[0:00] Okay, we're we're sitting at 6:03. We're
a little bit late getting started
[0:04] tonight. I do apologize for that. Uh we
have no business tonight for the uh
[0:09] planning I mean for the BZA. So, we'll
move uh straight on in to the planning
[0:14] commission. I'll now call this meeting
to order. If you all would please join
[0:19] me in prayer.
[0:23] Dear heavenly father, we come to you
just thanking you again for another day
[0:27] of life, dear God, and for the health
and the ability that you give each and
[0:31] every one of us to to get up and go and
do. And I pray, Lord, that you're
[0:35] pleased with how we've went about things
until now. And I ask, Lord, as we come
[0:39] together tonight to conduct the business
of the planning commission, that you
[0:43] would be with us and and guide our
thoughts, our minds, our words, dear
[0:46] God, our actions, and may each and
everything that's done here tonight be
[0:50] pleasing to you, Lord. Dear God, I lift
up our our country to you, our state,
[0:54] our our county, dear God, and the
officials that uh that are in each one
[0:59] of those capacities. I just pray that
you would guide them, dear God. There's
[1:02] a lot of folks hurting, a lot of folks
needing help, and a lot of decisions
[1:06] that need to be made. We know you're
aware of them, dear God. I just pray
[1:09] that you would guide in the process.
Dear God, we we thank you for
[1:14] everything, but most of all, we thank
you for your son, Jesus, and what he did
[1:18] upon the cross and the hope we have
etern in eternity through him. And it's
[1:22] in his name we do pray.
>> Amen.
[1:25] » Amen.
>> We're join pledge attention, salute,
[1:30] pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America and to
[1:36] the republic for which it stands. One
nation under God, indivisible, with
[1:43] liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you all very much.
[1:51] And we're on to the minutes. Uh,
everyone should have a packet in front
[1:56] of them. I know emails went out. We had
a little bit of a deal getting the
[2:00] package to you in physical copies
earlier, but I I trust if you had a
[2:05] chance to to see those and look over, if
anyone has not, I'll give you a moment
[2:10] now to to flip through it. Is everyone
good on those? Had a chance to review.
[2:16] » So move, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay. I have a proper motion to approve
[2:18] a mess. Had a second for Randy [snorts]
Bales. Austin made the motion.
[2:23] Any discussion on that? Being none, all
those in favor of approving the agenda,
[2:28] pardon me, approving the minutes from
the April meeting, let me know by saying
[2:32] I. I.
>> All those opposed. Motion passes.
[2:37] Citizens input. We've checked the basket
and there is none. Did I see Stephanie?
[2:42] You didn't have anything turned into
you. Okay. We'll move on down to new
[2:46] business. And the first item under new
business tonight is item A, final plat
[2:51] approval for three lots off Ponderosa
Drive in Dandridge, Ponderosa Ranch
[2:57] Farm, lot one by Jared and Alicia. Wait,
do we have someone here to represent
[3:02] that?
[3:07] » I don't know.
>> They are actually bought the SOS like
[3:12] early today. I think there's an issue
with they're probably going to have to
[3:16] do two lots instead of three lots
because of the topography or the slope.
[3:22] » Okay.
>> So, he did not approve it today. So,
[3:25] » so he did not approve it. So,
>> they're not coming tonight. Okay. U
[3:29] » So, do we want to table?
>> I'd say we table till June or until
[3:33] instead of doing it to the June meeting,
let's postpone it until they have their
[3:37] stuff together. If someone make that
motion that way, put a time. move item A
[3:42] be postponed until they can produce the
proper documentation to present to this
[3:49] body.
>> Okay. Thank you, Austin. We have a
[3:51] proper motion made by Austin. Do we have
a second?
[3:53] » We have a second. Chad Dixon second. Any
discussion on that?
[3:58] Being none, all those in favor of
proponing item A until they have their
[4:03] proper documents in line. Everything
approved, let me know by saying I.
[4:07] » I. All those opposed
passes.
[4:16] [clears throat]
We're to item B, revised site plan for a
[4:20] new pole barn to be constructed at 329
Lfield Road in Jefferson City by Rody
[4:25] Ronnie and Karen Trent. We have someone
here. If you would step to the podium
[4:30] and state your name and you.
>> Ronnie Trent, 329 Landfield Road.
[4:35] » Okay. Ryan, talk to us a little bit
about what you want to do.
[4:38] » Well, we got a shop that's already
there. I just need more room to place
[4:41] some more toys, more implements. You
know how it is.
[4:45] » Yes, sir.
>> Next thing you got one, you can build
[4:47] one. You think you're big enough that
you're not. So, anyway, we're just
[4:51] construct another uh building there. Um
on the print, I mean, on the drawing it
[4:57] shows a 50 by I think what 108.
Um I'd like to change that dimension if
[5:04] we could. It's going to be a big
problem. It won't matter. I was want to
[5:07] go with maybe 60 by 100 instead of 50 by
108 because we found out it's a little
[5:12] bit odd size. Um so if that matters or
it doesn't matter.
[5:19] » You want to go 60 by 100. Yeah.
>> So we're moving 8 ft and adding two.
[5:25] » Yeah. [clears throat]
And it's just going to set directly, you
[5:29] know, in facing from uh shops over
there. It's just parks and dump trucks
[5:34] under and trailers under and tractors
and mowers, you know, stuff like that.
[5:40] » Put in your packet a copy of his survey
showing where his house is located
[5:44] because the only reason he's having to
do this because it's on the commercial
[5:48] portion of his property, not the
agriculture.
[5:58] » I think the house is on like 2.02.
We cut that off a few years ago.
[6:03] » 2.13.
>> Yeah. There you go. And that way we
[6:05] could have a residence on that
commercial property. So we cut that off
[6:09] a few years ago.
[6:14] » And I actually I actually own the
property used to be the old uh Bettis
[6:18] place, the old Bettis farm down there.
The old barn and stuff. It's been
[6:21] renovated.
>> Yeah.
[6:22] » Yeah. That's that's me.
>> Yeah.
[6:24] » We bought that and so then kind of
trying to fix that corner up. They made
[6:28] me mayor up there since I'm on the
house. [laughter]
[6:30] for dogs.
>> You have the dogs, of course. Yeah.
[6:34] [clears throat]
>> Would we need an updated drawing the 60
[6:38] by 100?
>> We would to get that, but Katherine, I
[6:43] think you've got a thought.
>> Um, no. [laughter]
[6:47] » No thought.
We would need the updated drawing. And
[6:51] yeah, and I know that wouldn't be an
issue to get that
[6:55] » um on this drawing.
And you were wanting to see the property
[7:00] line that differentiated from the
agricultural to the industrial.
[7:05] » Yeah. I think one of the con the
concerns I had
[7:11] um is that um um you just have site plan
approval. You don't have site plans for
[7:17] additions to existing sites. That's one
of the things that we can work on. uh
[7:21] that you really should if it if it's an
addition to an existing site like this,
[7:26] the the requirement should be pulled
back somewhat and you don't make it that
[7:31] distinction. So if you're just looking
at it um from a black letter issue, it's
[7:38] a site plan should have engineer seal on
it, etc., etc., etc. Um I don't think
[7:45] that that adds anything. He's obviously
got a big site. It's not that big of a
[7:49] building. It's pole barn. It's not like
you're digging footings or any of those
[7:53] kind of things.
>> You don't have you're not extending
[7:57] utilities to it. I send electricity, but
not like sewer, water, anything like
[8:01] that.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's what I think
[8:05] too.
>> Appreciate it.
[8:08] » Okay. Does anybody and
>> just uh if they would if you get that
[8:13] drawing redone could could you throw
that line in there somewhere where the
[8:17] where it is just to so we'll have it.
>> Yeah. As long as it meets a setback off
[8:21] of that existing line between the A1 you
see too.
[8:25] » He um
>> the line actually is where you see that
[8:29] crook and the western lot line
>> that's basically where it is and goes
[8:34] back along around the house. This is not
uh encroaching at all.
[8:38] » Any more clicks?
>> So,
[8:40] » okay. Only I got the old land there.
>> Yeah.
[8:44] » Yeah,
>> Mr. Chairman.
[8:46] » Okay. Yes, sir.
>> I think I think we're good. So, with
[8:50] that said, I'll move to uh approve item
B.
[8:53] » Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a
second?
[8:55] » Second.
>> I want to amend this.
[8:57] » Second.
>> Okay,
[8:58] » get a second.
>> We have a second on it. So, I have to
[9:01] make a motion. Chad seconded. And now R
>> just a minute to make sure he turns in
[9:06] the the updated picture. That's the only
thing I agree with you. I don't see a
[9:09] problem with it. It's just the
>> I'll accept the amendment if you're good
[9:12] with it.
>> Okay. And then that's a little cleaner
[9:15] on the minutes.
>> Yeah, that's fine.
[9:16] » That sounds good. Yes. We don't have to
get a second and go through. So we're
[9:19] good.
>> The amendment is stated. Second.
[9:23] » Second.
>> Any further discussion on this?
[9:27] Being none, all those in favor of the
pole barn, let me know by saying I. I.
[9:32] All those poke. Thank you. Thank you.
I'm gonna get you that drawing. One one
[9:37] thing on that drawing one one guy that
was pricing available for me was his
[9:41] best way was to come out at 108. Then
the other guy that price and he said,
[9:45] "Well, no, it' be better to go
>> 100."
[9:48] » So we'll get that decision. But if it
don't change, if it changes, I'll get
[9:52] you drawn.
>> Okay. Just drop it off.
[9:54] » How many copies you need?
>> Just for her office.
[9:56] » Just the board.
>> Just for you.
[9:58] » I don't think you even have to come back
to this committee. Just take it to her
[10:00] office. You're you're good though which
way you're done.
[10:03] » And do I need to get permits from you or
is it since it's commercial? Is
[10:06] » it'll be in the building? Well, in the
office, but the building partner will.
[10:10] » Gotcha. Thank you, folks.
>> Thank you, Ronnie.
[10:12] » See you now.
[10:15] » [clears throat]
>> Okay, we're to item C, resolution
[10:19] 2026-03,
amending the zoning resolution of
[10:23] Jefferson County, Tennessee to reflect
certain prohibited uses in all zoning
[10:28] districts and permitted uses in the I2
zoning district solar energy and wind
[10:33] systems Austin Brook.
Austin, you have the floor. Uh yeah, I
[10:39] believe at our last meeting there was
discussion
[10:43] um about potential Oh, it's okay.
[10:49] » I like to hear myself.
>> About um what we already had in our
[10:55] zoning regulations?
>> Yes.
[10:58] » Was there anything?
>> There is no decommissioning in Jefferson
[11:03] County zoning regulations for a solar
farm.
[11:06] » Uhhuh. Now there is at the state level
state put that back in Katherine am I
[11:10] right in about 22 23 somewhere that's I
did go on and and print a little bit off
[11:18] if you will uh humor me just a second on
that
[11:25] » anybody here got an extra pen
I have one left on the truck
[11:33] you got another one
>> I'll steal one up here steal Yeah. And
[11:37] often if you'd like for me to, I'll read
you what it says.
[11:40] » Here, take your good.
>> Tennessee solar the farm decommissioning
[11:45] is governed by Tennessee state
decommissioning law. It mandates that
[11:50] commercial solar facilities over 5
megawatts submit compre comprehensive
[11:54] decommissioning plans and provides
financial assurance i.e.
[12:00] bonds and or letters of credit to land
owners for equipment removal and land
[12:05] restoration.
Local planning commissions in the
[12:08] regions enforce these rules and
periodically update setback or
[12:13] permitting ordinances.
Now, state requirements and there's a
[12:17] ton of stuff on the internet that you
can go to look at and I'm sure Katherine
[12:20] can give some clarity if we have some
questions about this. Uh but it requires
[12:25] that the solar power agreement to
outline a safe removal plan for panels,
[12:30] wiring, post, ensuring the property is
restored as close to its precondition,
[12:36] preconstruction condition as reasonably
possible. It goes on about financial
[12:42] asurances, local authorities, recent
updates is there.
[12:49] Washington County, Green County,
Sullivan County have taken this and
[12:54] they've made it a little bit more
stringent from what and I've not went in
[12:57] depth on each one of the each one of
those, but they have added to the
[13:01] decommissioning of those and that's
something that we can definitely do, but
[13:05] the state already has a decommissioning
in place right now. It's just do we want
[13:09] to make it more stringent than what the
state has or not? And we can look at
[13:13] each one of those. I'm sure that's
something you could get information on
[13:16] for us, couldn't you? Mhm.
>> And go ahead.
