[0:04] Good evening. I'd like to call to order
this evening's meeting, please.
[0:08] Before we begin our meeting, I do have
just a few brief housekeeping items,
[0:13] just a few brief housekeeping items,
please.
[0:14] We do have public comment.
[0:15] There was a sign-in sheet at the back of
the room that's put out every meeting at
[0:21] 5:15, so those of you that have signed up
to speak on a particular item,
[0:25] We have the list, and I will be calling on
each of you as I get to those agenda
[0:31] items. There is also an additional public
comment period at the end of the meeting
[0:36] for those of you who have— who would like
to comment on a non-agenda item.
[0:41] So, just wanted to cover that before we
begin our meeting.
[0:44] I want to point out the 2 exits because—
[0:48] Oh, okay. Also, we have 2 exits from the
room this evening,
[0:52] here and then the double doors in the
back, just so— we have a full house
[0:56] back, just so— we have a full house
tonight,
[0:57] so just wanted to point that out as well.
[1:00] So, with that said, we will move on to
this evening's agenda.
[1:04] The first item on our agenda this evening
is the approval of our agenda.
[1:08] So moved.
[1:11] I have a motion. Do I have a second?
[1:13] Second.
[1:14] Okay, thank you. All in favor?
[1:16] Aye.
[1:17] Those opposed? Okay, motion carries.
[1:20] Item 3 on our agenda is the approval of
the July 27th meeting minutes.
[1:26] 2026 meetings— meeting minutes.
[1:29] Do I have a motion for— or are there any
additions? Okay. Do I have a second?
[1:35] All in favor?
[1:36] Aye.
[1:37] Those opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank
you.
[1:41] Under old business, item 4 on our agenda
this evening is the recommendation for a
[1:47] Planned Development District map
amendment, Snow Creek Ranch.
[1:51] I do want to add that this application was
deferred by the Planning Commission at
[1:57] our July meeting. Is the applicant
present, please? Good evening.
[2:02] If you would just state your name and then
just tell us a little bit about— again,
[2:08] I know you were here last month,
[2:10] but if you could just tell us about what
you're proposing for the property, please.
[2:17] Good evening. Nathan McVey with T-Score
Engineering.
[2:20] Good to see y'all again this week. Um, so
yeah, last meeting we were deferred.
[2:24] This is, um, Snow Creek Ranch, which is,
uh, off Snow Creek Road.
[2:28] Uh, it's a ministry retreat that's
seasonal, um,
[2:30] kind of centered on equestrian outdoors,
allowing people to kind of come in, drive,
[2:35] park, and then stay for a set amount of
days, um,
[2:38] there to kind of open up the word and, um,
[2:40] kind of retreat from everyday life that we
always experience.
[2:44] Last month there were 2 outstanding
comments that we had.
[2:47] One was kind of the emergency access plan.
[2:49] Since then, we've met with a couple
individuals.
[2:52] In your packet, you'll see there's a
letter of who we've met with,
[2:56] what's been kind of corresponded to,
[2:58] and then there's also an emergency action
plan packet that's in there.
[3:02] So both of those things have been provided
to you.
[3:05] The meeting that we had in August with the
Murray County Fire Department, Mr.
[3:09] Robinson. He met us out on site.
[3:11] We kind of walked the site, talked about
kind of the programming of everything.
[3:15] He's been provided all the files, all the
plans that we have up to this point,
[3:20] and he didn't really have any major
comments.
[3:22] Murray County or Murray Regional Health is
going to be meeting with us out there in
[3:27] September. So probably some comments from
them,
[3:30] but we'll make sure we address them all
accordingly.
[3:33] The second comment from last month was On
the dwelling units.
[3:36] And we talked with staff on that one as
well,
[3:39] and we agree that they're probably not
accessory dwellings,
[3:42] being with what they are as far as, you
know, 4 bedrooms and a shared kitchenette.
[3:47] However, we don't think it changes the PUD
plan at this point in time.
[3:50] That's more of a code item.
[3:52] And Robert and I discussed that when these
come through for building permits,
[3:56] that the building permits will be
addressed at that point with construction
[4:01] addressed at that point with construction
types,
[4:01] fire protection, etc. With that, I can
answer any other questions you may have.
[4:05] Thank you. Questions,
[4:08] comments from the commission, please?
[4:12] Go ahead, please. You have the floor.
[4:15] Do any of the proposed facilities include
stormwater
[4:20] or storm shelters for guests? Not at this
time. None?
[4:27] What's the—
[4:27] what's the plan if there is severe weather
or tornadoes?
[4:30] Was that discussed, Rebecca? We're
building some basements.
[4:33] Some of them will have basements. Do you
know which structures will have basements?
[4:37] Um, the Lake House and Lodge.
[4:40] Lake House and Lodge will have basements
now.
[4:42] Okay.
[4:45] That's it. I don't— I mean—
[4:48] Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, please.
[4:51] Jonathan Dow.
[4:51] Hi.
[4:52] Um, so yeah, I have a question about the
concern about the accessory dwelling unit.
[4:56] I know it's been addressed by staff,
[4:58] but I'm still I'm confused as to why it
keeps getting defined as an accessory
[5:02] dwelling unit, seeing as how it
definitely,
[5:04] obviously does not meet that definition of
an accessory dwelling unit.
[5:08] Could you give me some understanding on
that? They're not.
[5:11] We're going to go ahead and— right,
Robert,
[5:13] we talked about making them primary
dwelling units.
[5:16] Well, on your application and in your
submittal,
[5:19] it still defines it as an accessory
dwelling unit. Correct.
[5:22] The resubmittal happened,
[5:23] and we've had discussions with staff since
the resubmittal.
[5:26] So we connected last week with Robert and
staff and defined that a little further,
[5:30] dug into the code and refined what that
was.
[5:33] So are you good with changing that
definition or classification on your
[5:36] definition or classification on your
submittal?
