that's a tremendous amount of notice. Um I think the that is becomes cumbersome just from dealing with that wide of a range and it seems uh to be inconsistent with typical notice requirements. Um the 14-day advanced notice may create a log jam or or um logistical issues with the planning zoning office since the

requirement is 14 days before an application's made. Only those that were involved with a pre-lication meeting would have any knowledge or information what's going on should phone calls start coming in from all those residents in that 1500t radius. Um the documentation uh most all the carriers now provide proof or justification that they need that additional site. Uh they provide propagation maps which show a before and after uh for that coverage. Um I think it's it's getting into a um challenging area to uh regulate or try to manage uh the gap or even in the ordinance amendment the draft I think it says significant gap uh because there are things 30 seconds please.

Okay. Um wanted to say quickly in closing um talking about safety 80% of 911 calls now originate from a wireless device. Seven out of 10 homes are wireless only, meaning they've dropped their landline. Um, we used a hundred trillion megabytes of data in 2023. Um, it's enough for every US household to watch the first season of House of the Dragon every day for an entire year. So, there is a huge need for this to continue to grow because it continues to grow usage. Thank y'all. Thank you.

All right. Um, that closes the public hearing on item 23. Uh, are there any questions related to item 23 from the planning commission members? Mr. Chair, can I say something? Yes. Um, the the point that Mr. Sander made about the word significant. That's in one place but not in another. And so I agree with him. That's probably an a modifier that it I didn't intend to put in there. So if you do recommend this, I would recommend that you you drop that word significant and I can tell you the section be good.

But that way it would just be demonstrating a gap in coverage uh for inbuilding and out uh without that modifier because that's hard to quantify that. So he's right about that. Thanks. Have a couple questions. Yes, ma'am. Um, one I'm curious, do we have a feel for the average number of WCF applications we receive in the county in a year?

Not I don't have an average, but not as many as we used to. For the most part, the the carriers are great about colllocating on existing structures. Um, I think the municipalities are seeing more of an infill with their small cells. Um, but there are still areas out in the more rural parts of the county and that don't have coverage or have dropped calls that I know the the carriers are looking to fill those gaps. And so we might get one or two a year. They in my experience in all the years I've done this, they come in waves, I guess, maybe with changes in technology. Um, we might have four or five one year and then it'll go four or five years before we have another one or two. It it it's come in waves. Um, and so I don't think we're going to see just a ton of them, but there are still some gaps. And so we may have one or two a year come in. I would think that's helpful. Thank you. And then my other question pertains to the um the point that was made about you have to send these notifications 10 or 14 days, I can't remember, before you submit your application. And I'm just wondering if that might end up having a negative impact on staff. Let's say someone gets this in the mail and they the county staff haven't even seen the application yet. So, I'm curious how that compares to some of our other public notice things. Is that do we have those?

You know what we could do is the way we have the signage and stuff. It has to be done within um let me find it 14 days of the application to provide proof of it uh after the application is made. So, it could be that we could just flip it back around and have the letters, proof of the letters provided within 14 days of the application rather than before. Um, and that way the apps in and they're providing proof that that because presumably if they're providing notice within 14 days, the notice has gone out before the 14 days. Um, and so if y'all wanted to flip that, we could do that.

Yes, I would like to make that tweak. But without having anything printed in front of me, I'll definitely need help on where we want to make that language change. Yeah. So, Mr. Richtor, just one other thought that the point that was made about staff phone calls that might show up. Could we just write that staff has to get the notice when it goes out to the affected residents so that they're aware that they may be getting phone calls? It would give them a heads up at least that an application was pending and if they got a call they would know what it was about.

Well, now they do have to have a preapp a preapp meeting for a new tower. Um so that and so they'll they'll know that but then they won't necessarily know exactly when the application is going to be filed. Sure. Um, but I think I could probably because if you all do some of these tweaks on the floor now, your recommendation is going to the county commission with these tweaks and that's what we'll advertise and present to the county commission. Um, as opposed to after y'all are done, then it has to come back to you and all that good stuff. Um, perfect. Any other questions?