[13:19] » Uh, so I have a question. Um, whenever
you hold the bond,
[13:25] make sure that you have the tools in
place to administer that bond,
[13:31] » right? Um, if you're if let's say
somebody just walks and leaves it there,
[13:36] it I'm not sure that you have like staff
personnel that you want to ascribe that
[13:43] responsibility to and hold that bond for
the life of uh um um solar
[13:52] » solar facility. Um monitoring bonds is
it's one of the things that we've I
[13:59] think the only bonds that the planning
commission holds that uh is a bond for
[14:04] outstanding infrastructure for roadway
improvements
[14:08] uh and it's charged by the in Tennessee
code that the planning commission is the
[14:12] only entity that has authority for that.
you could just simply add to
[14:18] uh the solar
draft
[14:22] uh an an additional item that says
you shall meet that section of the law
[14:29] and make sure that the state of
Tennessee has the bond
[14:34] » right and it's the Tennessee
decommissioning law but it it goes on to
[14:38] say here about the asurances it tells us
that these bonds assurities are
[14:43] scheduled to scale up typically
requiring at least 50% of the total
[14:47] decommissioning cost to be secured by
the 10th year of the commercial
[14:51] operation and 100% by the 15th year.
>> Does it say that they are willing to
[15:00] administer those bonds?
>> It did not say who would administer.
[15:02] » Did not say
>> no.
[15:04] » Um
>> but you know this was to to bring the
[15:07] topic kind of to the table and get the
conversation started about it. But these
[15:11] are some things we can do and I'm I'm
sure we can look at that moving forward
[15:15] with this.
>> Mhm.
[15:16] » You know, and back to part of our
original conversation,
[15:21] I I'm
I'm pro- landowner being able to do
[15:26] things with this property. If there's
somewhere on this solar thing that I
[15:31] want to be really strict about, it would
be with the cleanup of it when
[15:36] somebody's done. And I think that's
something we definitely need to give
[15:39] some time to. and look at and get
something drafted and adopted that'll
[15:43] protect us as a county and the adjoined
land owners to the property. That's just
[15:49] my thoughts on adoption.
>> I've got a couple of qu you probably
[15:53] answer this one. Um how big does a solar
field need to be to produce 5 megawws?
[16:02] decent size to do five megawws. And
that's something else that I think we
[16:07] can look at is size limits inside our
county when we address this and go to
[16:13] drafting this. U I know there's one in
New Market and it's uh it's about six
[16:21] acres and it will not meet 5 megawatts.
5 megawatts is a lot of load.
[16:27] » Yes, ma'am. Who owns that solar fixate?
>> Appalachin Electric owns one.
[16:33] » So it is a public entity.
>> Yeah.
[16:35] » Your other alternative is to state that
um this provision is only allowed for
[16:44] public utility
companies.
[16:48] Public utilities.
>> State that again.
[16:50] » That um
>> I wish this dagum seat had a lock on the
[16:56] back of it. Mine's squeaky. [laughter]
[17:02] » You know, we and we just had this
discussion this morning in the working
[17:06] group of the difference between public
schools and private schools. Private
[17:11] schools are forprofit. I don't care what
they are. If it's not, you know, uh
[17:16] Jefferson County. Uh so there are
language we put in today that says it
[17:20] has to be a public entity.
uh public utility uh public utility
[17:27] district or andor a TVA
um and that if it's a private forprofit
[17:34] entity,
they're not allowed
[17:38] because the scary thing is a public
entity is is uh it's uh dependent on
[17:45] public input, public support, taxpayer
money. you have a way of controlling
[17:51] that and they're held to they they hold
[clears throat] themselves to a higher
[17:55] standard. Um if when you get a
for-profit entity
[18:01] um
those are the ones that I would think
[18:05] would have a higher tendency to walk
away. It's not profitable. We're
[18:10] walking.
>> Okay? And I'm speaking hypothetically
[18:15] and don't let me control the
conversation. by all means jump in.
[18:19] [laughter]
If I've got this fella and again
[18:23] hypothetically who has a couple hundred
acres in the county, it's A1
[18:28] and he is had an accident. He's no
longer able to farm. He's no longer able
[18:34] to do what he is that he's done for a
living for so many years. Doesn't have a
[18:39] great retirement because most farmers
don't other than the lands they hold.
[18:44] I don't want to limit the marketability
of his piece of property to take that
[18:50] potential off the table if it's the best
situation for him.
[18:56] » I want to protect his rights as a
property owner cuz he's paid taxes. He's
[19:02] bought the land. It's been handed down
through families. And for us to come in
[19:06] and say, "No, that private company can't
come in work a deal out with you because
[19:11] we're not willing to do what we need to
do on our end to see that it's
[19:14] decommissioned in the proper way."
>> I'm I'm just saying.
[19:17] » I mean, it's a two sword, but those are
the guys that are walking. [laughter]
[19:20] » Yeah.
>> Sorry. They're the If we were further
[19:23] along in the technology and the
knowledge of how these things will
[19:28] operate in the long term, I'd feel
better about that.
[19:31] » Yeah. Um,
>> I still that's just my stance. I don't
[19:35] want to hurt the property owner.
>> Let's say TVA came in and leased this
[19:38] property.
>> Absolutely. But, you know, we we've had
[19:44] there's been conversation for the last
three or four years if you're in the
[19:47] county about outside firms coming in.
There was actually one in place and it
[19:51] fell through.
>> There's another one looked and stuff and
[19:54] it's fell through and we we may be
>> That's a good indication right there
[19:59] though. That's that's kind of what
[laughter]
[20:01] trends and
>> but but we're we're talking about
[20:03] hypotheticals and we we can't we don't
have a crystal ball and we can't read
[20:07] the future saying that this private
company's going to walk or they're going
[20:09] to do the right thing. You know, that's
like me looking at David and saying I
[20:13] know what he'll do in this situation.
That's unfair to David. It's unfair to
[20:16] me. You know, we have the ability
to put the regulations in place to
[20:22] govern that. Well, then it's our duty to
do that to protect the community and the
[20:28] property owner.
And the state has done that to a degree
[20:31] with what they've already got in place.
[20:35] » Um just administration of bonds
uh and having a 10year
[20:42] 50%
15year 100%. That tells me the state's
[20:48] worried about it.
>> Um [clears throat]
[20:52] that's the only reason you do bonds.
>> Yeah. But there's no reason or nothing
[20:56] saying in what I've said that we can't
be worried about it. We're just still
[20:59] protecting that property owner's rights
to do one of those deals.
[21:02] » Yeah. They've collected 100% of the
decommissioning cost
[21:06] » by the time
>> in bonds by the time it runs out by the
[21:11] time solar panels run out the life of
them.
[21:13] » Yeah.
>> On a five megawatt
[21:16] » on a five mega. So, do we amend that?
>> So, anything smaller does not have to do
[21:20] that.
>> That's right. That's right.
[21:23] » And that's that's per state. But again,
we can look at those neighboring
[21:27] counties who have took what the state
had as a foundation and they build upon
[21:32] that. That's what we can do as a
planning commission in Jefferson County
[21:36] and still protect the right of the
property owner.
[21:40] » Yeah. It don't have to be a five five
meg.
[21:42] » We can we can change those things and
whoever handles the bond to say, "Well,
[21:49] I don't want to fool with it just
because I don't want to."
[21:51] » No, I mean, I'm getting where you at.
I'm just saying whoever needs to handle
[21:56] that, we just make sure it gets handled.
>> So I administration bonds is a really I
[22:04] think I read somewhere that the the
planner does that. [laughter]
[22:12] [laughter]
>> Um I mean like right now I'll give you
[22:16] an example. Clever County has bonds
coming due in August.
[22:20] » Uh it's it's a set amount. Um, it's for
a top coat on a road. Uh, you know what
[22:27] just went up? The cost of asphalt.
They're underwater. Uh, five months
[22:32] ahead of time of that bond expiration.
They're going back to the developer and
[22:39] saying, "We will call this and ruin your
credit unless you give us new uh
[22:46] estimates for the cost based on asphalt
today."
[22:50] And that that's what I mean. You can't
>> just the nature of that conversation
[22:56] doesn't settle well with me because
you're threatening from the lead instead
[22:59] of having the conversation with them
give their
[23:01] » No. All they're doing is saying come at
August a month ahead of time which is in
[23:06] their subre that a month ahead of time
we're going to go back and look at this
[23:10] bond and they have the authority to ask
for an increase because they know
[23:16] they're underwater. And and the the
thing of it is it it's you're talking
[23:21] about economics and fluctuations and 10
years uh 15 years. Uh Stephanie, you
[23:29] going to be here? [laughter]
>> I mean, that's the kind of stuff. Or is
[23:33] the county mayor's office going to do
that
[23:35] » and we put that in the regs if we craft
this?
[23:39] And that's if if you want to belly up to
that bar, that's an administrative issue
[23:44] that you need to make sure on the front
end the administration of that section
[23:50] of that provision,
you know, how it's going to happen. You
[23:55] know, and and the other thing is, okay,
you put up solar panels and then uh five
[24:02] years from now you're looking for a
place to take it. That's what
[24:06] decommissioning is.
>> Absolutely. you got to pay for
[24:09] transportation disposal. I mean, I don't
even know how you'd estimate that cost
[24:14] uh much less over the time of
uh of the life of the bond. That's why I
[24:22] said if the state of Tennessee is doing
that and then you ask for proof that
[24:27] they've complied with it and that way
her office is monitoring a license that
[24:34] should be renewed you know every year 5
years or or 10 years 15 years on that. I
[24:41] don't know where when you're looking at
Johnson City, are they administering it
[24:45] or are they saying that
>> I don't know anything about Johnson
[24:49] » or Washington County? Washington County.
>> Um I think before you would
[24:54] » and that's what thing is let's ask them
how they are they looking for proof that
[25:02] those things have been met or
>> I don't know if they've lowered the
[25:05] megawatt at the side. Have no idea. That
was where I said we would ask you to get
[25:09] information about what each of those did
>> and stuff. That way we can look at it.
[25:13] This was to start the conversation.
>> At the end of the day, what I'm saying
[25:17] about this, we've got to protect the
property owner. I'm not going to limit
[25:22] who he can sell or do a deal with on his
land. I'm not going to be a part of
[25:26] that.
>> Yes, sir.
[25:30] [clears throat]
[25:35] As long as let me let me add to that. As
long as the people who are willing to
[25:40] purchase or lease or do whatever the
land's willing to meet what's put in
[25:43] place to protect it.
>> Yeah.
[25:46] » I want to follow up. Sorry.
>> Does it stipulate who would determine
[25:51] the bond? So, my concern is when a deal
like this is struck,
[25:56] uh, unlike building a roadway where it's
like, I need this bond and within a year
[26:00] I'm going to have my road built and and
I don't need this bond.
[26:04] » With this, you're saying I'm going to
build this facility out and then in 20
[26:09] to 30 years,
>> 10 to 15 is what he did. But,
[26:13] » okay. So, in 15 years, we're going to
take it all down. Well, what's that cost
[26:19] in 15 years? So whatever it costs today,
if we were to just go with simple
[26:24] inflation at 3%. It's 45% increase from
now until then, right?
[26:29] » Assuming we don't have periods of rapid
inflation, which
[26:34] recent history shows that uh that can
happen. So um I I would want to know
[26:39] more information about who determines
the bond amount because in my opinion,
[26:44] whatever you come up with, you've got to
tack on another 50% for inflation.
[26:49] The other thing is I'd like to determine
maybe instead of us dividing um by
[26:56] megawatt we can sorry
[27:00] we can um stipulate by acreage.
>> I think that would be a better approach
[27:06] because the megawws that's being
produced and I guess you would look at
[27:11] potential megawws for the site if
everything was running full throttle.
[27:16] » You're not going to get that every day,
>> right? you know, so I think a better way
[27:20] to approach it, and I agree 100% with
you, often would to be looking at
[27:23] acreage that could be, you know, put to
use for
[27:29] um another thing I understand, uh
protecting,
[27:35] sorry, I understand protecting land.
That's what I'm trying to do in this as
[27:39] well.
I think the argument could be made when
[27:43] you're protecting somebody's right to
put a solar uh facility on their
[27:47] property.
>> The neighboring property could say,
[27:49] "Well, now you're affecting my property.
You're affecting my property rights,
[27:54] affecting my property value." Whether
you agree with it or not, I think that's
[27:57] certainly an argument that we would
hear.
[27:59] » We see it every day here.
>> Yeah.
[28:02] » That's a common argument.
[clears throat]
[28:04] And we already stipulate a lot of
different things uh that people can and
[28:08] cannot do on their property. Uh most
often
[28:13] stipulating the zone that that that
activity has to occur in.
[28:17] » Right.
>> Yeah.
[28:17] » So
unfortunately, as much as we want to be
[28:21] pro property rights, everything we do is
infringing on that.
[28:25] » Yeah.
>> Somebody's absolutely on somebody's.
[28:29] So my goal is to do the best job we can
to protect everybody. And there's not a
[28:35] happy medium. I just don't want to
overburden the citizens with
[28:40] restrictions.
And and the more restrictions we add,
[28:45] it's only allowed to be sold to a public
utility. You know, we're adding
[28:51] restrictions every time we do something
like that. And I don't think that ought
[28:56] to be a goal.
>> [clears throat]
[28:58] » So, not wanting to restrict property
owners, definitely. Um, wanting to
[29:04] restrict these companies that pop up
>> absolutely
[29:06] » every time the federal government
decides to open the checkbook
[29:10] » and pour out a bunch of subsidies for
these projects where they get their
[29:14] cash. Then administrations change out in
4 to 8 years.