[5:37] Correct. Moving forward,
[5:38] I don't know if we can change the
submittal prior to County Commission,
[5:42] but we can make that known at County
Commission as well that we agree with
[5:46] Commission as well that we agree with
that.
[5:46] Okay.
[5:49] I'll entertain that, John.
[5:51] And likewise, A condition of approval that
those are representative of
[5:56] an R occupancy would be in order as well.
[5:59] All right.
[6:02] If the Planning Commission so deems it.
Thank you.
[6:06] And the second concern is the— it's still
the water supply,
[6:10] the fire flow requirement and the water
demand.
[6:13] It's less than 500 gallons per minute out
there,
[6:17] and using pond water for a fire protection
life safety system is not a reliable
[6:22] source. You have biological contaminants
that could affect the system.
[6:27] So I think a better engineered solution
would be required for this.
[6:32] And that could be an elevated tank or some
type of more reliable source.
[6:37] But using pond water for fire protection
for lodging facilities,
[6:42] I don't see as A very reliable source.
[6:45] So I don't know how we need to address
that, but that's a big concern.
[6:50] And it could affect your going forward
with the development. Sure.
[6:54] Can we make that condition of approval?
[6:57] And I know you all will see this once
again at site plan stage.
[7:02] When we come back at site plan,
[7:04] we can have a more defined engineering
solution for what that looks like if we do
[7:10] solution for what that looks like if we do
go
[7:10] above ground with the tank or have reports
on the pond.
[7:14] We'll provide that solution for you then.
Okay. Okay. All right. I'm good.
[7:19] Thank you.
[7:20] All right. Thank you. Debbie. Thank you.
Hi. Thanks for coming back.
[7:25] In one of your— one of the documents,
[7:27] it says that guests will not come and go
throughout the course of their stay and
[7:33] that they're transported by vans to the
property. Yet you've got 141 parking
[7:38] property. Yet you've got 141 parking
spaces.
[7:39] Are those only going to be utilized when
there are special events?
[7:43] So that's only for special events?
[7:48] Okay, thank you.
[7:53] I, I don't, I don't believe we have anyone
signed up.
[7:56] Is anyone here signed up to speak on this
item on the agenda, please?
[8:00] Okay, no, we don't.
[8:01] I think, if I might—
[8:03] Yes, you have the floor, Mr. Delk.
[8:04] I think this site depicts the ongoing
discussion There's a lot of debate within
[8:10] discussion There's a lot of debate within
this
[8:10] county of what we do with our land.
[8:13] There is some who feel like we ought to
try to put a lot of houses on a small
[8:19] try to put a lot of houses on a small
amount
[8:20] of land so we leave more open land.
[8:22] There's others that feel like we ought to
have large lots and houses on them.
[8:28] And now— and we also have a preservation
plan which requires 15 acres.
[8:34] And this doesn't fit any of those modes,
[8:37] but it does demonstrate a useful property
that is a fairly low impact compared to
[8:43] what it could do if it were developed as a
subdivision.
[8:48] Yeah.
[8:50] It— the questions that have been raised
are good questions.
[8:54] The— you are doing a fire system, I
believe,
[8:57] that includes sprinklers off your ponds,
which reduces somewhat your demand.
[9:03] Your spacing of your buildings is such
that you're not apt to have a complete
[9:09] conflagration of a whole site.
[9:11] If I were a neighbor, I think I would
rather have that than a lot of houses.
[9:16] The one point that I—
[9:18] additional points have been made that I
have a problem with is on the weekends or
[9:24] whenever it is that people come in.
[9:27] If we get travel trailers and that type
stuff coming in, if they don't turn—
[9:32] can't turn in immediately, we could block
the whole road, Snow Peak Road.
[9:38] And I just feel very strongly we ought to
add a turning lane that would hold 2 or 3
[9:44] travel trailers where they can get out of
the way and let people through while we're
[9:50] trying to get them on site.
[9:52] So with that, with the conditions that
have been set forth here and the
[9:57] have been set forth here and the
conditions
[9:58] that have been addressed here this
evening, I'm going to move approval with
[10:04] evening, I'm going to move approval with
those—
[10:04] with staff comments and the approvals and
the comments that have been made today and
[10:10] recommend approval to the— a
recommendation for approval to the County
[10:15] recommendation for approval to the County
Commission.
[10:16] And I'll second the motion.
[10:18] Okay. We have a first and a second— or a
motion and a second.
[10:23] Any other comments or questions from the
commission?
[10:26] I, I had a couple of questions, um, that,
that we,
[10:30] we actually went over these at our last
meeting.
[10:33] Um, one of them was about your special
events. We talked about that.
[10:38] I believe you all are, are stating you
want to hold, I think,
[10:43] one fundraiser a year with approximately I
don't remember if it was 50 to 100
[10:48] guests, but that would be like an annual
fundraising event.
[10:52] That's the first part of my question.
[10:55] But you all are not planning on doing
renting out the venue as a special event
[11:01] venue. That's— is that correct?
[11:03] No weddings, things of that sort. Okay.
[11:05] But, but you are— you will do— is it one
or two?
[11:08] I believe— just wanted to—
[11:09] it was a couple of fundraising events to
raise money for your, for your foundation.
[11:13] One more question, please.
[11:15] Will people be bringing horse trailers to
and from the property, or will you all—
[11:19] because you think you're offering horse
horseback riding,
[11:22] will the horses remain or will you have
people coming and going with their horses?
[11:26] Correct me if I'm wrong, but they'll
remain on the property.
[11:29] Is going to be able to bring their horses
on site.
[11:32] Ma'am, can you, can you get up for the
record? Can you get up and state your
[11:37] record? Can you get up and state your
name?
[11:37] Hi,
[11:38] Rebecca Wind.
[11:43] Thank you.
[11:47] Yeah.
[11:48] Yeah, nobody right now.
[11:50] The way we have our rules written is that
we're only using Snow Creek
[11:54] Ranch-owned horses for any of our
horseback riding. Okay.
[11:58] Okay.
[11:59] Thank you. That's all the questions I
have.