Yes, ma'am. Are there any current applications uh in the process or on coming on down the pipeline currently? I'm not sure because John Bledsoe, our codes compliance director, is the one that handles those. He hasn't told me that he has any pending. I think he might have some collocations pending, but whatever is already in the hopper, this would not apply. Right. Okay. Thank you. I do have one point of uh clarification just it we're removing no towers will be on school property period right that's why we're removing that item that that's the intent

yes well and that's true since the last amendment that we made where you have to have the uh buffer from the tower to the school so okay yes that's correct cool any other questions yes Mr. I've got a question just for clarification on item number four in this the applicant uh information on demonstrating the gap in coverage. When we're talking about gap in coverage, are we talking about each individual carrier or if an area is already has coverage then we don't have to look at that as far as a gap in coverage. What would be a gap in coverage for each carrier?

Each carrier. and and they show that now if it Mr. Xander can correct me but they would show that now for a collocation because if one carrier is covering an area another one may still have a gap um for their service in that area so I believe they're only required to look at the gap in their own service area. Thank you. Any other questions? So, I've heard a couple of things we want to change. Are you digging into that?

I can if you want me to uh read the section where the edit will be and then you can move to recommend if that's where you're headed. That that would probably be easiest.

Um okay. So, um you have the amendments in attachment 231. You don't have to look at it, but I'll read I'll read it to you. So, we have the section 1106 A9A4D. It says, "Written notification shall be mailed no later than 14 days prior to filing." So, I would propose that it be rewarded. And I've written it down. Proof of written notification shall be provided within 14 days of the filing. And that's the language how we have it in the proof of the signage. Um, and then the other one that I mentioned was the the terminology the significant gap rather than just proof of gap in coverage. That's in section 1106 A9B4K. And we're literally just deleting the word significant out of that proposed paragraph.

Yep. Okay. Do I have a motion that incorporates those two? I mean, you don't have to restate both of those, but No, you have to say all those letters that I just read to you. I move that approval with the changes as stated. Thank you. We have a motion and a second on item 23. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. And our final public hearing tonight is amendment to article three of the Williamson County zoning ordinance requiring regarding proof of infrastructure availability. Staff,

that's mine again, Mr. Chairman. Um, so uh over the uh course of the last several months, there's been a couple of wastewater providers that have um had some struggles with their treatment technology. Um and so some of the county commissioners uh approached us again with some concerns that um perhaps when we're approving new developments, uh while we may have something from a provider saying that they have capacity, we don't necessarily know if perhaps that particular technology, that particular plant is in good standing with TDC, if it's in a violation. and maybe they might have capacity, but maybe they might only have capacity if they fix A, B, C, D, and E. And we haven't really been asking those questions uh at the application process because we really haven't needed to. Um so the concern is that perhaps we're approving new developments on um some treatment plants or facilities that maybe need a breather to catch up with u some violation issues. Um the so as we got to looking at this um our requirement of proof of portable water and wastewater treatment is pretty broad in in general and it just says you have to provide proof of portable water and wastewater treatment. Of course if it's a septic system we have that detailed information. If it's a decentralized system we generally have that detailed information. Um but we don't ask about if there's any um pending violations that would um prohibit that plant or that facility from accepting new capacity. So what this um amendment is attempting to do is to clarify the information, get a little more detail when we're asking for

letters of availability um rather than just saying let us know if you've got capacity. Um, I will say that uh in an effort to work more in partnership with the utilities because in this county, as you all know, we have municipal utilities, we have utility districts and then we have private entities that have licenses essentially from the public utility commission to provide public utility services, generally wastewater. I don't think we have any private water providers anymore. um in an effort to kind of work more cooperatively with them, we sent letters, notice letters to all of them. Well, Erin and Michelle did. I'm not going to take credit for that. Um because we wanted their feedback because it's it's not to penalize. It's to again have more information. Um, and so what this amendment is attempting to do is, you know, tell us if you have capacity and if there are going to be uh improvements needed to make that capacity happen, whether that's wastewater or water. Um, and then if your plant if is in good standing with TEC or if there's some sort of uh document that or issue that's inhibiting your plant from accepting new um capacity. Um, I did receive late today um some concerns from a water providers council about how it's worded um because their point was the way it's drafted now, we're asking for a lot of detail on potential water improvements at the concept plan stage and and they're not doing that detailed engineering until preliminary plat. So, at concept plan, they might be able to say, "Yes, there's capacity, there's water, but they can't tell you what all the off-site improvements might need to be to get it there or to increase the pressure or whatever until the preliminary plat stage." And we haven't

broken that down. So, what I would like to do is get your comments on this, hear from the public, um, and then, um, defer it and bring it back so that I can make sure and Mike and Aaron and I can make sure that we're working in partnership with our utilities to get the information for you all to know whether something is really equipped to handle a new development or not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So, I should have said this earlier that before we have public meeting, if there's any county commissioners that would like to speak, I'll I'll open the mic up.