[29:20] all the money dries up and then this
company based out of who cares Delaware
[29:25] uh closes because they've gotten their
money on the front end. I just wonder
[29:29] like at what point is Jefferson County
stuck with an absolute disaster.
[29:34] Uh because you're talking
[clears throat] with no stipulation and
[29:37] I understand you seem to be in favor of
some decommissioning stipulations.
[29:41] » I think I've stated that several times.
>> Yeah. And I I appreciate that. uh we
[29:46] could end up sitting on a several
hundred acre disaster uh in our county.
[29:52] So, I'm just not really in favor of the
solar fields
[29:58] mainly because there's not a positive
ROI. They seem to be subsidized by the
[30:02] federal government. That seems to be the
only way that they
[30:04] » there are situations where there is part
positive return on investment
[30:07] » in this area.
>> Yes.
[30:09] » Okay. Uh I don't see that. um all the
numbers I've ran on it, there is not a
[30:15] positive ROI. I don't think it's a good
use of our land, which is certainly we
[30:20] just we have as much as we have and
we're not getting anymore.
[30:22] » Okay.
>> So, um
[30:27] I I I think that the fact that the state
has put uh what they've put in place
[30:33] shows that there's concern at the state
level. I think there certainly needs to
[30:36] be concern at our county level. And I I
think I'm hearing that we're all in
[30:39] [clears throat]
>> some agreement. Maybe not 100%, but
[30:44] » I'm in a 100% agreement of us having
protection in place.
[30:49] I'm also
for protecting the property owner. And
[30:54] it may be that we craft this in a way
that's a deterrent from anybody ever
[31:00] wanting to, but yet we still leave that
possibility for that property owner to
[31:06] market or to lease his property in that
way. And if that company's willing to do
[31:11] every house stringent
regulations we put in place and there's
[31:16] somebody somewhere that can do what
needs to be done with the bonds and the
[31:20] assurity, let them do it.
>> So you would prefer
[31:28] stringent stipulations
>> on cleanup
[31:31] » on decommissioning.
>> Mhm. as well as like I said the bond to
[31:36] me the only way that this bond is worth
anything is if you account for the
[31:40] inflation
>> uh because typically all the bonding
[31:42] that we deal with.
>> So when we write this be sure and put
[31:44] that in there what you come up with.
[clears throat]
[31:46] » Well I mean yeah 15 years I would put
50% for inflation.
[31:50] » Absolutely.
>> Um
[31:55] I'm still hung up a little bit on the
zone. So you'd be okay with it in any
[31:59] zone? I mean is there any zones? So
basically the document that we have are
[32:03] there any
>> I would be okay with it and I with A1
[32:07] » okay
>> and and that's those property owners go
[32:10] ahead Randy sorry
>> I would be too but the thing is we need
[32:14] to put a percentage and up to a maximum
amount if if you or me want to we got a
[32:19] 100 acre farm and we want to take five
acres that's that should be the limit
[32:24] » the utilities down there have uh what'
you say five to six acres
[32:29] » I think it's six acres don't for an
individual to do that,
[32:34] » then they need to they need to keep the
whole thing as one section, not not
[32:38] divided off. And in the event that they
want to cut it out, I think, hell, if we
[32:42] go over five acres on anything, we're
doing as much as the utility company is.
[32:46] So, if we're going to leave it in A1,
let's do a percentage of the property up
[32:51] to 5 acres, no more. 5% or 5 acres at
the most.
[32:56] » No more than that. So, if you got
>> So, 50 acres, 2 and a half.
[32:59] » Yeah. and make it smaller. So, and and
then we need to look at
[33:03] » where it's located on the property as
opposed to be right here on the property
[33:06] line right against Mr. Nelson's place.
>> Let's let's make it be more centrally
[33:10] located on their farm so that everybody
right there on the road and everybody
[33:14] their neighbors aren't affected by it as
much as they are.
[33:17] » Yeah. With setbacks and buffers in
place. Absolutely. I love the idea of
[33:20] the decommissioning stuff because if we
don't have that in place, I mean, just
[33:25] like you said, they can walk away and
then what is it the county's
[33:28] responsibility to get rid of it? I don't
think so. I like what you're saying. I
[33:31] agree 100% with that.
>> Um, one of the other things, we
[33:35] [clears throat] keep talking about the
property owner, but but realistically,
[33:39] no property owner is going to go into
this endeavor. They're simply going to
[33:43] lease to a company. And these companies
usually pop up, like I said, whenever
[33:47] the federal money starts flowing. And
that could happen, uh, that could happen
[33:52] maybe sooner than we wanted to. Um,
whenever those dollars start flowing,
[33:57] all of these little companies pop up,
they get involved in all this stuff.
[34:00] Quite frankly, I feel that's what was
going on with the best. Uh, if you all
[34:03] recall, the best that was trying to go
into Pedmont,
[34:06] » it was some company that was located
over here that dealt that was owned by a
[34:10] company located over here. Like the
whole thing was very, very fishy. And
[34:13] and to me, they already had their exit
lined up and they come in, do all the
[34:17] dirty work, and then they turn it over
to a more reputable company. Um, that
[34:23] right there just stands a hair up on the
back of my neck. Um,
[34:27] » like some of the housing developments
we've seen go in the last little bit.
[34:30] » Yeah,
>> same scheme.
[34:31] » Um, same scheme, but uh
to me these are these are more
[34:38] frightening uh than that because of the
mess that it could leave behind. So, um,
[34:45] are we in agreement on any others? Like,
I mean, R1, R2, RR, C1, C2.
[34:55] Most of those are not even going to have
a parcel size large enough to um,
[35:00] » which eliminates them all together in
that area,
[35:03] » right? Because nobody's going to take a
twoacre lot and say, "Oh, I want to put
[35:08] » No, it's it's not lucrative enough
acres. I don't even know what it would
[35:12] be that much as a solar farm cuz then
it' have one solar panel."
[35:16] [clears throat] Yeah. I mean,
>> that that would be my thing is to
[35:20] protect the most land around it if we're
going to do it. Um the five acres, like
[35:26] I said, on 100 acre farm, well, if they
sell it off, they've got to decommission
[35:30] half of it.
>> Mhm. and and most people's not going to
[35:33] do it. But what it does allow is it's
just like a cell phone tower. I was
[35:37] talking to somebody earlier today. It
allows them to have a source of income
[35:43] bar, like you said, it's going to be a
pain in the butt for any individual to
[35:47] do this.
>> Uh it's it's a phenomenal expense. I
[35:51] don't see the return on investment, but
I think in the future it may be easier
[35:56] with the technology.
>> Yeah.
[35:58] » To to do that and it may be more return
on investment.
[36:02] » Yeah,
>> I'm not going to be it probably won't be
[36:04] in our lifetime. I want to leave that
option open for future.
[36:09] » So the recommendation
So I think we could take this document
[36:14] that we have and then the recommendation
would be allow it in A1
[36:21] uh which we're working on our working
group
[36:24] but it would be limited to 5% of the
parcel size.
[36:28] 5% of the parcel size up to five acres
>> up to five acres. So if you have
[36:33] » I don't think if you have 200 acres I
still don't think
[36:35] » you're limited to five or you max out of
five
[36:38] » and if they divide the property in half
and they want to do it on the other half
[36:42] but no more than five acres at one spot.
>> Okay.
[36:44] » Does that I mean does that make sense?
Cuz then I look at our 100 acres that uh
[36:50] we the 40 acres of hay we rent and my
mom's property.
[36:54] It would still be hard with a road
running right through the middle. still
[36:57] be hard to find a good place on that
property. So, you're going to restrict
[37:00] the properties to a certain extent, but
you're still leaving it out there as a
[37:04] an option.
>> Yeah. Well, it'll be the biggest
[37:07] stipulating factor. You got to have
those lines running through your
[37:10] property.
>> Yeah.
[37:12] » That's that's going to be one of the
biggest determining factor.
[37:15] » If you put it on the edge, it's going to
affect your neighbors a lot more [cough]
[37:17] than it's going to affect you. But if
it's if it's going [clears throat] if
[37:19] you're going to have more skin in the
game and you will with the investment
[37:23] and where it's located at buffer zones
and I don't know what those buffer zones
[37:27] need to be off the property lines, but I
think we ought to be considerate of our
[37:30] neighbors in anything that we do.
>> Mhm.
[37:34] » I could go along with that.
>> Yeah.
[37:36] » So, we could keep this document and
really just adjust the A1
[37:41] and it would be an allowable use or I
guess it'd be a conditional use,
[37:46] wouldn't it, Katherine?
Uh if you could make it conditional um
[37:52] with um the requirements like
um they have to do a engineered site
[37:59] plan um
[38:04] » we need to make sure it's done correct
and whatever.
[38:06] » Yeah. I mean it's it I would suggest it
to the group they would have to do a
[38:11] site plan. And he have I mean even right
now I think yes and we have to send it
[38:15] back and we all those things are in
place
[38:17] » in section one of the draft that you
have right now uh uh we had uh
[38:23] eliminated it as a principal use. Yeah
>> we it was an accessory use. So your
[38:29] first item one is you want to make it a
principal use not accessory.
[38:34] » Right.
>> Well it is now isn't it? It could
[38:37] » it is currently
this draft of the document took it from
[38:42] principal to accept. So it's an
accessory use in every single
[38:46] » uh zone which I think we all agree.
>> Well with the exception of your IND IND2
[38:52] it was to be a principal use. Yes. Um,
so I think the proposition from Randy is
[39:01] it would be I guess you would that would
be a principal or conditional use or the
[39:06] condition would be 5% or 5 acres
maximum.
[39:10] » I don't see any for an individual. I
don't see any reason in world we need
[39:14] one over five acres
>> and then it's really not a principal use
[39:16] at that point is it?
>> Yeah. [laughter] And I don't know if we
[39:19] need to restrict it to that. I'm not
sure.
[39:21] » That's that's me. I'm thinking
>> I'm throwing ideas out. Yeah, I I know
[39:25] you just conversation I I'm thinking and
this is just me and let me state this.
[39:30] I'm not a solar fan.
>> I I don't think I but I can take you to
[39:35] places who have had a positive return on
investment about three years ahead of
[39:39] time for what they've done. Businesses
that have put the stuff in. Citizens
[39:44] Bank Trucks Citizens Bank and Trust in
Granger County come out about four year
[39:48] ahead
>> as a Yeah, as an accessory.
[39:50] » As accessory use.
>> I could see that. There are places where
[39:55] it does return on investment
>> that would still be allowed and
[39:58] » and if we would I know but I'm just
saying it is profitable in some
[40:03] situations. If we look at the Joe James
based property you know I would have
[40:08] hated been the one to step up and say
Joe you can't do what you're getting
[40:10] ready to do if he'd have chose went
through with him and that's exactly what
[40:14] we'd be doing by doing what we're doing
right now and
[40:17] » it fell through. It took care of itself,
>> but it was coming.
[40:23] » That was a shady deal.
>> I don't know the inner workings of it. I
[40:27] I just I don't want to be the man said,
"David, no, you can't do that."
[40:32] And
>> so, but I do believe we need to have
[40:34] restrictions. I do believe we have need
to have a a stringent decommissioning
[40:40] » on 100 acres. I'd look at at least 20%.
And I would say, you know,
[40:46] » A1 is the only% of the piece property.
100 acre be 20 acres.
[40:50] » Yeah. I say A1 is the only thing we're
talking about.
[40:54] » Absolutely.
>> R1, R2, RR, C1, C2, ain't going to
[40:58] happen.
>> I mean, if the mines ever wanted to,
[41:01] » but it'd be an accessory. I mean,
>> no. I mean, if they ever wanted to
[41:05] generate power.
>> Yeah. And I mean, we couldn't stop them
[41:08] from doing that for theirel anyway.
>> True.
[41:14] And the percentage I threw out there is
negotiable just like everything is.
[41:18] » No, I think you were the to hardline
that one, Randy. [laughter]
[41:21] » I just I don't want to take it off the
table for agricultural
[41:25] » for a farmer [clears throat] that's
that's got an opportunity to do it and
[41:28] help supplement his farm.
>> Absolutely.
[41:31] And just like we talked about in the
places where we've we've seen
[41:34] agriculture and solar work hand in hand
for one another
[41:37] » where they've done the elevated solar
panels and they've actually farmed with
[41:40] livestock underneath with vegetables and
fruit production underneath. You know,
[41:45] let's say you wanted to do 60 acres of
his farm
[41:49] and and mar marry those two together.
Well, we've just killed that.
[41:55] » Mhm.
I just I I want to protect as many
[42:00] people as we can protect, but I also
don't want to infringe.
[42:03] » Yeah.
>> And and we're just talking. That's
[42:08] discussion. We're just kicking.
>> I'm not saying
[42:10] » it cuts both ways.
>> It does. That's right. It does. It cuts
[42:12] both ways.