[12:04] Any other questions from the commission?
Comments? We're ready to vote.
[12:11] I have a motion and a second. All in favor
say aye. Those opposed?
[12:19] Motion carries. Thank you.
[12:22] Okay, the next item on our agenda under
new business is item 5,
[12:29] the final site plan for Zion Christian
Academy.
[12:34] It's a classroom addition. Is the
applicant present, please?
[12:40] Good evening. If you could just tell us
your name and your district and
[12:48] a little bit about what you're proposing,
please.
[12:54] Good evening. My name is Sam Bohannon. I'm
with Ingram Civil Engineering.
[12:58] I'd like to thank the commissioners for
your time together here tonight and thank
[13:02] staff for helping us through the process
as we go through it.
[13:05] A little bit about the project.
[13:07] This is an addition to the Zion Christian
Academy, the existing school.
[13:11] And in general, what we've got is on the
east side,
[13:14] the right-hand side of the plans, we've
got a classroom addition,
[13:17] and the left-hand side is a 2-story dining
kind of multipurpose type building.
[13:21] And in general, we are— it'll be adding
approximately 80 students as a part of
[13:25] approximately 80 students as a part of
this,
[13:26] and it'll be done in 2 phases.
[13:27] We've got the classroom addition will come
first, and then at some point later,
[13:32] as a part of the master plan, the
multipurpose building.
[13:35] Thank you.
[13:35] purpose building will be completed. And,
um, happy to answer any questions about
[13:40] um, happy to answer any questions about
it.
[13:40] Thank you. Uh, we'll,
[13:42] we'll see if we have any questions or
comments.
[13:47] Thank you, sir. Any comments or questions
from the
[13:52] commission, please? Go ahead, please. You
have the floor.
[13:57] Is there any going to be any traffic,
like,
[14:00] for overflow traffic coming into the main
road?
[14:04] Off of this, is that all the parent pickup
the children type thing,
[14:08] is that going to be on the premises or is
that going to be backed up on the main
[14:14] road? It'll be the same as what it is
currently as far as the route that's
[14:19] happening. I'm not sure if it's going to—
Well, you've passed—
[14:23] and I'm not familiar with Zion, like,
[14:26] going by it when people are picking up or
dropping off, but like a lot of schools,
[14:31] their traffic gets up on the main roads
because people are waiting to get in. Yes.
[14:37] Uh, I know there is some queuing space on
the site before you get up to the
[14:42] building. It, it, I couldn't tell you how
many linear feet I'd have to measure,
[14:47] but it does kind of snake up to it, up to
the front.
[14:51] Uh, I'm actually not familiar with if
they've got any issues currently or not.
[14:56] Very top side of the page.
[14:58] Yep, you can pull in, take an immediate
right,
[15:01] and it kind of loops back around 180
degrees up the front of the building.
[15:06] Oh, wait. Is that who's talking?
[15:11] Yes. Okay. Okay.
[15:22] Any other questions or comments?
[15:26] Debbie, you have— making a motion? Okay.
All right.
[15:33] Thank you. Thank you.
[15:36] Okay, we have a motion and a second.
[15:41] All in favor say aye.
[15:44] Aye.
[15:46] Those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you,
sir. Okay.
[15:51] The next item on our agenda, item 6,
[15:55] is a final site plan for the Boondocks
project, which is in District 8,
[16:02] located at 3543 U.S. Highway 431 in
Columbia.
[16:06] Is the applicant present, please? Good
evening.
[16:11] If you could both just state your name,
please,
[16:16] and just tell us a little bit about what
you're proposing. Thank you.
[16:23] Yeah, I'm Alex Malika. I'm with TTO. We're
the civil engineers on the project.
[16:29] I'm Trey Barlow. Anyway, we're proposing a
gas station with 2 tenant spaces.
[16:35] Um, yeah, one, one thing I'll point out,
we were— this one has been on the agenda,
[16:41] I think, prior. We got pulled off due to a
mix-up with the capacity letter.
[16:47] Um, recently had a request to rejoin the
planning cycle.
[16:51] Um, nothing has really changed since the
last time we were here.
[16:56] It's just getting back into the cycle due
to missing one of the meeting dates.
[17:02] But, yeah.
[17:02] Okay. All right. Thank you.
[17:05] Questions, comments, please, from the
Commission.
[17:10] Jonathan, you have the floor.
[17:13] The zoning requirements require a 25-foot
setback for
[17:20] the gas pumps, and you're only showing 15
for your—
[17:27] on your plans. 25-foot setback for the gas
pumps.
[17:33] Is that from starting at the right-of-way?
[17:39] Is that what you're saying?
[17:42] What are you showing there, 29, 30?
[17:47] Yes.
[17:48] Okay. I must have misread the plans. Okay.
My other comment is— Your fire hydrant.
[17:55] You're 3,500 feet from your nearest
hydrant.
[17:59] The zoning requirement requires you to
abide by the subdivision regulations,
[18:06] which is 500 feet within— from your
nearest hydrant.
[18:10] Do you plan on installing a hydrant on
site? Yeah, that could be something we
[18:17] site? Yeah, that could be something we
show.
[18:18] I know there was a situation with Whether
it was sprinkled or— Well,
[18:24] it kind of comes back to that water
service availability letter that we were
[18:31] service availability letter that we were
trying
[18:31] to get and moving from 7,500 to 500 GPM.
[18:35] But I'm sure that we will propose that if
it's a requirement.
[18:40] Yeah, I would like to see that on the— as
a condition of approval.
[18:55] Thank you, Jonathan. Mr. Dale, the floor
is yours.
[18:57] Hearing on this, I suggested you darken up
your existing contours,
[19:05] and I see that you've done that, and I
appreciate that.
[19:11] Down in the— where the road on sheet
C-401,
[19:16] if you put that on the board.
[19:19] C-401.
[19:42] It's for grading and drainage. I think
that's it.
[19:46] I can't see it from here, but— ah, there
you go.