Hey, good evening. I'm Drew Torres. Uh I represent the ETH district, which is in the Grassland area. And uh my co-commissioner, Barb Sturgeon, and I actually went to Christie and made this request. um it really uh was uncovered as part of a rate increase um for a private provider in the grassland area and then subsequently you may have seen about the l the leak back in late July that impacted the Harpath River. Um what we uncovered was there's a communication gap between the state from a regulatory standpoint and you all as a planning commission and planning staff um because the only requirement right now is that um they provide this letter of availability. And so we worked really hard to figure out a path forward that would give you all more oversight during the development phase to make sure that these private utilities aren't under a consent order like the one uh in the grassland area is. um and to hopefully just better inform you all, give you all more information as you're going through uh your process. So, thank you. Obviously, I support this. I hope you will support it. I I appreciate what Christie has done and uh I I do support the deferral so we can kind of work through that final tweak. Um and thank you for what you all do uh for the citizens of Williamson County. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. So, I'll open up the public hearing. We have one uh person and and it's Miss Dory BS again.

Hello, I'm Dory BS, founder and president of the Harpath Conservancy. And actually this very issue of the nexus with planning commission and Tekk with sewer availability is something that we've been involved in for 25 years. It's been fascinating over time and it depends on where you are in the state as to how little or how well that information passes. And so there are areas of the state where the planning commission is being um is provided information. Hey, we don't make we want one of our the original plat to be to allow larger homes and there's no information about what the capacity is for the small private sewer system that was approved by the state and sometimes the owner of the sewer plant doesn't even realize that that's happening at the planning commission. So that's why it's so important to have some communication. Um Drew Torres just mentioned about what's going on in grassland. It's a great example. We have two types of sewer systems really where this pops up across the state. A lot of our sewer systems are old and so if they're going to be they need to be rebuilt. Um we'll be seeing more design but we want to make sure that subdivisions being proposed for hookups that the state has already approved a new design or in the case of the grass one they have severe problems because the system is so old and they can't even meet their current permit. It'd be good for you all to know that so you're timing new connections. Just to uh give you a little bit of an overview, I believe you had someone from Tekk here not long ago about their uh statewide look at the decentralized sewer systems that have drip fields. I think it was Britain Datson who came to speak. Um there are 360 active systems. 49% were having permit issues. Really the important thing is 26% were having problems where the drip fields the effluence leaving the site sometimes going into waterways. uh because of Williamson County effort, because of some of your great staff, you have some of that oversight in place, but there's still problems in Williamson County and some of them still are about was the whole system actually ever built. So, it's why it behooves you all to have that kind of connectivity, have something that goes into the record. Um and frankly, you all can always call the

field office and say, "Hey, can you help us understand if the system is in a condition where it can accept new hookups?" But I really urge you to do this and I can say that Wilson County, Rutherford, Murray and a few others are already looking at this as well. So we're just trying to share approaches that these local governments are trying to integrate. Thank you very much for doing this. Thank you. Oops, I dropped my pen. I'll get it later. All right. Thank you. All right. Any uh any questions uh on on item 24? Mr. Chairman, I've got a question.

Yes, sir. Uh if I just going to clarify to my mind what we're saying if at we're talking about right now at the preliminary stage if we don't have a letter from TEC saying that the system is working in a good s good working order that's the point where we can stop it. So the way it's set up in here is either something from Tekk um we have noticed in the past that TEC is not always timely or responsive. So we've also placed uh a some language in here where the utility provider has to certify in an affidavit the status of it. Um so that if later we find that that's not the case, we have a certification from the utility provider. Um but if we if we made every utility provider run to TEC for a letter, things would grind to a halt. Um so we've provided that as one option. Another option is an affidavit that we'll create in house that that provider would have to certify that their plant is in good standing or that type of thing. So, and if it's not, then you'll know that and you'll know that there's really not the proper water or wastewater that you need in order to approve that development.