>> Um [snorts]
[42:16] » Well, I don't know. I just uh Randy with
that 5% I think was uh See, I'm at zero.
[42:23] [laughter]
Yeah, I'm a five and he's a
[42:25] » So, I'm at 75. No,
>> I think you're going to have a problem
[42:30] with the percentage like saying you've
got 20 acres so you get 5% but you got
[42:38] 100 acres so you get 5%. And those two
numbers are different and but the zone
[42:45] district's the same. Uh so you have
there's a test called uniformity of zone
[42:50] district and it's if you got two people
on property same zone uh you have to
[42:56] allow them the same option. You can't
say you get 20 and you get five.
[43:02] » Um that that that doesn't pass muster.
So, but now putting a a maximum on it uh
[43:10] and doing making it a conditional use in
you can make it an allowable use in the
[43:18] I2
and you can make it a conditional use in
[43:21] A1 and we looked at conditional uses
this morning for the you don't currently
[43:27] have conditional uses but they're very
it's a very common tool in other
[43:31] jurisdictions. Um, so you could do uh
conditional use, you have to meet
[43:37] setbacks, you have to do buffers,
>> uh, etc., etc. You would want to do um
[43:43] the bonding process whether it's
industrial or
[43:47] » Yes,
>> absolutely.
[43:48] » Um, so we could we could set up the
conditions and that way they would come
[43:53] before the BZA and the BCA would
basically check boxes.
[43:58] » Yeah.
>> Yes. You got a buffer. Yeah. if you your
[44:00] setbacks are, you know, your your um you
know, you could set up whatever
[44:06] conditions you wanted to and then the
BCA would determine compliance with
[44:11] those conditions. Whereas, if you have
an I2, which they have the authority to
[44:16] come in and say, I want my properties to
I2.
[44:19] » Mhm.
>> Uh and and at that point, that that is a
[44:22] discretionary thing that's ultimately
approved by the county commission. Um,
[44:28] and I too would automatically you would
be looking at areas that there are other
[44:33] industrial uses. I don't know if you
even have I do you have any I2?
[44:38] » I just want to I'm going to circle this
back around real quick.
[44:41] » Okay.
>> We've got three neighboring counties who
[44:45] have sit at the table having the same
discussion we've had or having and
[44:49] probably already have have a lot of
these things worked out. Let's get that
[44:53] information, see what's there. I don't
think we need to reinvent the wheel.
[44:57] » Let's Let's just see what see what kind
of cars are running and see if that'll
[45:01] work for us.
>> It [clears throat] sounds like we're
[45:03] close to some agreement or at least all
of us but you. So,
[45:07] [laughter]
>> we're we're down here at 5%. I think
[45:09] you're
>> I'm not at five.
[45:10] » I think you and Chad are I think Randy
changed his mind. So, no, [laughter]
[45:15] » you at two and a half.
>> I'm I'm open to discussing it, but I
[45:19] don't want to take it off the table for
a private land owner. So on this
[45:24] document we we do agree uh I I don't
think there's much we go ahead and take
[45:28] it out of R1 R2 RRC1 C2
>> as a principal use
[45:33] » as principal use
>> and could I1
[45:37] I just don't think that's a good use of
our industrial space personally
[45:41] » pay the money and get our industrial
space
[45:44] » well if they cut it on top of their
building and use
[45:46] » it would be an accessory use
>> you know the other which was allowed in
[45:50] all the zones
>> um one thing to consider is what type of
[45:55] infrastructure is necessary to carry
carry the electricity generated to a um
[46:04] you know transformer or however to get
it into the grid. What types of
[46:09] infrastructure
>> that's got to be something that's worked
[46:10] out with utilities?
>> Well, that will be a very much a
[46:13] limiting factor. Absolutely. You know,
you
[46:16] » there are so many things that this thing
is going to have to conform to.
[46:20] » Yeah, it can only be a go. It'll only go
where those What do you What do you main
[46:24] transmission lines?
>> It just need No, it just needs
[46:26] distributions and stuff. Distribution
lines. I mean, you can We've got one in
[46:30] White Pine hitting distribution lines.
>> That's yours.
[46:34] » It's not ours. It's somebody who It's a
private own. It
[46:37] » is a private owner.
>> Talking about Jod's.
[46:39] » Well, it's 5% each way instead of
Appalachin and US both.
[46:43] » Oh, okay.
>> Proper from it.
[46:45] » So, there's But it's a private company.
>> Yeah.
[46:48] » That's doing it. So, and it comes out at
distribution voltage. [clears throat]
[46:53] » Are there some that would be at
transmission voltage? Absolutely.
[46:57] » Oh, okay. Distribution voltage. Okay.
I'm
[46:59] » that feeds straight into the grid.
>> Yeah.
[47:01] » The one in New Market is distribution
voltage.
[47:03] » Meaning you could put one of those
anywhere that has
[47:06] » Right. Power supply.
>> That's right.
[47:08] » Yeah. I've heard this.
>> Now, you got me upset again. [laughter]
[47:14] » So,
>> well, I agree with you. Let Let's do
[47:17] some homework.
>> Yeah, absolutely. I wouldn't go that
[47:19] far.
>> And um [laughter]
[47:21] so uh and at this point A1 we could look
at a conditional use at
[47:28] » with appropriate development standards.
>> Absolutely. Right. Right. And they they
[47:32] need to be we can develop those and then
it would be allowed in I2
[47:39] um as stated and and then we can do a
[clears throat] separate
[47:45] uh section that's just for performance
criteria for solar uh principal use
[47:51] solar. So we'll define [clears throat]
you have to define something then you
[47:55] have to regulate it. So we'll have to
define a solar
[48:00] um installation as uh get a definition
for it and then uh uh add it as an
[48:08] allowable use in I2 and add it as a
conditional use in A1 and the A1 will
[48:14] have conditions with it.
[48:19] So just to clarify, so we're going to
look at as far as developmental. So
[48:24] you advised against a percentage because
if if I've got five acres and Randy has
[48:29] a hundred, he gets to put in his full 5%
but then 5% of
[48:34] » I mean if he's got Yeah,
>> that's it.
[48:38] » That's a um
>> I mean are you advising against using a
[48:43] percentage?
>> Absolutely.
[48:45] » Okay. So,
>> but we could do a maximum.
[48:49] » You could do a maximum.
>> Okay.
[48:50] » Maximum absolute amount or maximum
percentage.
[48:53] » Um, not percentage. Maximum
>> maximum just maximum amount
[48:58] or or
>> there's also probably a minimum that it
[49:03] it [clears throat]
um as a principal use. It just doesn't
[49:06] make sense.
>> Yeah.
[49:10] [clears throat]
>> There is.
[49:11] » I mean, [laughter] absolutely there is.
I mean, you got to have an economies of
[49:16] scale of these things. The one out at
the Ford plant in West Texas, I mean,
[49:20] West Tennessee is
>> I mean, that's that thing's massive.
[49:24] » Absolutely.
>> Um, there's a couple in Oakidge and
[49:28] they're huge.
>> Um, so again, I I think there we have
[49:33] more questions than we do answers. So,
uh, let's do some homework and come back
[49:38] with
>> the the one in New Market is Appalachian
[49:41] Homes. Uh it supplies our lightest
loaded circuit on the system we have but
[49:49] it supplies that circuit. You know
there's several houses on that thing
[49:54] » and we as the county couldn't have
stopped that anyway because that through
[49:56] the state
>> the state TVA appalach if it's a public
[50:00] utility.
>> Well and I'm I'm not concerned with what
[50:04] » did you buy any blocks of it?
>> No.
[50:07] » I think there's still a few for sale if
you were interested.
[50:09] » Okay. I'm joking. [laughter]
>> I was a wee.
[50:14] » I was a wee little man when that went
in.
[50:16] » Me, too. I
>> um so we'll look at maximums, setbacks,
[50:27] buffer zones,
>> buffering. Yeah.
[50:31] » Assurity bonds.
Yeah.
[50:41] » [clears throat]
[50:43] » buffer material also.
>> I don't think you want trays around
[50:47] solid farm.
>> What's that?
[50:49] » You don't want a high canopy around you.
>> Wouldn't bother me.
[50:55] » It wouldn't bother you to try
>> if you invested in Yeah. [clears throat]
[50:59] » It would bother you if you were the
investor or the property owner.
[51:02] [laughter]
>> Invest in a while, right?
[51:08] All right. Well, with that, Mr.
Chairman, I will move
[51:13] to postpone
item C to our June meeting.
[51:19] » Okay,
we have a proper motion. Had good
[51:23] discussion. I I appreciate it very much.
Uh, do we have a second?
[51:28] » I'll second.
>> Have a second. Is there any further
[51:30] discussion on this?
Being none, all those in favor of
[51:35] postponing
item C until the June meeting, let it be
[51:41] known by saying I. I.
>> All those opposes.
[51:47] » I've got papers.
[51:55] » Okay, we're to item D. Megaw want to
produce
[52:02] » development standards for mining and
mineral extraction. Mr. David Nelson
[52:07] David I'll turn the floor to you sir.
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[52:10] » Uh I'd like to first start with just
sort of the genesis of this what
[52:14] prompted me to want to put this together
and then I'll walk you through kind of
[52:18] the process that I've been through so
far. And it's kind of going back to
[52:23] things we've bandied about several times
already in this meeting about property
[52:27] rights for everyone. And my concern that
I've seen happen over the years is we
[52:34] have commercial industrial uses that
take precedent over the property rights
[52:38] of some of our small farmers and our
residents. So, what I'm I'm after is
[52:44] trying to marry those two together and
put together some standards that protect
[52:49] existing property owners but also allow
uh commercial and industrial operations
[52:56] to take place. And when I started this
process, my my first effort was to kind
[53:02] of look at some other counties around us
and see what they do. Uh, I looked at
[53:06] Washington County, Sullivan County, Knox
County, uh, were the three that that I
[53:12] looked at quite a bit. In my initial
draft on this, you may think this is a
[53:16] little lengthy. My initial draft on this
is about 15 pages long after I took all
[53:21] the material from three different
counties and tried to pull it all
[53:24] together. And I said, "Well, this
obviously is way too much." So, I went
[53:29] back to the drawing board immediately
and and cut out a lot of that
[53:34] information. I consulted with the
county's attorney uh about it and he
[53:40] said, "Yeah." And he said, "You have to
be aware we have a state surface mining
[53:46] act which really governs a lot of what's
being addressed in here." And so his
[53:52] initial suggestion when I started the
process was to to leave alone things
[53:57] that were covered by the surface mining
act in the state and really just focus
[54:04] more on the things that um are basic
like getting proper uh buffers setbacks
[54:11] screening uh just to make sure that the
operation is not going to destroy
[54:17] somebody's enjoyment of their property
that's lived there for 30 or 40 years.
[54:22] And and so that was my my main goal. Uh
after putting this together first pass
[54:30] uh and whittling it down to my second
pass, then I consulted our planning
[54:35] consultant, Miss Baldwin, and said,
"Would you look at this, please, and
[54:39] offer suggestions,
which she did." And so the draft that
[54:44] was sent out to all the commissioners
last Friday
[54:48] uh was a combination of Miss Baldwin's
input as well as my input.
[54:55] Unfortunately, since that went out, uh
we got a little surprise. I didn't get
[55:01] it till Monday. I don't know when you
saw it, but [laughter] I didn't check my
[55:05] email till Monday. uh uh our county
attorney sent an email and said, "Oh, by
[55:10] the way, I do have a few concerns on
this latest draft." It's like, "Oh, I
[55:14] wasn't expecting you to have some
concerns." So, so he has some concerns.
[55:18] I will share with you what those
concerns are. A lot of it's
[55:21] definitional. Uh it a lot of it relates
to use of the term mineral. Uh we talked
[55:28] about bonds a minute ago. Katherine
advised me about this when she looked at
[55:32] an earlier draft. uh I had provision for
bonds in the earlier draft when she
[55:37] looked at it and after we discussed it
and she explained to me how difficult it
[55:41] is to administer bonds I decided well
it's just don't require bonds. Uh if we
[55:46] want to do that later we certainly can.
So the draft you have does not have any
[55:52] reference to to bonding requirements. So
that's not in there. Uh the one that Mr.
[55:58] Drenan reviewed did have it. So, he was
a little bit concerned about
[56:01] administration of those bonds as she
was.
[56:04] » Well, now what one thing and I said,
ask your county attorney if it's legal
[56:10] to administer bonds for such things.
>> Yeah. And it's it's legal. You just have
[56:14] to set it up, of course, like you said,
and and have it all worked out. So, so
[56:19] we have some things in the air on this
resolution right now. What I wanted to
[56:24] do was go ahead and introduce you to it
and explain to you my my reasons and my
[56:31] background on doing it and walk through
just the highlights a little bit. But I
[56:36] don't really want to get into the weeds
today because I really need to consult
[56:41] with the county attorney again to make
some possible changes.