[19:49] Over on where the offset—
[19:51] the easement there is to serve this house
that sits back here on this lot.
[19:57] Is that the purpose of the easement?
[20:00] From what I understand, there's 2
easements,
[20:03] and we had talks with I've spoken to TDOT
about that as well.
[20:08] TDOT doesn't own the easement, do they?
I'm sorry, sir?
[20:12] TDOT doesn't own the easement, do they?
No, sir.
[20:16] I was just talking about the— from what I
understand,
[20:20] it's an easement of access for that house.
[20:23] One of them is for the resident that's
there south of the development.
[20:29] And then there's a There's a second one,
[20:32] but essentially we are utilizing that so
that they can maintain—
[20:37] whoever the owner is can maintain access
to that property as well as the owners of
[20:43] this development can access.
[20:45] Are both those easements contained within
this one area here, or one of them—
[20:51] where are the 2 easements? I didn't know
there was 2.
[20:55] They should be contained in that one area.
[20:59] Have you obtained a copy of those
easements? I believe so.
[21:03] I don't have them with— obviously not with
us,
[21:07] but if that's something we need to
research a little further, I think—
[21:12] research a little further, I think—
Fellas,
[21:13] it's about— we've had this now for about 3
or 4 months.
[21:17] It's about time to complete our research.
[21:20] I don't know what to do with those
easements if we don't know where they are
[21:26] easements if we don't know where they are
and who
[21:26] they serve. Now, y'all have indicated you
can't ban the landscaping.
[21:32] strip because it's an easement.
[21:34] I don't know whether that's right or not
until we know where the easements are and
[21:40] what the easements are like.
[21:43] What I'm saying is I don't have the deed
with me currently, but that's something—
[21:49] what we're showing there, the surveyed
easement,
[21:53] I believe that's reflected accurately.
[21:56] If it's not showing here, we could clarify
that. Further. Yeah, there should be 2.
[22:02] Sorry, down here and within the easement.
[22:05] Now starting at the offset right there,
[22:08] there's a V-shaped line that comes through
it that is not explained what it is.
[22:14] It starts right in the corner and runs
over in the site,
[22:18] comes back down to the property line
again.
[22:22] Can you— and there's a similar I have an
item over on the other side of the
[22:28] property, I believe, only it's much
deeper.
[22:31] It looks like a ditch symbol, but I don't
know what it is.
[22:35] Can you enlighten me on that? I'm going to
bring that out here.
[22:40] Is this the— you talking about the
V-shaped contour? Is that what you're
[22:46] V-shaped contour? Is that what you're
saying?
[22:46] Oh, it's not— I hope it's not a contour.
Maybe it is a contour.
[22:51] It doesn't have any numbers on it. Let's
see. It's not shown as a contour.
[22:57] It's a solid light line, which looks like
an arrow almost.
[23:02] I think that's another one of the lines
denoting one of those 2 easements.
[23:07] It's what?
[23:08] I think it's another one of those lines
denoting one of the 2 easements.
[23:14] It might show up better on the existing—
on the existing condition sheet, sir.
[23:20] Well, where's the sheet set? Let's look at
it.
[23:24] I think it looks like it's an attempt at a
contour,
[23:28] but the contour denies that it's a
contour.
[23:32] 5-foot easement, and then there's a line
connecting the two.
[23:37] If that's the line you're referring to.
[23:40] Fellas, I don't have a problem with your
site. I don't have a problem with your
[23:46] site. I don't have a problem with your
use.
[23:47] But I'm afraid we're coming here
unprepared as far as some of this
[23:52] unprepared as far as some of this
information.
[23:53] And I don't find out on anything else. Are
you referring to this line?
[23:59] Sorry, I'm not able to catch it here.
[24:02] You're talking about the line coming Sir,
excuse me,
[24:05] you can walk up to the— to the— if you'd
like to point.
[24:09] Thank you.
[24:10] No, come up. See that big line, that
curved line,
[24:13] the arc coming right up north of your—
north of your property line? Oh, I see.
[24:18] And it comes to a point out yonder
somewhere and then comes back.
[24:22] That's a— that's a leader from a— that's a
callout right there.
[24:26] That's what?
[24:27] That's a dimension callout right there.
That's Coming off the screen.
[24:32] If you were— you scroll to the right a
little bit.
[24:35] If you scroll to the right a little bit,
you'll see that's,
[24:40] that's the noting that that easement— we
have the 2 leaders.
[24:44] I'm sorry, I wasn't sure what we were—
Tell me again what it is.
[24:48] It's another leader for that callout right
there, the 25-foot. So it's an arrow.
[24:54] I believe it's just showing up a little—
Well,
[24:57] what about the one over on the right-hand
side? That one right there?
[25:02] Yeah, we're I think it's— we're just
denoting that line right there on both
[25:08] denoting that line right there on both
sides,
[25:08] just calling it out along the property
line there.
[25:12] I think what you're seeing there— I'm
sorry, I was misunderstanding,
[25:16] but I believe that's— you're seeing that
arrow kind of cross through there,
[25:22] and it might be a little murky, but that's
what we're showing right there.
[25:27] It's just showing along the line.
[25:29] The plan that's before me shows The
grading line of 698 over on the adjacent
[25:35] property rather than within your property
line.
[25:38] It doesn't show where it hooks up to an
existing 498 before it gets on property
[25:44] line. I know the encroachment is not but a
couple of feet,
[25:48] but an encroachment is an encroachment.
[25:51] And I think you need to get that out of
there. Sure.
[25:54] Okay, I see, I see what you're saying.
[25:57] Yeah, that's something we absolutely— I
mean, there's— it's a quite flat site.
[26:03] It's not going to be flat when you get
through,
[26:06] when you've got the 2 easements about 4
feet apart down here at one point.
[26:11] Your 98 and your 90— I mean, 89 and 90
easement are really close together.
[26:16] I think it's about 5 feet, so that's 2 to
1.
[26:20] And once again, I think it's just details.
[26:23] Sure.