But at what stage um if we just have a certification from them and and they are having trouble at what stage do we know from TEDex so we can stop things from rolling because it's more important the time of stopping this than their subdivision starting. Well, it would we would have that certification at each phase at each application. They would have to say, "Hey, we're still in I mean, they might have a final plat and then they come to the next final plat and the plant has blown up." They have to tell us that and maybe it's not a good time to have another final plat until you get that fixed. So, we would want that certification with every application. But what I'm asking is, is it not possible that we have the letter from TDC before we go to final plat?

Yes, it would have to be part of the application. Okay. Yeah, they would have to submit that with our application at every phase. Okay. Thank you. And and I would recommend if you all do defer it, as I'm requesting, that you defer it to December because if we're going to tweak this language, I would like to have time to readvertise it u and bring it back to you. And so then it wouldn't go to county commission until January, but I could get it back to you all in December, but November is probably too soon with the notification requirement. Okay. Can we defer? I have a motion to defer. Second. Have a second. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to concept plans. Concept plan review for Joy Bell Estates containing 12 lots on 110.1 acres located off of U Daily Covington Road in the second voting district. Staff, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're going to start with an aerial view zooming in on the property in question. There it is. This is the natural resource protection plan. There are moderate and very steep slopes located on the property shown in red. There are pockets of woodland shown in the green and there are wetlands shown in the blue on the bottom of the screen. Approximately 16% of the site will remain an open space and 96% of existing tree canopy will be retained. This is the concept plan itself. The property is located off Daily Coington Road shown in red on the left side of the screen. The property totals 110.1 acres in size and contains 12 lots and it's a traditional subdivision. The lots are shown in the teal. The density is 0.67 67 units per 5 acres. Lots are between 5 acres to 8.4 acres in size and there will be 14.21 acres of open space. Roads will be private and no turn lanes are required. The road itself is shown in the yellow. Water is provided by Milcraftoft and Utility District and sewer is handled by individual on-site septic systems and staff recommends approval. The standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Good deal. Are there any questions about about this subdivision? Mr. Yes, sir. My only question is will it be gated? Yes, sir. Mr. Crohan, it will be gated. Okay. Thank you. I move we accept recommendation. We have a motion in a second. All the Oh, sorry. Yes, Miss Jessica.

Um, I believe this is what someone spoke about at the beginning of the meeting. And so, I wanted to see if staff could confirm for us if it would be a maximum of 12 lots. That's what I'm gathering. But any I won't make that assumption. I would like staff to confirm if it that's the maximum number of lots and then also if staff could speak to the lighting topics that were brought up about lighting within the subdivision and then lighting at the gate area.

So the first one commissioner is if the number of lots change it would have to come back for a revised concept plan approval before you. As for the lighting I will leave that to Mr. Mr. Wilson to talk about the lighting inside the subdivision. We do not have a requirement for that, nor do we have a requirement for the gate. So, I'll leave that to Mr. Wilson.

Thank you, Joey Wilson Wilson and Associates. Thank you for bringing those up. Um, there was a lady at the beginning, Miss Peggy Zukas. I I can answer those point by point if that would help. Uh, we do not have a plan for lighting at this point in the subdivision. Um, if that changes, I don't see it, but I wouldn't expect more than four, but they'd be dim street lamps. So nothing, you know, high power or anything of that nature. Uh the number of homes, we are maxed out at 12. That's all that the soils will support. So I think we could do up to 14 to 15 on this, but we're maxed out at 12, and we don't intend to make it any more dense. Um the tree canopy is is set the the requirement protection for the tree canopy is 69%. We have a 96% retention of the tree canopy as it's proposed. Um the entrance, we did say it would be private and gated. Uh we're trying to do a fairly decent size entrance at the beginning gated community and um you know the bond or the permit for the fence or the gate will be applied for at a later date and length of construction for the development will probably be 6 to 8 months um depending on we're anticipating starting in April not in the winter time. So hopefully get it done in the dry season. The individual houses will take about a year to build but I wouldn't think they would be one after the other. So, we would hope we'd anticipate that they'd all start within one to two years after the development's completed.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. So, I noticed the wetlands that they were circular. So, those are two ponds or two lakes. Is that right? They were actually identified a little incorrectly on on what was shown. There are two existing ponds. There's more identified wetlands on site. They're non-connected pocket wetlands. um what was shown as steep slopes were actually wetlands. The steep slopes are toward the front entrance and so there are uh two existing farm ponds and then there's some um non-connected wetlands and one connected wetland on lot 12 and so they're labeled your your size plans maybe a little bit small to identify them but Yep. Okay. Thank you. Anything else?