[56:45] So, so just walking through it in
section one, the first part of it is
[56:51] really definitional. A lot of times we
talk about things and people say, "What
[56:55] does that mean?" So, I've tried to make
an effort to define some of the terms
[56:59] that are used in the body of it as much
as possible. Uh, Mr. Dren has no
[57:04] problems with that except mineral and
that's one of the key issues. Um, we've
[57:08] got to figure out how to deal with the
term mineral properly. Uh section two is
[57:14] really a housekeeping matter that is not
there's any direct import as far as what
[57:20] happens in the mining and mineral
extraction operations. There's a
[57:24] provision in our zoning resolutions that
basically says that mineral there's a
[57:30] mineral exception to where you can't
really regulate minerals, but that
[57:33] really applies to underground mining.
So, this was just some language to try
[57:38] to tie that uh together and distinguish
between surface mining and underground
[57:44] mining. Section three basically is to
just to say we're going to move I'm
[57:51] proposing we move mining from an I1
permitted use to an I2 permitted use.
[57:57] That's section three and four. It's
like, okay, uh, if we're going to have
[58:00] mining, let's let's put it in our I2
zone, which is our heaviest industrial
[58:05] zone. Then section five deals with
development standards. And this is what
[58:12] we were talking about in relation to the
solar. uh if you're going to do things,
[58:16] if we have the proper development
standards, then hopefully we can have
[58:21] solar farms, we can have surface mining,
we can have things that are industrial
[58:26] functions and people can generate
revenue doing that, but not destroy the
[58:32] neighbors use of their property. And so
that's again is the the main gist of
[58:37] this. Uh Katherine helped write the
buffer strip in section five. I had an
[58:43] amateur's effort at writing buffer
strips and she fixed that for me. So
[58:47] this is um things she provided. Um if
you look
[58:54] after the buffer strip definition, if
you go to page three, item B, there are
[59:00] some standards, brief standards for
underground mining. The main gist of
[59:04] this is not underground mining. It's
really surface mining or mineral
[59:09] extraction. The two things that show
there uh are minimum setbacks of 500 ft.
[59:16] Unless there's a property line that is
for property zone residential or there
[59:22] is an adjacent residence then the
setback is 1,00 ft. That may seem
[59:27] horrendous but I will tell you Knox
County, Washington County uh they are
[59:33] even higher. Knox County is not higher.
Washington County even has a higher
[59:37] setback if it's along a property line
that's residential. Theirs is 1500 feet.
[59:43] And so when I looked at this, uh, I I've
looked at what other people are doing to
[59:48] say, "Okay, what's what's within the
realm of reason?" And again, what we're
[59:52] trying to do is make sure operations are
far enough away from somebody's front
[59:59] porch that they can sit on their front
porch and not be disturbed by mining
[1:00:04] operations.
Then we dropped on down to the surface
[1:00:08] mounting standards in item C. Uh again,
it's a basic 500 foot setback anywhere.
[1:00:14] Knox County has that, Washington County
has it, Sullivan County, they all have a
[1:00:18] basic minimum of 500 ft um for anything.
And then again, it has the 1000 foot
[1:00:23] setback if it's a property line that's
um zoned residential or contains a
[1:00:29] residence regardless of how it's zoned.
Um, I missed this in the um underground
[1:00:38] mining. I've got a minimum lot size of
100 acres there and also a minimum lot
[1:00:43] size of 100 acres for surface mining.
And then the rest of those few
[1:00:48] paragraphs there are mainly dealing
again with buffering strips which is how
[1:00:53] we protect the neighbors and make sure
that what happens
[1:00:58] on the mining operation is not going to
cost them the enjoyment of their own
[1:01:03] property that they've had for 20 or 30
years. And that's the the main
[1:01:07] objective.
So what I would like to do is we've had
[1:01:12] this to look at. I don't know if you had
a chance to read it before tonight. Uh,
[1:01:16] but now now for sure we've walked
through it a little bit.
[1:01:20] I know we're gonna have to tweak this a
little once I can get some more input
[1:01:24] from the county attorney to clarify a
few things. So, I would just like to
[1:01:30] keep this in your hands. Uh, make a
motion tonight to table this until the
[1:01:35] June meeting at which time I would
expect to have a new draft that
[1:01:39] addresses the attorney's concerns.
[1:01:44] » Okay. A motion proper proper motion.
I'll ask for a second. Do we have a
[1:01:49] second?
>> Second.
[1:01:50] » We have a second. Is there any further
discussion on this?
[1:01:55] » And I'll be happy to answer questions
now if anybody wants to ask anything.
[1:01:59] » David, thank you for your work very
much. Being no discussion, all those in
[1:02:05] favor of postponing this until the June
meeting. Let me know by saying I. I.
[1:02:11] » All those opposed. Motion passes.
[1:02:22] Moving on down
the agenda. I just covered the agenda
[1:02:26] uplaw.
[1:02:35] Yes, it's the uh second page
and that's discussion of proposed
[1:02:40] procedural rules and bylaws for the
Jefferson County Regional Planning
[1:02:44] Commission.
And I open that up to the board.
[1:03:13] » [snorts]
[1:03:16] » Mr. Nelson, since nobody's jumping, if
you want to speak to the rules that you
[1:03:21] brought forward, and I know we've had
those for a little while, and we kind of
[1:03:25] kicked things down the road. U wanted
you to be here when we discussed them.
[1:03:30] » Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> You're very, very welcome. I'll I'll let
[1:03:33] you go ahead and speak to that.
>> Okay. All right. So, I guess two months
[1:03:37] ago now when when we talked about this
first, um we had a draft that of of
[1:03:43] bylaws that Miss Bowwin had done and
then um I was hoping to try to work with
[1:03:48] her on that. We couldn't connect and
since I couldn't connect with her, I
[1:03:51] thought, well, I'm just going to do my
own. Sorry, Mrs. B, but I just decided
[1:03:55] to do mine. I took everything she had in
hers and and put it in the draft I put
[1:04:00] together. Uh there were a few additional
things and I'll I'll we'll re review the
[1:04:06] additional items that I added from her
draft. Um there was a little bit of
[1:04:13] wording change and in my section five.
We've got two documents here. So I don't
[1:04:18] know. I'm I'm going to speak from my
draft.
[1:04:20] » Are we on Jefferson County Regional?
>> We're on Jefferson bylaws of the
[1:04:25] Jefferson County Regional Planning
Commission. on page two, section five,
[1:04:30] compensation. I suggested a little bit
of a wording change there, um, of no
[1:04:35] major significance other than maybe it's
just my preference for my words versus
[1:04:40] hers. Uh I suggested we say uh reim in
sentence number two of section five
[1:04:48] reimbursement for travel and continuing
education expenses of the members shall
[1:04:53] be in accordance with the prevailing
policy of Jefferson County, Tennessee.
[1:04:57] She had worded that differently and I
thought well things may change. So I was
[1:05:02] just suggesting the wording that uh it
just follows their policy whatever it
[1:05:07] might be from time to time.
[1:05:11] In article three, the next article down
section one under officers, I added
[1:05:17] something that she did not have. The
last of that sentence, I just added and
[1:05:22] any additional officers it deems
appropriate from time to time. That's in
[1:05:26] your draft. I'm just pointing out to you
the things that I put in the draft idea
[1:05:31] that she did not have.
>> Go over that with me, Dave. Okay.
[1:05:35] Please.
>> Section one, officers. Uh, can we just
[1:05:38] make sure we're on the
>> Yeah, I'm We have had several copies of
[1:05:42] these come out. There should have been a
copy of the bylaws
[1:05:46] » and a section of the meeting rules in
there.
[1:05:49] » That's not That's not Yeah. Okay. Okay.
>> We've actually got two bylaws look like
[1:05:53] this.
>> Okay.
[1:05:54] » Here's rules.
>> Here's what I'm looking at.
[1:05:59] » I've got the bylaws and meeting rules.
[1:06:04] We don't have that. You don't have that.
No.
[1:06:07] » Is that the original copy? David, you
>> I've got I've got a few copies of the
[1:06:12] original. Yes. Okay. I only have one
copy.
[1:06:14] » I got that that that and that.
>> And I'll be more than willing to hand
[1:06:17] those out.
>> Okay. Well, I don't need one. I have
[1:06:20] one.
[1:06:23] » So, what you got? We don't You can share
mine,
[1:06:26] » David.
>> Okay. So, what
[1:06:30] » article one the commission is that?
>> That's the bylaw. Pardon me. Meeting
[1:06:35] rules. No. Yeah. We're not talking about
meeting rules. We're talking about
[1:06:38] » So, the first one is that one.
>> Yeah.
[1:06:41] » Okay.
>> Yeah. I can't see. You got it. No,
[1:06:44] that's not it.
>> I'll let you.
[1:06:45] » Okay.
[1:06:49] » That's not That's not what we're talking
about.
[1:06:52] » I'll just read.
>> This is what we're talking about though,
[1:06:54] right?
>> Yes.
[1:06:56] » Okay. [laughter]
>> Sorry.
[1:06:57] » Is it me?
>> Sir,
[1:06:58] » pass that one off.
>> Okay.
[1:07:00] » Yeah.
>> All right.
[1:07:01] » Okay.
Now
[1:07:04] » have one.
>> Now we all get one.
[1:07:08] » Okay. We all have the same thing now.
Okay.
[1:07:11] » We're all frantically
meeting rules. That's the
[1:07:17] » Everybody has the right one as well.
>> That's the meeting. No, I've got four
[1:07:20] different ones.
[1:07:23] » I
can go make copies of this one.
[1:07:26] » I think you can tell the difference by
the font.
[1:07:28] » The font is different on the two.
>> Show that. This is the new font font.
[1:07:33] » This is what we're working on.
>> By laws
[1:07:38] » of the Jefferson County Regional
Planning Commission had
[1:07:42] » Is that what we are?
>> Yes. Gotcha. Okay.
[1:07:46] » Yep.
>> Yeah. I know. The last two I had. Okay.
[1:07:56] » So, it's this one. That's the No.
Okay. Yeah, that's much different.
[1:08:04] » What did you say?
>> Yeah, this is was in the back of the
[1:08:07] deck.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. All right. I think that
[1:08:09] was that was Catherine's.
>> Somebody got my copy. It's got notes on
[1:08:14] it.
>> Uhoh.
[1:08:16] » Look at the second page and see which
one got a little bit of ink on it.
[1:08:19] » Sue is really mean. I think this is
[laughter]
[1:08:24] » Tell
that's [laughter]
[1:08:27] Catherine. Okay.
>> Oh, no. No. I got some ink here.
[1:08:30] » That's what I need. Let me swap out with
you.
[1:08:33] » Hold on. Let's see what O'Brien.
Thank you.
[1:08:37] » He said happy birthday to me. My
birthday
[1:08:42] » 38 reverse.
>> Okay. All right. So,
[1:08:48] page two of this document, which is what
I was reading from.
[1:08:52] » Page two at the top, section five,
compensation. I just changed wording
[1:08:56] there a little bit from what Katherine
had to where it reads in the second
[1:09:00] sentence, reimbursement for travel and
continuing education expenses of members
[1:09:06] shall be in accordance with the
prevailing policy of Jefferson County,
[1:09:09] Tennessee. U she had referenced a
specific document, I think, and I
[1:09:13] thought, well, that could change from
year to year, so maybe we just leave it
[1:09:16] open-ended. And so that's why I wanted
to make that change.
[1:09:21] Next article down, article three,
officers and their duties, section one.
[1:09:26] The last part of that sentence in the
document you have, I added to
[1:09:30] Katherine's document that just says any
additional officers it deems appropriate
[1:09:35] from time to time.
So, we're just saying we'll have a
[1:09:40] chairperson, vice chair person,
secretary, and any additional officers
[1:09:44] we deem necessary and appropriate
>> if we needed to form a committee and do
[1:09:49] some of those things. Absolutely. Right.
>> Subcommittee I guess would be
[1:09:55] » or or or a parliamentarian. We have a
parliamentarian.
[1:09:58] » We have parliamentary. Yeah.
>> Um page three uh article four election
[1:10:04] of officers. There is one change here
that's not a change between or
[1:10:07] difference between my document and
Catherine's. It's a change in when we do
[1:10:11] officers. Um it says that officers shall
be elected at an annual organization
[1:10:16] meeting in the month of January.
Historically, we've been doing that in
[1:10:20] October. Um, and
[1:10:26] I think Katherine put that in her draft,
so I picked it up and I was fine with
[1:10:29] it. But it may be something that we need
to think about [clears throat] and and
[1:10:33] make sure we're okay with that.
[1:10:39] » Commissioners will change on this
committee in September. Is that right?
[1:10:43] » Correct. I would think move it back to
September meeting instead of October
[1:10:47] because you won't know who's going to be
on here and that. Right.
[1:10:50] » That's the only thing I
>> that's what we do on commission is
[1:10:53] » right.
>> September meeting you have all your
[1:10:55] election of officers and that type of
stuff. That's that's my only hesitation
[1:10:58] on October.
>> Right.
[1:10:59] » So, do we just want to omit January and
put September?
[1:11:03] » Yeah, I would
be better.