[26:24] But the problem with that is when you give
this to a contractor,
[26:27] he's going to grade it like this.
[26:28] Sure.
[26:29] He's going out there and set his rod down
and say, this is the elevation.
[26:34] And I don't think you're ready right there
in the corner. It's your property.
[26:39] Or y'all's— your client's property. I have
no problem whatsoever with the site.
[26:45] I'm all in favor of approving it, but you
got a problem with your contours.
[26:50] I'll speak to that. Um, you know, coming
here a little behind the game on this, I,
[26:56] I definitely think we could go through and
clean up a lot of this,
[27:00] a lot of details on the plans. Um, that's
part of the reason why I'm here.
[27:05] If, if there's any issues like that, uh, I
appreciate you pointing them out,
[27:11] and we'll try to clean that up, especially
some of the callouts here.
[27:15] The symbols that you use are— I understand
the reason why you use symbols,
[27:21] but when you blow them down to this size
over here,
[27:24] it's kind of hard to make sure which one's
which.
[27:28] The big area out here in the center,
right, Right here, that is a concrete
[27:33] right, Right here, that is a concrete
area,
[27:33] is that right?
[27:34] Yes, sir.
[27:36] That carries a heavy load? It should be
called out as heavy-duty asphalt.
[27:44] It looks like it's a— Building overlaid
with asphalt pavement.
[27:50] That's asphalt pavement? So it's not heavy
duty?
[27:55] I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time.
[27:58] The big crosshatch part right there around
the K sound.
[28:04] Yes, so that right there is— we're
denoting overlay right there.
[28:11] The heavy-duty asphalt proposed section is
right there in the dark shaded
[28:18] area. The crosshatched area then, what is
it? That is asphalt. Yes, sir.
[28:26] It is asphalt, heavy duty?
[28:28] Yes, sir.
[28:30] It calls out, looks like required overlay
asphalt pavement.
[28:33] It looks like when I look at your details,
is that correct?
[28:36] I see what you're saying. Yes, sir.
[28:38] I believe that hatch is a little
different, but it's not very clear.
[28:42] And I definitely understand where you're
coming from.
[28:45] And the reason I bring this up is you You
have heavy-duty pavement over here on this
[28:50] side, and it ends right here.
[28:52] If this is not heavy-duty pavement,
[28:54] I don't know how you're going to get a
truck on this. Sure. Absolutely.
[28:58] And so either you need to expand the
heavy-duty pavement or show in detail what
[29:03] makes this heavy-duty pavement. I don't
believe it's there.
[29:06] Absolutely.
[29:07] Yeah, and may I ask, for the sake of
clarifying some of these things,
[29:13] I know Switching systems here to kind of
clean up these plans.
[29:17] Do you guys prefer to see keynotes and a
little bit—
[29:21] instead of having so many callouts on one
sheet?
[29:25] I know you mentioned it was hard for
visibility on some of those viewports.
[29:30] Is keynotes something you'd prefer instead
of the legend system like that?
[29:36] You know what I'm saying? Calling out the
details.
[29:40] Yeah.
[29:41] That's all I got. I got you.
[29:43] Thank you, Mr. Delk.
[29:45] Additional questions from the commission?
[29:49] Tracy, you have the floor.
[29:52] Oh, going back to that easement, that's
plat book 7, page 187.
[29:56] So that easement's been around for a long
time.
[30:00] Is it— is it accessing the frame house
down on the backside?
[30:04] Who's actually— who's using that 25-foot
easement? Which property is using it?
[30:10] It'd be for the property that's just south
of ours.
[30:14] And then there's a second one for the
house that's in the back, I believe. Okay.
[30:20] So there's 2 of them. Y'all are not the
one that goes in the back.
[30:25] So you've got this house on the south here
accessing from that one.
[30:30] So that's crossing the other easement to
access Their property or their dwelling.
[30:36] Yes.
[30:42] So I guess the question to staff, is that
allowable to cross an easement,
[30:48] to come off an easement, cross another
easement?
[30:51] It feels like we're building a road here.
You want me to answer or you got it?
[30:57] Yeah, that's— to answer your question,
[31:00] that's an existing condition as it sits
currently.
[31:04] That property has always been used as
commercial,
[31:08] and those easements have been around
since— as you, as you noted,
[31:13] the plat book dates quite a ways back too.
[31:16] So, um, so the other thing is I'm trying
to find how much lights it's going to
[31:22] create.
[31:22] Light? Yeah, lights.
[31:25] So you're going to light up a gas station
there. They're pretty bright. Correct.
[31:31] Yeah, that's something we can get some
details put together for.
[31:36] If a photometric plan needs to be
provided, we can look into that.
[31:41] I have no comment on exactly how much
light,
[31:44] but if that's something we can show on the
plans coming from the contractor,
[31:50] that's something we can provide.
[31:52] Aren't we in our zones to To have the
light plan for, like, light,
[31:57] how bright the light is, all that stuff.
Ain't that in our zoning?
[32:02] Pretty sure it is.
[32:03] It's in there.
[32:04] That is in our current zoning text.
[32:06] I'm not certain that this one didn't have
application prior to that current zoning
[32:11] text, but the lighting, the cast of the
lighting,
[32:15] should be under the Planning Commission's
purview.
[32:18] As well as landscaping and buffering from
those nuisances.
[32:22] So we probably need to see a lighting
plan.
[32:24] Sure.
[32:28] That's all I had.
[32:30] Thanks, Tracy.
[32:31] Thank you.
[32:32] Giles, you've got the floor.
[32:34] On Sheet C-501. About, I guess, east of
the—
[32:38] on the back of the side of the building,
[32:41] there's a comment there that says tie
outlet line from building to grease trap
[32:48] outlet line from building to grease trap
and
[32:48] from grease trap to existing septic field
lines.
[32:53] Are you going to run a grease trap to the
septic field lines directly?
[32:59] That's the intent. Yes, sir.
[33:01] But I can get back with a more detailed—
[33:05] I don't think that's a recommended
practice.