Do I have a motion on item number 25? Thank you, sir. You Thank you for the second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to item 26, site plan review for Bethesda Recreational Center, phase 3 on 44.22 acres, located off Bethesda Road in the second voting district. Staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the Bethesda Rec Center located off of Bethesda Road. You can see Bethesda Road there in the red. The development total for all three phases is 44.22 acres. This is the third phase of the development which is a 61,000 square foot combined recre recreation center and the library with its associated parking. A landscaping plan has been submitted and reviewed and approved by staff. traffic impact study was reviewed by the county's highway department's traffic consultant and he has concurred with those findings for the addition of and improving turn lanes on both Lewisburg Pike and Bethesda Road. We've outlined all of the improvements in your staff report. Water is provided by HB&Ts Utility District. Wastewater is handled by a non-traditional wastewater treatment and disposal system from the Fair Haven subdivision and that is to the west at the top of the site near the I think that's soccer fields and staff recommends approval with all of the standard conditions outlined in your staff report. Also, Miss Amy Burch is here from Birch Transportation um if you have any questions regarding any of the traffic.

Thank you. Any uh questions related to item 26?

Do I have a motion on item 26? Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to final plats. Final plat review for Moxley large lot easement subdivision aka Turnage Wood subdivision containing five lots on 26.46 acres located off Murphy'sboro Road in the 12th voting district staff.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. The property is located off of Murphy'sboro Road shown in red in the top left. The development totals 26.46 acres in size and contains five lots shown in the pink. The property will be accessed via a shared access easement. It begins on the left side of the screen, the air at the bottom and then continues at the air at the top. So it transitions either way down. Uh water is provided by Milcraftoft utility district. Waste water is handled via individual on-site septic systems and the department of sewage disposal management has approved these systems. This is consistent with the preliminary plant and staff recommends approval with standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Thank you. Any discussions on item 27? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve staff recommendation. We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Item 28 was withdrawn and we added item 29. And Miss Hatcher. Yes. I am accusing myself of this agenda item. Thank you. So item number 29 related to Terra Vista subdivision. So, um staff,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the developer for Terra Vista subdivision sections one and two remains non-responsive in completing roadway, storm water infrastructure, and grading associated with the development despite the developer's prior assurances that these items would be completed. Minimal progress has been made. Staff recommends escalating under the Williamson County subdivision regulations. Uh for section one, we have some outstanding items including IDT application to review the RDE infrastructure not been submitted, final asbuilt drawing, certification not submitted, detention ponds, water quality, soil incomplete, and additional items as outlined in the RDE bond review checklist for section two. Some of the outstanding items include rerouting of access road to wastewater facility as shown on the construction plans has not started. Seep slope failures are unresolved. Seep slope areas not graded per approved construction plans and additional items as outlined in the RD bond review punch list dated March 4th 2025 which is an attachment NA1. Um in March of 2025 the developers representative Mr. FYI spoke to the planning commission. He stated that they were working with their engineer and geotechnical consultant to put together a plan to have the issues resolved and that they were receiving biz regarding the rerouting of the wastewater road. He estimated that it should happen in the next couple of months. However, little progress has been made on site since then. See how it texts on uh second third pages of the attachment NA2. It is important to note that on October 7th, 25, additional information such as geotech reports, asbuilt hydrarology reports, and retaining wall cert certifications were uploaded into the project. However, upon inspection, very little work has been completed on site with the exception of some grading work to the detention pond. Um, if the planning commission votes to hear this item, staff recommends that a

representative of the developer appear before the planning commission and provide a status update on the outstanding items and include at a minimum the current status of the project and firm timeline for completion of the outstanding items and to place on the agenda of the planning commission in six months for review of the progress and if no substantial work is completed, consideration of calling the bond. Thank you. Um, do we open this up for the developer or we've asked the developer to be here? We should ask.

Okay. Is is somebody representing the developer here? Hi, my name is Brent Thany, 8216 Glover Drive, Brentwood, Tennessee, and I'm with True Land and we're representing the Jones Company for Terrave Vista. Okay. So, do you have any updates for sure us?