[1:11:11] Now, right below that, there are two
short paragraphs that I added that docu
[1:11:16] Katherine didn't have in her document.
Uh, it's just about the election
[1:11:19] process, and it just says the current
presiding chairperson or chairperson
[1:11:23] selected by majority vote will serve as
chairperson for the election. Um and
[1:11:29] then the second added little paragraph
there says whoever is nominated and gets
[1:11:35] the new office basically uh will take
office upon adjournment of the annual
[1:11:41] organization meeting. In other words,
their term starts once that meeting
[1:11:44] adjourns.
[1:11:50] Now go to page four
uh section seven attendance.
[1:11:57] Um, I had a little bit of a concern
about dealing how we deal with that. I
[1:12:01] think it's a good good provision that
Katherine had 11 of it. Um, but I'm not
[1:12:06] sure that there's any authority to kick
somebody off the commission other than
[1:12:11] by the county mayor.
>> Um,
[1:12:15] » is it legal?
>> Yeah, the same thing I come up with.
[1:12:18] » Well, we we t we did talk about that
last time.
[1:12:21] » Um, and so it's like, well, uh, I don't
know if it is or isn't. Uh we could do
[1:12:27] two or three things about this little
wording I guess is we could ask the
[1:12:31] county attorney uh or uh
just leave it and if we try to do that
[1:12:38] and it's not legal obviously it's not
legal. The the county mayor does appoint
[1:12:42] the positions. We know that. Um and I'm
not really sure if once the county
[1:12:48] mayor's made an appointment if he can
undo it. I don't know. You do you know
[1:12:52] have any idea?
>> I think there's a process to that. I'm
[1:12:54] not sure. I haven't looked into that.
Okay. I know county commission can
[1:12:58] remove one of us.
>> Yeah,
[1:13:00] » county commission can
>> for cops.
[1:13:03] » We can't I don't think we have the
authority to kick anybody off this
[1:13:06] commission ourselves. Uh because it is a
mayoral appointment. Um but nonetheless,
[1:13:12] I think it is a good idea that if we
have people that are taking the seat and
[1:13:16] not showing up and doing the job, we
would like to replace them.
[1:13:20] » You know, I want people to come
[laughter] and participate. Um, so I I I
[1:13:25] would like to have that provision
and I don't know um what how how how
[1:13:31] would be the best way to deal with
wording on that at this point.
[1:13:33] » Could we refer to county commission in
the event that somebody misses three
[1:13:36] meetings? That's a good idea.
>> I think it needs to be addressed if
[1:13:39] » instead instead of bypassing the mayor
though,
[1:13:43] » I don't think we need to go straight to
county commission. We should go to the
[1:13:46] mayor. If we just struck the last part
of the last sentence,
[1:13:52] u the chairperson shall notify the
county mayor and request and reward that
[1:13:57] last part, the appointment of
replacement that and however you want to
[1:14:02] craft the wording and I enjoy listening
to you speak. You have a a good way with
[1:14:06] words and I I appreciate that
to address the situation somehow,
[1:14:12] however he sees fit. Or or maybe we just
stop with notify the county mayor.
[1:14:17] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. And that's we could strike that.
[1:14:20] » I'm at peace with that. I think Yeah.
>> Yeah. Why don't we just do that? That's
[1:14:25] simple.
>> So it doesn't have to be brought before
[1:14:27] the county commissioners.
>> Do county commissioners have to Okay.
[1:14:32] When somebody's put on this
>> the mayor, don't the mayor would
[1:14:37] probably have to present that to county
commission upon time he makes a
[1:14:40] decision.
>> Mayor appoints commission confirms.
[1:14:43] Right. So
>> there you go.
[1:14:45] » So yeah, it's a
>> Okay. All right. Okay. Um I added down
[1:14:50] at the bottom of page four, section 10
for two lot subdivisions because we have
[1:14:56] delegated that responsibility. And I
know it became an issue about a year or
[1:15:00] two ago. I forgot when exactly. And we
spent a lot of time trying to figure out
[1:15:04] were we doing the right thing or
[laughter] not and do we have the
[1:15:06] authority to do it. So I thought well
let's just put it in our bylaws and that
[1:15:09] way it's covered. Uh, so I I did add
that in and that's basically just
[1:15:14] covering that delegation of authority
and that goes on over page five. You can
[1:15:20] take
>> I was No, I was just seeing what how it
[1:15:22] how it ends.
[1:15:27] » Also on page five, I added section 11
minutes, which we do anyway. Um,
[1:15:35] I think the document I was working with
had that, so I left it in there. Um, and
[1:15:40] then section 12 likewise was something I
took out. I I used Haywood counties um
[1:15:45] eyelaws as sort of my straw man to start
this and they had those two things in
[1:15:50] there. So I just threw them in too.
[1:15:55] And otherwise everything that I have not
talked about in this document is exactly
[1:16:01] the same as it was in Kathy's document.
[1:16:46] David, go back over the very first one
you went over because I think you had a
[1:16:51] lot of confusion going on about what you
were reading from the top of you. We got
[1:16:55] those other copies handed out,
>> right? Uh [snorts] the fir the first
[1:16:59] thing was on page two, section five.
>> Okay.
[1:17:02] » I just changed wording a little bit on
how the travel reimbursement is handled.
[1:17:08] » Five. Page two, section five. Top of the
top of the page.
[1:17:11] » Yeah. Section five, compensation. I just
rewarded that a little bit about how the
[1:17:18] reimbursement for expenses takes place.
I just put in that it's based on the
[1:17:21] prevailing policy of Jefferson County.
>> That way if the policy changes, it's
[1:17:27] still governed by their policy.
>> We changed and the next thing we changed
[1:17:34] after section five,
>> it was right below it. Section one
[1:17:38] officers. I added
the phrase and any additional officers
[1:17:43] that deems appropriate from time to
time. That was added.
[1:17:46] » Okay.
>> Last.
[1:18:01] And then the next thing we change would
be just the wording in article 4 section
[1:18:07] one striking January inputting
September.
[1:18:10] » Right.
>> Okay.
[1:18:12] » Now that is a change to this draft. The
others are already in there that we
[1:18:17] talked about. Right. So we do I think we
have two changes to this document that
[1:18:21] have been discussed. One is to change
January to September.
[1:18:24] » Yes. And the other is to to truncate the
sentence about notifying the county
[1:18:30] mayor. Just to stop right there and
don't put the rest of that sentence in.
[1:18:39] » Yes, ma'am.
>> I have one correction.
[1:18:42] Um, you're assigning the Can I say good
um
[1:18:48] the two lot subdivisions? Mhm. Um,
[1:18:56] uh, Stephanie cannot disapprove a
plaque.
[1:19:02] » Okay.
>> She can either approve or send the
[1:19:05] » she either approves or sends to us or
the planning commissioner.
[1:19:08] » Uh, she she um
>> Okay.
[1:19:11] » There's no disapproval.
Um,
[1:19:16] and you should have usually there's a
statement in there that
[1:19:24] uh if she deems a
issue, she is uncomfortable at any time
[1:19:31] with a plat, she can refer it. Like that
I don't I have authority to do that in
[1:19:38] other counties.
>> And there are [clears throat] some I
[1:19:40] look at and I'm like,
>> I'm not touching it. It's it's it's
[1:19:44] either a political issue like the I had
to admit the one about the sheds. I
[1:19:50] would not have touched that one. Uh and
I think I even said you got my note
[1:19:55] afterward like don't approve that or uh
it should have been referred here.
[1:20:00] Anything that has any kind of political
or
[1:20:04] » e even if it meets
>> even if it meets No, I would
[1:20:08] » that's heavily contentious. I guess
>> if it's a contious
[1:20:12] » Yeah.
>> because it could be challenged based on
[1:20:14] the contious aspect of it.
>> Yeah. But I go back if it meets all
[1:20:20] requirements.
>> Well, she's using her to scratch. I
[1:20:22] » I know. I I know. But it that's pretty
much cut and dry check boxes if it meets
[1:20:28] the requirements or not. I mean, there's
not a lot of gray area there.
[1:20:35] » On two lot subdivision.
>> On two lot subdivision there. I mean,
[1:20:38] he's he's it's he's pretty much cut and
dry. It's laid out.
[1:20:40] » I think it's still a good mechanism for
whoever's in the staff position to kick
[1:20:45] that to a body because in the scenario
you're describing, it would still get
[1:20:48] approved legally. It would have no
reason to be disapproved, right?
[1:20:51] » But at least it's like, look, everybody
has looked at this. It does meet the
[1:20:56] requirements whether you like it or not.
>> So, uh, and and she can use her or
[1:21:01] whoever can use their discretion.
>> Yeah.
[1:21:06] I just if you got if you got the
checklist and it meets it irregardless
[1:21:12] how you feel, I feel, or he feels,
>> it meets it.
[1:21:15] » I've had to sit here and vote for some.
I didn't
[1:21:18] » Absolutely. [laughter]
>> I didn't agree with them. U
[1:21:21] but um
>> and and what you're doing in that if
[1:21:24] they come in week one of the month,
you're holding whoever's doing what
[1:21:28] they're doing up in another month's time
for something that's already in black
[1:21:31] and white.
[1:21:35] And and that's where you got to lay
political bias aside and do what's in
[1:21:38] black and white. If it meets the
requirements, it meets them whether
[1:21:42] Austin's spirit and Brian's against it
or not.
[1:21:44] » Yeah.
>> Right.
[1:21:45] » Uh usually the other way around, but
[snorts]
[1:21:50] » um
>> well, you're not going to be building
[1:21:52] those,
>> right?
[1:21:53] » I mean, it's going to be somebody got a
form or cutting off section for their
[1:21:57] kid for a house. And and again, you're
making it harder on a land owner, harder
[1:22:01] on a man that's trying to get something
or woman who's trying to get something
[1:22:04] done.
>> Like in this scenario, we're talking
[1:22:06] about one instance and in that instance,
the staff did approve it. So,
[1:22:09] » right. I'm just come up about
hypothetical future situations.
[1:22:13] » Yeah.
>> If it's in black and white, we don't
[1:22:16] need to see it.
Well, and I think maybe this is
[1:22:19] something that the staff may look at
that go
[1:22:23] » and it's I don't feel that it actually
means, but maybe you look at it and go,
[1:22:28] "Actually, I think it does."
>> Right.
[1:22:30] » And if she she or whoever in the future
is in that position is at that point,
[1:22:34] then by all means bring it to us.
>> Yeah. And that's all this says, my
[1:22:37] understanding of it.
>> Yeah. It's just an out.
[1:22:40] » Yeah.
>> Um and again, she can't disprove one.
[1:22:44] » Yeah. Right. And now the deal is and the
the state law
[1:22:50] she [laughter]
>> I mean really
[1:22:53] » sorry.
>> So
[1:22:56] » there's just instances where uh a staff
person may not feel comfortable
[1:23:00] approving.
>> Absolutely.
[1:23:02] » And uh the the way this is written it's
like someone could you know just because
[1:23:09] she doesn't feel comfortable approving
stuff and something
[1:23:12] » and I were to have that out. Absolutely.
then it needs to be there. I'm I'm just
[1:23:16] saying though if
>> and if it's if it's cut and dry,
[1:23:19] » you you brought in the whole political
aspect and who it's going to offend this
[1:23:22] that and the other and stuff and that's
that's off the table. If it's cut and
[1:23:26] dry, it's cut and dry.
>> Yeah.
[1:23:28] » No matter who's for it or who's against
it if it meets what the requirements set
[1:23:32] in place.
>> If it if we don't go with them, what's
[1:23:35] the use in having them?
>> And there in lies the reason that the
[1:23:39] planning commission has authority for
subra. You're not it's not a political
[1:23:42] decision.
That would be a county commissioner.
[1:23:45] » Absolutely.
>> So, it rests with the planning
[1:23:46] commission. But, um,
>> sorry, I didn't I'm not trying to be
[1:23:51] argumentative, but I think we're
spinning we're spinning our wheels on
[1:23:55] stuff that we don't need to spend it on.
>> Yeah.
[1:23:56] » Well, I'm opposed to this.
>> I do have a problem like you were.
[1:24:00] » No, I'm I'm opposed to having it before
us if it's cut and dry.
[1:24:06] » She said she she said if it had
political connotation to it,
[1:24:11] » it should come here.
it should come here if she's unsure and
[1:24:16] politics ain't got nothing to do
>> and that's that is not in here. So
[1:24:19] ultimately it's the discretion of
whoever holds [laughter]
[1:24:21] » that was great on paper.
>> Thank you. Yeah.
[1:24:24] » So basically we need to remove the
disapprove and
[1:24:27] » what happens if it doesn't meet the
requirements when they turn it in.
[1:24:32] » Um
>> isn't that a disapproval? Well,
[1:24:35] » she's she's going to disapprove it to
the person presenting it because it
[1:24:39] doesn't meet our requirements and
they've got to fix it.
[1:24:41] » She's going to say, "Yeah, go fix it."