[33:09] That's going to— that's going to kill the
field lines as soon as that happens,
[33:15] within months. I think most of the time
you pump out a grease trap, I would think.
[33:23] But I don't think pumping to the field—
[33:26] the field lines directly is going to solve
anything other than create problems for
[33:33] everybody around there. I see.
[33:36] If that's something— I'm assuming we'll
see— Well, it says you have an existing—
[33:43] you're grandfathered in on the septic
system from TDEC.
[33:48] But does that allow a grease trap going to
your fill line,
[33:53] directly to your fill lines? So far,
that's something we've had shown.
[33:59] in our TDEC submittals, but we can, uh,
if,
[34:03] if there's any kind of follow-up from
them,
[34:07] that's something we'll look into and keep
note of that as a comment.
[34:13] Okay, no further questions.
[34:15] Thank you. Jonathan?
[34:20] Clarify— clarifying comment, the, uh,
[34:22] 15-foot setback is actually on your title
page, uh,
[34:25] that is shown as a measurement on your
title page,
[34:28] so just make that correction when you
resubmit.
[34:34] Yeah.
[34:34] Thank you.
[34:38] I know you'll be working with TDOT for
approval.
[34:41] This is on a really, really busy 2-lane
highway.
[34:44] Is part of that approval going to be a
left turn lane from the north?
[34:48] Currently, that's not part of their
conditional approval.
[34:53] They did require that we show a right turn
out only for that northernmost Exit.
[34:59] And then on the south, what I have shown
is what TDOT wanted us to show.
[35:05] But currently, they did not require that
we propose a turning lane.
[35:10] That's right. Because you get a car coming
or one or two cars traveling from the
[35:15] north to the south to stop there to turn
into your gas station,
[35:19] it's going to back up for a long way. So
that might just be a consideration.
[35:24] Thank you. Kristi, I have a question,
please,
[35:26] regarding that particular item that Debbie
just mentioned.
[35:30] It's my understanding that once we, we
move forward from this point,
[35:34] then TDOT would take a look at this and
they would advise what would need to be
[35:39] they would advise what would need to be
done
[35:39] as far as turn lanes and traffic studies
and so forth.
[35:42] Could you comment on that, please? That's
my understanding. Okay. What you said.
[35:47] Okay. All right. Thank you.
[35:49] And if you don't mind me speaking on that,
so We did, like you were saying,
[35:54] I'm just confirming that TDOT did have
conceptual approval of the plans,
[35:58] but they were awaiting comments from our
county for the official approval.
[36:03] So I know that was the comment we came in
here with. Thank you for clarifying that.
[36:09] It is a concern. I live near there, and
gas tankers pulling in,
[36:12] it's a very heavily traveled road during
morning and evening commutes,
[36:17] so that is a concern about you know, safe
ingress and egress from,
[36:21] from that property.
[36:22] Understood.
[36:23] Thank you.
[36:28] Other questions,
[36:34] comments, please?
[36:42] I'm looking for a
[36:49] motion.
[36:52] Are we able to include all of our comments
[36:58] tonight as part of the recommendation?
[37:03] Is that permissible? Maybe that's a
question.
[37:10] Robert, I'd recommend listing those out
for
[37:16] clarity. Conditions of approval, if you
have any,
[37:23] I recommend listing them out as part of
that
[37:29] motion. Robert, Robert.
[37:36] Was not— his mic was not on.
[37:38] He's recommending that we list anything
that has come up in our discussion,
[37:42] that those items be listed as part of a
motion or any decision reached this
[37:46] motion or any decision reached this
evening.
[37:46] Let's put them together.
[37:49] Huh?
[37:49] Light plant.
[37:51] Grease trap.
[37:54] Hydrant. Power hydrant. Y'all hear me?
[38:03] Go ahead. So we said fire
[38:06] hydrant, grease trap,
[38:09] lighting plan.
[38:11] Clarification on annotations.
[38:16] Easement purpose and
[38:20] description.
[38:22] I don't know.
[38:25] I'm going to ask him.
[38:25] Anything else?
[38:28] All right, I'm going to move approval with
following conditions.
[38:31] After you.
[38:34] A light plan be submitted to acceptable
staff, uh,
[38:38] that the grease trap be put on a separate
overflow field unless specifically
[38:44] approved otherwise by TDI, by state.
[38:47] Fire hydrants, appropriate fire hydrants
be added to within the limitations
[38:53] established by our regulations,
[38:56] that you look at regrading near the
property line properly,
[39:01] and that you provide the location and
easement purpose of the easements that are
[39:07] there and the book and page in which they
are found.
[39:12] And with those conditions, I move
approval,
[39:15] and the conditions that the staff has
already placed on it in their review.
[39:21] I would move approval. Okay.
[39:24] Thank you. We've made note of those. So
Debbie has a second? Okay. All right.
[39:31] We're ready to vote. All in favor say aye.
Those opposed? Motion carries.
[39:38] Thank you, gentlemen. Okay.
[39:40] The next item on our agenda, item 7,
[39:43] is a preliminary plat reapproval with
revision.
[39:48] This is Forest Trails, 82 lots located in
District 8.
[39:53] Is the applicant present? Good evening.
[39:56] If you could just state your name and tell
us a little bit about what you're
[40:03] proposing, please. Thank you.
[40:06] Thank you. Appreciate it. Joe Epps with
Anderson, Delk, Epps and Associates.
[40:12] Uh, like the staff report says, uh, we're
trying to get reapproval of Forest Trails.
[40:20] There's 82 lots. Uh, the last time it was
approved was, uh, back on September 25th,
[40:27] 2023.
[40:27] Thank you, sir. Questions or comments?
Mr., Mr. Delk?
[40:32] Okay. I've said this before, but our
staff,
[40:36] our commission is almost 100% turned over
since the last time we had this.
[40:41] This is presented to you from the firm of
Anderson, Delk, and Hatt and Associates.
[40:48] That is a firm that Mike Anderson and I
established in 1977.