I'm happy to answer any kind of questions you have. So currently where it stands, uh I believe Tsquare has sent in the asbuilts for phase two. They're currently working on they have the survey data for phase one and the fire pit um site plan area and they should be completing those and once they complete that from a survey standpoint, drafting standpoint, they'll send them into the county. Um the asbuilts they're currently waiting my understanding is comments back from the county. Um the wastewater road we had originally and we got bits to do that work um and started that and staked it out and what happened is Jones company had cancelled their notice of coverage for phase two and with that cancellation of that coverage. Um part of that was we have to go get a new NOOCC with TEC to do that work. Part of that holdup was based off some comments off the RDE checklist with regard to grades. So we needed to get the survey work and the asbelt done to figure out the impact of grading and what the results of those as belts were. Um so trying to time up that work now with having to get an NOC and we weren't sure if we'd have to get a new NOC for more generalized grading work for phase two. that has more recently been determined what we've been told from Tsquare that that's not going to be necessary. Um, so we have since sent in a uh essentially the paperwork to get the notice of coverage for the wastewater road that was sent in the last week or two. Um, as the county attorney referenced, Tde can be not always the most reliable. I would suspect or estimate that would come in

the next 30 days hopefully, but we've had some before take 60 90 days. I don't anticipate that. It's not a very big area. Um geotechnical wise, we've actually engaged two different ones at two different times. Both had asked we need the asbelt data to make sure there's no additional geotech work that needs to be done to put into the proposal. um since we verbally got that from TS squared that that shouldn't be. We'll see what the county decides and where that lands, but we've initiated and got a proposal for them to fix the two areas where there's some sloughing of the dirt. Um we've previously walked with one geotech where there's two openings. um they verbally expressed they didn't think it was an issue, but they want to do some exploratory test pits to confirm. So, we have that proposal back. Um it has been signed and I'm waiting for them to tell me when they can start doing the field work. So, they'll have to complete that field work. Then, there'll be some lab work that comes out of that field work, some samples and whatnot taken. From there, those fixes will be determined for those areas. Once that's done, ideally we get the NOOCC back for the wastewater road. We get the comments back for section two. Um, we've engaged the contractor to try to pull all that scope of work together to try to do all the work at once ideally and minimize curb damage, road damage, things of that nature. Um, so currently I'm walking with him is the intent up next week to go over the RDE checklist items, if you will, in detail and get a proposal for him to fix some of those, right? And then we'll weave in what comes out of the geotech report, what comes out of comments, figure that out,

what if there's any changes there, and then hopefully we have the NOOCC back for the wastewater road. And currently the uh phase 2 detention pond has been one of the items. It was the erosion control measures had been pulled um check dams and things of that nature. It needed some additional work because they left it essentially low. They have since done that work. They still have a little bit there's a little low spot. We've asked them to go back and fix that. So that should be done hopefully this week or next week. Um, and so we've been trying to get all the to know the scope of work to be able to figure out what all we have to do. But I'm

okay. Happy to try to answer any more specific questions or any other questions from anybody. So basically what I'm hearing is that you've got a lot in lot in work and a lot of work coming together and that um over the by in the next 6 months not the best time to grow grass but at the end of the day yep you fully intend to be able to have this in much better shape based on what you're saying and and yeah T deck can be slow but generally their notices of coverage come out within 30 days. So, if it was two two weeks, then

generally you should be able to get that back. And um I'll say it this way. My hope within the next 30 to 60 days is to get T deck geotech results and reports and fixes, comments worked out between Tsquare and the county, if there are any with regard to grade, slopes, etc. pull all that info, get that within the contractor's time frame, and hopefully start in, let's say, in the next 30, 60 days would be my hope. But right now, there's some stuff I don't control, and until I have that information, I can't I can't really do it till I get it. Yes, sir. Mr. Crowham,

would you have a problem when coming back monthly at our monthly meetings and updating us as far as your progress? No, that's fine. I would not have a problem with that. Any other questions? Staff, can y'all help me? Are we taking action on this and and moving for approval and maybe with a modification? Is that what we're needing to do? That's what it sounds like that the the motion is to have a report every month until completion. Yeah. Is that your intent, Mr. Crowan? Okay.

So, do I have a do I have a motion on on item number 29? So, I'll I'll make a motion that they attend each one of our upcoming meetings and give us progress at each meeting until this is resolved. And you move you move for approval. Yes. Of the staff's recommendation. Correct. Okay. Do we have a second on that? Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Sure.

And with that, move for adjournment. All right, we're out of here. Thank you.