>> She's saying it's just like I do. I'll
[1:24:46] make a list of things that they omitted
and you guys approve it on on these
[1:24:51] conditions that these conditions are met
>> and then it's approved.
[1:24:55] » Most people would come in, Stephanie
would go, "Hey, you didn't check this or
[1:25:00] that." And they're going to go, "Oh, let
me go fix that." Come back. Most people
[1:25:03] are going to do that. If someone were to
be forceful, she can't say, "No, I'm not
[1:25:06] approving this." At that point, she go,
"Okay, go before the planning
[1:25:09] commission." And at that point, you're
going to get told the same thing.
[1:25:12] » Absolutely.
>> There also is a proviso in the zoning
[1:25:17] ordinance where I mean in the subreg,
and this is in state law, that if a plat
[1:25:21] is presented that meets the requirements
and it's not approved or disapproved
[1:25:27] within 60 days,
>> I definitely remember that.
[1:25:29] » It's automatically approved.
>> Yes. So, and that that is to ensure that
[1:25:35] um nobody just gets one and sits on it.
>> It goes through the process.
[1:25:39] » Um but um
and it you know if let's say that there
[1:25:46] was ever a challenge about something
that challenges to if she's
[1:25:51] uncomfortable with something that
challenges of this board
[1:25:56] not a staff person. That's that's where
um that's the [clears throat] reason I
[1:26:03] think if anything is
>> if you have never said the word
[1:26:06] politics, we wouldn't be having this
conversation. Did that trigger you,
[1:26:09] Brian? [laughter]
>> You're not a politician.
[1:26:12] » I am not sure
at all.
[1:26:16] » But she also should not be she should
not be taking grief over something
[1:26:21] that's a hot issue.
>> Absolutely. And we tried to have her
[1:26:23] back for the most part.
>> Right. Right. That's why if there's an
[1:26:27] issue that's uh um um anything that's a
hot issue or combative or etc etc etc
[1:26:36] that decision then should be made by
this board and not that set first.
[1:26:40] » I agree.
>> Can can I suggest a wording change then
[1:26:42] on this?
>> Absolutely.
[1:26:43] » Can we put political in there? No,
>> you [laughter] pushing me
[1:26:49] again.
>> Catherine, see see how you you feel
[1:26:53] about this. If we where there's a
semicolon at the top of that page, it
[1:26:57] says county subdivision regulations are
met. Semicolon. How about if we change
[1:27:01] that semicolon to a period and strike
and approve or disapprove the plants.
[1:27:08] » The next sentence then says, if
approved, this is what she does. Will
[1:27:11] that work?
>> Did that save you? If approved, it's sh.
[1:27:16] Yes.
>> Okay. Okay.
[1:27:20] » Cook period.
>> Strike.
[1:27:29] » That was simple enough. Less is more.
[1:27:39] » I'm down.
>> Yeah.
[1:27:42] » Yeah. I mean that that sounds great. It
does. We've addressed this. So last
[1:27:49] address this
[1:27:55] point a a point. Somebody comes in
brings a plaque. It is woefully
[1:28:02] inadequate.
>> She gives them a list. They they she
[1:28:06] gives them a list with six things. They
fix three
[1:28:10] at that point. bring it to this body to
have them deny it.
[1:28:16] » Yeah.
>> Um that you know no there's you reach a
[1:28:20] point where just back and forth and back
and forth with some of these surveyors.
[1:28:25] You know how that works. Oh yeah. So if
she does not take an action to approve
[1:28:29] or disapprove in 60 days then you run a
foul of the state law that it's
[1:28:35] » all right
>> automatically approved. So if she takes
[1:28:38] it, it's you work with it for one month.
After one month, the next month, put it
[1:28:44] on their agenda.
>> Okay.
[1:28:46] » If she gives them something to correct
and they don't correct it though, then
[1:28:49] is that not
>> Yeah.
[1:28:52] » Do we still Does the time start from the
time she tells them instructions?
[1:28:55] » Submitt.
>> Okay.
[1:28:56] » It's submitt and I'll tell you this,
>> that's
[1:29:01] » there are people who say it's submitt.
There are people who say it's the action
[1:29:06] of uh planning commission.
>> Uh that is a hotly debated.
[1:29:11] » There's actually not
>> submitt would be when they write a
[1:29:15] check.
>> Um
[1:29:17] » they got to pay 100 bucks to submit it.
>> It's like when they hand it in, she
[1:29:21] says, "Well, you can't I can't take this
cuz you got to do this, this, this, and
[1:29:23] this, and this." Now, when you get that
fixed, bring it back. I take your check.
[1:29:26] » I mean, be my thoughts. And most of the
surveyors here that I see are are doing
[1:29:32] a good job.
>> Yeah.
[1:29:34] » Uh there are surveyors that
>> you won't put anything on. And I tell
[1:29:39] you 90% of the time they're they're
elderly and they're still doing work and
[1:29:44] they they they they can't do a digital
copy is uh you know there just times
[1:29:50] that they they'll
>> it goes back and forth and back and
[1:29:55] forth and back and forth. If it goes
back one more time, I give it to the
[1:30:00] planning commission to say deny it
without prejudice and then they can say
[1:30:04] when you correct this, we'll approve it.
But we'll approve it.
[1:30:08] » Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh we've got I'm going to kind of
[1:30:14] rain this in since we've talked a little
bit about it. We've got the copies.
[1:30:18] We've seen some stricken language. Uh
we've seen some change language. Does
[1:30:24] everybody have theirs marked where the
changes have been made?
[1:30:27] » Well, I've got two golf cers one of
them, right?
[1:30:29] » Okay. [laughter]
>> Different, but they're not the one we're
[1:30:33] dealing with.
>> No, they're not.
[1:30:35] » They're not.
>> Right. But we can get a copy made I'll
[1:30:41] take with me.
>> Yeah, that's this one. And this has the
[1:30:44] stricken.
>> Yeah.
[1:30:46] » And the changes made.
David, I think it's good piece of work.
[1:30:51] I like what I'm seeing. Would you be
willing to let us get these copies made,
[1:30:55] have them, and then
>> go to next
[1:30:58] » table to next meeting?
>> Absolutely. Uh, in fact, I'll make the
[1:31:01] changes in the original draft that we
talked about tonight and give them to
[1:31:05] Stephanie to to redistribute.
>> Okay. Everybody peace with that?
[1:31:09] » Yep.
>> I am as long as like everybody's got all
[1:31:12] their
>> It's all on the table now, right? Any
[1:31:16] concerns or anything with this? Like we
just need a clean document to present
[1:31:19] and approve. Yeah, I think I think this
is a good piece of work.
[1:31:23] » Yeah, if something comes up, I'll let
you know in June.
[1:31:25] » You're a good piece of work. [laughter]
>> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion
[1:31:30] that we postpone uh final approval on
the bylaws of Jefferson County Regional
[1:31:36] Planning Commission until next month, in
which time I will present [snorts]
[1:31:41] a new draft of the document with the
three changes we discussed
[1:31:47] today.
>> Okay. Second or you're going to ask for
[1:31:51] a second?
>> Yeah, I'll ask for a second.
[1:31:53] » You're learning often. Stick with it. We
have a proper motion on the forward. Do
[1:31:58] we have a second?
>> Second.
[1:32:00] » Is there any further discussion?
>> I hope not.
[1:32:04] » Baleith. One more outburst. [laughter]
>> One more item.
[1:32:08] » One more outburst.
>> Thank you. on the way out. [laughter]
[1:32:13] » Being none, all those in favor of
postponement till June, let it be known
[1:32:17] by saying I.
>> I.
[1:32:20] » Down to item V five. Any other business?
>> Is today really Miss Sue's birthday?
[1:32:30] » Happy birthday.
>> We don't have a cake for you.
[1:32:33] » Thank you. I know. You could say
[1:32:37] » you want a cake. So that's a bad
suggestion. [laughter]
[1:32:42] » Yeah. Yeah. Leave the big the big main
one.
[1:32:46] » We we we know we do have one thing to
show the group. So if you would allow
[1:32:49] Stephanie a moment to go retrieve that
just to
[1:32:52] » hold you seat. Sue, happy birthday.
>> Thank you.
[1:32:55] » This isn't the case.
>> I love to get it was but
[1:33:00] dread getting them. I love it.
>> I know this is a little bit out of
[1:33:03] order, but I'd like to ask a quick
question. Uh item A being the final PL
[1:33:09] approval for Ponderosa.
It was postponed last month, postponed
[1:33:13] it again this month.
>> It's if it's postponed, it's till they
[1:33:16] get their stuff together. It's not
tabled. So it's it's we wait until they
[1:33:20] get everything together.
>> But you were talking about 60 days from
[1:33:24] the day they submitted if no action is
taken. It becomes uh it's passed without
[1:33:29] action.
>> No,
[1:33:32] » but they have taken action. Postponement
is an action. Yeah,
[1:33:35] » it's it's we're we're good and they'll
come back in June if they're ready.
[1:33:39] » Okay.
>> Yeah,
[1:33:40] » I appreciate it. You're very welcome.
>> Uh so the document she's bringing
[1:33:47] » um we've um we've struggled with
um
[1:33:55] a couple here. Um
[1:34:03] other weird one that's just
that one the one from
[1:34:12] » that's
[1:34:20] um
[1:34:24] » okay let me I'll bring up the one from
here.
[1:34:28] » Sorry.
[1:34:33] » I just can't read it if I print it
because of the size.
[1:34:40] » Um,
so these have been quote unquote
[1:34:45] submitted. Um they are obviously are
deficient
[1:34:52] in a number of
that one was the one
[1:34:57] » they've been submitted and will be on
the agenda for the June meeting.
[1:35:00] Correct.
>> Um
[1:35:01] » well well is we've not determined that
yet because they're unbuildable lots
[1:35:07] under the water of the lake.
>> [laughter]
[1:35:12] » So what happened is a property owner
bought the whole
[1:35:17] » whole acreage under the water.
>> Yeah.
[1:35:20] » This was a survey that was done in 2009
that was never recorded.
[1:35:26] So when the when he purchased it, he
purchased it from somebody that it was
[1:35:30] only done in a deed. it wasn't recorded
and now he's buying it and want to
[1:35:36] subdivide it to all these unbuildable
lots and the hopes I guess of so selling
[1:35:42] it to the other property owners because
TVA won't give them a dock if they don't
[1:35:47] underneath don't own underneath the
water now
[1:35:52] this is I've got two of them
>> this is the
[1:35:57] » actually had a buddy that went through
some you know Todd Lacy he had to do the
[1:36:01] same Yeah,
>> this is
[1:36:04] um
>> that's the other one and I can't you can
[1:36:08] » everything outside of the purple line is
underwater.
[1:36:11] Uh and so I talked to
>> normally
[1:36:16] » I talked to
>> maybe not right now. [laughter]
[1:36:19] » I talked to an attorney with TVA
>> and I talked to another surveyor who was
[1:36:25] worked with some of these issues. Um
[clears throat] there actually are is
[1:36:30] property totally underwater that
there were people who owned to the
[1:36:37] center line of the river
and their deeds went out there even
[1:36:42] though TVA when they inundated it they
didn't totally go away.
[1:36:47] » Mhm. [clears throat] Um, so if you don't
have technically
[1:36:53] uh meet certain criteria, you can't get
a dock. So the intent, at least what the
[1:36:59] in two individuals I spoke with,
[snorts] their opinion was that this was
[1:37:04] being done in an effort to subdivide off
lots totally underwater and then sell
[1:37:10] them to adjacent property owners so they
could get a dock.
[1:37:14] It's as far as does it meet your
subdivision regulations. There's no road
[1:37:19] frontage, there's no access, [laughter]
there's no sewer, there's no water.
[1:37:23] » Our role is to build buildable lots. So
Steph and I have discussed this on
[1:37:28] numerous occasions. I've made lots of
phone calls
[1:37:31] » and like I said, the last two
with for this property were done on a
[1:37:38] deed referencing this old survey that
was never recorded. So they went through
[1:37:43] a title company
and the title company did the deed the
[1:37:47] last one.
>> Oh yeah.
[1:37:50] » And it's never been recorded.
>> So the original hasn't but has this
[1:37:54] » These have been recorded. This is where
he bought it
[1:37:58] and this is where they bought it
>> and it was referencing this survey
[1:38:04] with all the writing saying that's being
particularly described.
[1:38:08] » We just wanted you guys to be aware of
it. Obviously if It's not recorded
[1:38:12] though. It's not legal.
>> Well, that's I mean,
[1:38:17] » no, the most recent one is
>> surveyors,
[1:38:20] » right?
>> Or two different attorneys right here.
[1:38:22] But this one isn't. This is from
recording.
[1:38:26] » Been recorded. They're referencing this
old survey that wasn't recorded.
[1:38:30] » That was not recorded.
>> That wasn't recorded.
[1:38:32] » Doesn't Cherokee just go to the high
water.
[1:38:34] » It does. And so does watch bar.
>> You know, when I talked to
[1:38:37] » that would take care of so much of it.