[40:52] Joe Epps came on board '84, I think,
somewhere along in there.
[40:58] And—
[40:59] but I— when I retired in 2000, I've had no
further contact with the firm,
[41:05] have no association with them whatsoever,
[41:08] and I will not be declaring a conflict of
interest on this. All right.
[41:15] Thank you, Mr. Delk. Other comments or
questions?
[41:21] Debbie, you have the floor.
[41:24] So the main entrance to this is going to
be on Ollie
[41:31] Chun Road, the 2 access roads?
[41:34] Well, we've got the one that's going to
come off Ollie Chun Road,
[41:39] and then there's accesses that will be
developed later on as other properties
[41:44] developed later on as other properties
around
[41:44] it develop. Okay.
[41:46] And is it— it's 80— let's see, I had a
note here. It's 82 single-family homes?
[41:53] Yes, ma'am. All right.
[41:55] One of the documents said it was 97, so
that was a little concerning.
[42:01] But that's— so that's about like over 500
car trips a day.
[42:06] And so their access would be mainly to get
out to 431 would be Kidron
[42:12] Road or Will Brown?
[42:13] After they got off Ali Chan.
[42:16] After they got off Ali Chan.
[42:17] So they're going to either have to do
Kidron or Yes, ma'am.
[42:21] Okay.
[42:24] All right. That's, again, a lot of traffic
going onto a very,
[42:28] very busy 2-lane road out on 431.
[42:30] So I don't know if there are any
improvements in the work for Kidron Road,
[42:35] but that's not part of your project.
[42:38] So, all right.
[42:38] Thank you. That is a concern of mine with
the traffic on 431 and on Kidron Road.
[42:43] That's a lot of houses.
[42:44] And there's— you said there's more plans
for additional Probably adjacent
[42:49] for additional Probably adjacent
properties
[42:49] will develop over time.
[42:51] Yes, ma'am.
[42:51] Right. All right.
[42:52] Thank you. Thank you.
[42:53] Any other comments or
[42:57] questions from the commission?
[43:02] Giles.
[43:03] What was the— what was the reason that the
total site area was reduced from 153 to
[43:09] the 84? The site that the Stalin Coker is
still on,
[43:13] it was on the original concept plan as
Phase 5.
[43:16] It was never part of the preliminary that
was approved.
[43:20] The preliminary was approved just for
Phases 1 through 4.
[43:24] So that's what we're trying to reapprove,
just Phases 1 through 4. Okay. Thank you.
[43:30] Thank you.
[43:31] Any others?
[43:38] Harold, no comments of changes at
[43:46] No changes need to be made,
[43:53] is that correct, on staff?
[43:59] That's not correct, or—
[44:05] That is correct. We are not
[44:11] recommending any changes.
[44:17] Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a
[44:24] second. All in favor say aye.
[44:29] Those opposed? Motion carries.
[44:35] Thank you, sir.
[44:38] Appreciate it.
[44:44] Okay. The next item on our agenda this
evening is item 8,
[44:49] which is a concept plan for Ridgeline
Reserve subdivision.
[44:55] in District 9. Is the applicant present?
Good evening, sir.
[45:00] If you could just tell us your name and
tell us a little bit about
[45:07] what you're proposing, please.
[45:10] Good evening, Commissioners.
[45:11] My name is Cole Newton, TKC Architecture
and Engineering.
[45:15] We prepared the concept plan before you
tonight.
[45:18] Um, 13 lots, all greater than 5 acres.
Majority of them have road frontage.
[45:23] 4 lots are pass-through lots, easement
Easement pass-through lots,
[45:27] extension of a water line is included as
part of the proposal.
[45:31] Happy to answer any questions you've got.
[45:33] Thank you, sir. I do want to take some—
[45:37] any questions or comments.
[45:40] We have a number of people here this
evening who have requested
[45:47] to speak on this item,
[45:49] but I do want to come to the commission
first for any questions
[45:56] or You know, comments. Thank you. Tracy?
[46:01] Other than the water line, what's the
requirements for this to be—
[46:05] is it specifically the water line asking
to have a water line extended to the
[46:11] site? Is that the only reason why we're
seeing concept plan on this type of
[46:16] subdivision?
[46:17] There are multiple reasons, and you all
received the memo.
[46:26] That was one of them.
[46:28] I understand that, but I'm looking at the
one now,
[46:31] so not the previous correspondence.
[46:34] So like here, right here, this
subdivision, is there— other than the
[46:39] subdivision, is there— other than the
water line,
[46:40] I don't see— what is the— and I'm not
asking this as a light question.
[46:45] It's a subdivision plat like any other
that you would see,
[46:49] and so you We would review it just like
whether you have a 50-lot or a
[46:53] 13-lot subdivision.
[46:54] So my question is, what is the difference
between this one and one that gets
[46:58] recorded out? Is it just the water line?
[47:00] Because they're asking for water line.
[47:02] Well, this won't be recorded because it's
a concept plan.
[47:05] And so it will come back with a
preliminary plat.
[47:08] And then if you all approve a preliminary
and then a final plat, ultimately,
[47:12] whatever the final plat looks like that
you all approve,
[47:14] that's what would be recorded.
[47:16] That's what would legally create the lots
that could then be sold.
[47:20] Okay.
[47:20] So what is different that gets recorded, a
couple of steps away from that.
[47:26] So the concept plan is more general.
[47:28] So you all can comment,
[47:30] share your thoughts on that before it
comes in for preliminary plat,
[47:35] which would be the vesting document, if
that makes sense.
[47:39] So that I got questions.
[47:41] Lot number 3 and then lot number 5,
[47:44] you're showing soils area that crosses the
property line.
[47:49] Those are preliminary soil areas that we
did for the concept plan.
[47:54] I mean, they'll be split.
[47:56] That's just a huge area of soils,
[47:59] but there's enough soils on each of those
lots to account for— Yeah,
[48:04] it should offset the 10-foot on each lot
line,
[48:08] then have the calculation because you're
adding in unusable area to the soils.