When I talked to the attorney that works
[1:38:41] with TVA,
>> he said that all of this was
[1:38:47] moot because when TVA inundated there
were uh federal legislation that it was
[1:38:55] condemned
>> for water purposes for and so none of it
[1:39:00] was applicable, but he was going to look
around TVA and talk to some people. So
[1:39:05] TVA is is giving permits for docks based
on this.
[1:39:09] » No. No.
>> So,
[1:39:11] » but they also deny people docks.
>> They're denying these some of these
[1:39:15] people docks because they don't own
under the water
[1:39:18] » cuz they don't
>> because they don't Well,
[1:39:21] » hold on now.
>> That's what
[1:39:23] » they can't do that. There are certain
No, that's wrong. No, they don't own
[1:39:27] down to the line.
>> That's what they property doesn't
[1:39:31] necessarily touch the lake.
Yes, that's that's the deal.
[1:39:37] » Stop short of the water.
>> Yeah. Well, according to this, the 102.
[1:39:42] » Yeah.
>> Which is the high water mark,
[1:39:44] » right?
[1:39:48] » Again, we just wanted you to be aware of
it. We don't want you to do anything.
[1:39:52] Yeah. uh you know from the standpoint of
a plat they don't meet any kind of your
[1:39:57] criteria based on zoning or based on
zoning criteria and subre criteria
[1:40:04] to approve them. They can't be approved.
>> It sound political to me. [laughter]
[1:40:09] » Somebody's trying to charge somebody
that's done about water property.
[1:40:14] » So So here would be my thoughts on this,
you know. So, if this guy paid
[1:40:18] [clears throat] $1,000 for all this
underwater property and he's divided in
[1:40:21] lots, he can only take that $1,000 and
divide it out by every how many lots and
[1:40:24] that's all he can charge.
>> He paid $100,000 for it
[1:40:28] » for that.
>> Yeah.
[1:40:29] » And how many lots he got.
>> But
[1:40:31] » but he bought more than just this.
>> No, he just bought what was under the
[1:40:34] water.
>> But how far out does it go
[1:40:37] » to write? All that shows it's just a
stone parcel.
[1:40:41] » I don't think we can stipulate what he
sells it for. We
[1:40:44] » could. And I don't think we could
approve it either. cuz it fell under
[1:40:48] water.
>> Yeah. I don't know why you
[1:40:52] » you uh and this one is the one that
really scared me.
[1:40:56] » Um
>> I have no idea
[1:40:58] » what what your DA is, do all these other
lakes, [clears throat] right?
[1:41:01] » Also, you cannot represent somebody
else's property and record it
[1:41:07] without their signature.
>> Yeah.
[1:41:09] » So, from a number of different
standpoints, these do not meet the
[1:41:13] criteria for submittal. So, they're not
um
[1:41:19] that's what we're basing that on, but we
wanted to make you guys aware of it.
[1:41:24] See, if you had ever seen anything like
this or been aware of anything like this
[1:41:29] has occurred, I've never seen this.
>> I actually have a friend of mine bought
[1:41:34] a piece of property and then found out
he could not have a dock there. He had
[1:41:39] to buy a piece of property that was
underwater so he could have a dock.
[1:41:44] What was he? Where was Todd at?
>> Muddy Creek.
[1:41:46] » It was over near the sheds.
>> This is Muddy Creek.
[1:41:49] » Yeah, Muddy Creek. Todd's place, pretty
sure.
[1:41:54] » And at least one surveyor that I spoke
to said this was that was the reason for
[1:41:59] doing this.
>> Um
[1:42:02] that there would there would be an
attempt to go to these property owners
[1:42:06] and sell it to them and combine it with
their lots. and and uh the surveyor I
[1:42:13] spoke to said they had done it before
one lot at a time.
[1:42:19] » One lot at a time because and and then
you had the person's signature, etc.
[1:42:24] That one's got Jeez.
>> So that's a cove on two sides, right?
[1:42:30] Right.
>> Yeah. This one.
[1:42:31] » This one is big one is.
>> That's right.
[1:42:33] » Who checks the pins on them?
[laughter]
[1:42:39] » That's stupid.
But it's being done and there's money
[1:42:43] changing hands.
>> How much do they pay usually for a lot
[1:42:48] for or a lot underwater?
>> Eddie, [laughter]
[1:42:53] which it it would be I would feel better
about
[1:42:59] » Thank you for sharing. Could we
[laughter]
[1:43:02] could we even approve it though if it
violates all of our
[1:43:05] » right that
>> if it was being combined with adjacent
[1:43:09] property but that's not what these are
doing it shows
[1:43:13] » he wants it or whoever it is wants it
divvied up and then they're going to go
[1:43:17] » he wants to contact all the property
owners to buy one of the joints
[1:43:20] » and really do it the other way around
>> if someone who didn't own property
[1:43:25] bought one of these tracks somebody
didn't own adjacent property and they
[1:43:28] bought one of these tracks and they
wanted to anchor a house boat on top of
[1:43:32] their property. Lake City, there's house
boats all over that thing and they've
[1:43:37] got property. They run electrical lines
to them.
[1:43:40] Underwater cable.
>> Oh, been there. Seen it.
[1:43:44] » And they're not like in a marina where
what is that? A boat. That's a boat.
[1:43:48] That's a house.
>> It's It's a house boat.
[1:43:51] » House boat or boat house. house.
>> They've got docks on the on the house
[1:43:55] for the boat to pull into, for the jet
ski to pull into, and they run an
[1:43:59] electrical cable from the utility. You
can pick a 100 or 200 amp. And 200 amp's
[1:44:04] $20,000
to get a drop to your house,
[1:44:09] boat house.
>> And so you own the land on the lake and
[1:44:11] you're looking out at somebody else
using the water.
[1:44:16] » Well, this doable in different places,
I'm sure.
[1:44:19] Washington State, Columbia River,
Georgia. I'm sitting out there in front
[1:44:22] of the river. Got houses. I mean, houses
built on poles. River goes up and down.
[1:44:26] Houses go up and down.
>> Mhm.
[1:44:28] » Garage doors. Pull our boats right in.
Just hit the remote. Drive your boat
[1:44:31] right in the garage.
[1:44:34] » Sure do. Wonder if I can buy a bunch of
that lake bottom property.
[1:44:39] Start selling.
>> What was it? Somebody said you they gave
[1:44:42] you a price for how much they paid for
it.
[1:44:45] » And they got the deed. He paid $100,000
for that property.
[1:44:48] » He paid a hundred for all this.
>> For all that. That's under the water.
[1:44:51] » And the deed you've got is this recorded
the whole thing
[1:44:55] » written out.
>> Okay. It's not one lot.
[1:44:58] » No, it's two tracks.
>> Two tracks.
[1:45:01] » Maybe the only way we can afford to buy
land now.
[1:45:03] » I think [laughter]
>> I think we need to need to get Katherine
[1:45:07] to draw up where she disagrees with it
and just give that to [laughter]
[1:45:13] » Yeah.
>> Um
[1:45:15] » I thought we had a good meeting today.
You know that's uh uh
[1:45:19] » if you believe that I've got a piece of
property on Norris Lake [laughter]
[1:45:24] property.
>> Thank you all for showing this to us.
[1:45:28] And I don't know how we move forward
with something like this. Uh I mean if
[1:45:32] they've submitted
>> you get to deny it because it wouldn't
[1:45:36] meet the regulations and then it puts
them back in their ballpark to figure
[1:45:38] out how to do it
>> to figure that out. But we've got to
[1:45:40] give them guidance on how to meet
whatever they need to meet.
[1:45:43] » One lot at a time.
>> One lot at a time. That's not even Yeah,
[1:45:47] that's not even a original.
>> I wouldn't want to prevent I wouldn't
[1:45:51] want to prevent anyone that bordered it.
I mean, if I live there and I wanted to
[1:45:54] buy it,
>> Yeah.
[1:45:56] » I don't want to prevent that, but I also
don't want to violate our
[1:45:59] » Yeah. rules. rules.
>> You know, again, if they if they came in
[1:46:04] like brought lot 25 and 25 L and
combined them, then the determination
[1:46:12] would be Yes. You It's a It's a two lot
subdivision. Here's a great example.
[1:46:17] » Right.
>> Stephanie [laughter] can approve it.
[1:46:20] » Yeah.
You can
[1:46:22] » That could be That might be too
political.
[1:46:24] » Yeah, it sounds like it. [laughter]
Um that but that is the okay way to do
[1:46:32] it. Um
>> so that would be the guidance though
[1:46:36] » and and why do they have to have that in
order to be able to have a dock?
[1:46:41] » Cuz the government got involved.
>> Oh that's why it doesn't make sense.
[1:46:46] » Yeah. Money.
>> It's political. Brian
[1:46:49] [laughter] they go hand in hand. Some of
those houses have dogs.
[1:46:54] » Some of those houses have dogs. Well,
nobody has a dog without channel.
[1:46:58] » There's nothing black and white on this
one to make a decision.
[1:47:00] » No, no, no, no, [laughter] no. And and I
don't even I I mean, Has anyone asked
[1:47:05] you to approve it or
>> Oh, he just he wants it approved. That's
[1:47:09] what he wanted me that's what he wanted
me to find out cuz I told him I couldn't
[1:47:13] sign it. It was under the water.
>> Yeah.
[1:47:15] » And that's where we need your guidance,
Madam Planner.
[1:47:18] » Um I lost a whole field of wheat right
there.
[1:47:21] » Third back to
>> you know, we actually toss back
[1:47:23] [clears throat] and forth. Should we put
them all on your agenda and have them
[1:47:26] all denied?
>> Just tell if I get flood insurance.
[1:47:30] » How many? [laughter]
All of them. How many are there?
[1:47:33] » 31. 34. There's individual one.
>> 24 30 31.
[1:47:38] » And why they all came in?
>> The month of May.
[1:47:42] » Yeah.
>> The same few weeks.
[1:47:44] » There's 32 on this one.
>> I guess the water started off somewhere.
[1:47:48] » He figured out what he had.
I mean, maybe he serve they surveyed it
[1:47:53] while the water was low pool or
>> Well, they did. And this was 2009.
[1:47:58] » Oh, well,
>> well, the water leaves there every year.
[1:48:02] » They can survive.
>> Half of it out on dry land now.
[1:48:06] » This one here's got 42 lots.
>> Yeah.
[1:48:10] [snorts]
>> But they can do it one lot at a time.
[1:48:14] » They can do it one lot at a time.
>> As long as the property owner above the
[1:48:19] water is willing to buy it. Well, that's
what they would be doing is combining.
[1:48:23] Yeah, you would it would be a two lot
subdivision. You would be eliminate the
[1:48:26] lot eliminating lot.
>> Why do they have lots under the water
[1:48:31] anyway?
>> Well, the water wasn't there first.
[1:48:34] » Well, there they
deeds went to the center line of the
[1:48:39] river.
>> Oh, I got you.
[1:48:40] » So, that is the Gotcha.
>> So, they condemned up to the 1002.
[1:48:47] [clears throat]
Then the usable land was above the 102.
[1:48:51] So people bought those
>> and now
[1:48:53] » it sit dormant for years. I mean in the
80s you couldn't give away like
[1:48:57] property.
>> I know.
[1:49:00] » No you can't afford
>> you can't afford to buy it. Yeah. You
[1:49:03] ain't just kidding.
>> Okay. That's a good uh thing to close
[1:49:08] on.
>> So Katherine, you're going to work with
[1:49:11] Stephanie on this
>> and stuff. get things ready for her on
[1:49:15] what's the best way to move forward
>> with [laughter] the two block
[1:49:20] » with this whole deal
>> again. I've been asking a lot of
[1:49:23] questions. I've called I've called
everybody I know
[1:49:26] » and you talked to Brandon had you talked
to Brandon Jared, didn't he?
[1:49:30] » I called him. He never called me back.
>> Here's the deal. It's only going to be
[1:49:36] on Douglas.
>> Yeah. I mean, that's the only lake it's
[1:49:39] on because they bought the property to
the high water mark everywhere else.
[1:49:43] Yeah.
>> All the TVA changes.
[1:49:44] » Yes, sir.
>> You mean you don't have this trouble
[1:49:48] that way
>> and in in some like Waga Lake, there is
[1:49:51] no private property on the lake.
>> There are no houses on Lake. There's
[1:49:56] » Dale Hall. Same way.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So they I guess they just
[1:50:00] treated everyone different.
>> But Douglas is the only one that they
[1:50:06] » didn't buy the property. All the rest of
the lakes you only own down to the high
[1:50:10] water mark.
Cherokee North watch bar Loud and
[1:50:14] Teleico yada yada all the TVA chain
lakes right on down. [snorts]
[1:50:19] » Okay.
>> Okay. So,
[1:50:21] » okay.
>> Katherine and Stephanie's working on
[1:50:23] this and they're going to come back to
us what they come up with. Anything else
[1:50:27] y'all like to present?
>> Any other fun topics?
[1:50:32] » Being no other business, I'll entertain
a motion to adjourn. Have a motion. Do
[1:50:37] we have a second?
>> Second. All those of favor can