[48:15] And that would apply to any of the other
ones that's touching the property line.
[48:21] And what's the difference between the
25-foot utility easements and the 25-foot
[48:28] ingress/egress utility easements?
[48:30] The ingress/egress easements along with
the utility easements allow access all the
[48:37] way back. To the 4 lots that are off the
road.
[48:41] Some of them will have, you know, they'll
have water lines.
[48:46] They'll have— the water service will run
in the ingress/egress utility easement
[48:52] in the ingress/egress utility easement
from
[48:53] the right-of-way all the way back. Is that
what you're asking?
[48:58] You're running 2 easements. Let's just use
Lot 7, for instance.
[49:03] You've got an easement on the north line.
[49:06] The north line and the south line, are
they both going back to Lot 8?
[49:12] I think there's got— it's got to do with
the power as well.
[49:17] You know, you're going to split power and
water in the driveway, and that's just a—
[49:23] Can we label that as power? Yeah, I'll
label it as power.
[49:28] That would make more sense. That's all I
got.
[49:32] Okay, thanks, Tracy. Jonathan?
[49:34] I want to make sure I'm understanding this
[49:40] correctly. The way I'm seeing it is 9 of
the 13
[49:46] lots don't have direct road frontage.
[49:51] Is that correct? 4 of the lots don't have
direct
[49:57] road frontage. Lots 5, 8, 9, and 11.
[50:02] You pass through 1 to get to 1.
[50:06] Thank
[50:13] you.
[50:20] Yeah, I guess I'm trying to get more
clarification from staff as well.
[50:26] Does the— does this have to comply with
the subdivision regulations where you can
[50:34] only have one driveway per lot, if I'm
understanding that correctly? Okay.
[50:40] Within the subdivision regulations,
[50:43] you are allowed an easement to pass
through one to get to one. Only.
[50:49] So, and there's actually Lot 3 is one of
those that's granting access as well,
[50:56] or has access granted to it as well.
[51:00] So just wanted to point that out for
clarification. Yeah, there's 5
[51:06] clarification. Yeah, there's 5
pass-throughs.
[51:07] Yeah. Okay. Sorry.
[51:14] This is a new plan to me.
[51:16] I'm trying to get my head around it.
[51:20] So you're saying that it does comply with
the subdivision
[51:26] regulations the way it's submitted? That's
up to you.
[51:32] Yeah, yeah, I'm not going there.
[51:36] Based on the way I read it, it is.
[51:39] But again, I'd take comments y'all have.
That's all I have.
[51:46] Okay, thanks, Jonathan. Debbie, you have
the floor.
[51:50] So why would there not be a single road,
interior road,
[51:55] that these driveways could access instead
of having 9 driveways on a very narrow,
[52:02] very hilly road that has a lot of blind
curves on it? It's a safety issue.
[52:08] So is there a thought to maybe making one
driveway for these folks that they can
[52:15] access?
[52:15] There's— as you know and you've seen,
there's several different ways we could do
[52:21] there's several different ways we could do
it.
[52:22] You know, this is the way we've got it
laid out here today.
[52:26] I mean, we're not— we are adding 13
residential lots, proposing to,
[52:31] and so we'll create the traffic from that
and That's one way that could be done.
[52:37] We're proposing to come off the main road
with this proposal.
[52:41] I— yeah, I would rather much see one,
[52:44] one driveway access that led to a feeder
road that they could all use rather than
[52:50] all of those driveways coming out on that
little windy road.
[52:54] Just not only for their safety but for the
safety of the other people traveling on
[53:00] the road. That's a lot of cars, a lot of
traffic on there. So that's it.
[53:06] Okay, thank you, Debbie.
[53:07] I know there are other questions and
comments from the commission,
[53:12] but I would like to turn to our audience.
[53:15] There are several, several of you that
have signed up this evening,
[53:20] so I'm going to begin calling names.
[53:23] When you come up, if you could just state
your name, district number,
[53:28] make sure you speak into the microphone,
and we will give each person 3 minutes,
[53:34] please. So I'm going to start with Tate
Foster. Good evening.
[53:38] Good evening. I'm Tate Foster in District
9 at 2740 East Sheepneck.
[53:43] And actually, what I'm going to talk about
is the access points and the driveways.
[53:48] We are right across the road from this
development.
[53:51] So I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the
residents of East Sheepneck in opposition
[53:56] to this Ridgeline Reserve concept, and
it's about access points.
[54:00] I run on that road in the morning.
[54:03] My 5-year-old son and I run on that road 3
or 4 days a week.
[54:06] As someone already commented,
[54:08] it's very windy and you can't see what's
on the other side of the curve or on the
[54:13] hill, and we wouldn't be doing that
anymore, I don't think,
[54:17] if there were 9 more driveways.
[54:19] Thank you.
[54:20] 13 houses right there,
[54:21] because every driveway creates a place
where something could happen.
[54:26] A vehicle slows down to turn, maybe they
use their blinker, but it's a country
[54:31] use their blinker, but it's a country
road,
[54:31] so maybe they don't. A vehicle stops while
waiting to turn.
[54:35] Amazon trucks, garbage trucks—
[54:37] these are all conflict opportunities that
need to be addressed and need to be looked
[54:42] at. These are 13 opportunities for, for
things that are not currently there.
[54:47] Um, to, to be there and to happen.
[54:49] So what happens when we put all of these
driveways together on the road?
[54:54] Uh, where will each driveway exactly be
located?
[54:57] Uh, these 9 that are on the, the frontage,
how far apart will they be?
[55:02] How close will they be to the curve? These
are all—
[55:05] Off—
[55:06] Just concerns that I have. As I've already
said, I've got a 5-year-old.
[55:11] My, my wife and son, we look out our
window and we see these driveways right
[55:16] window and we see these driveways right
now.
[55:17] And it's not a pretty sight. It used to
be.
[55:20] But now we go down and there's these
access points and driveways and culverts
[55:25] access points and driveways and culverts
and
[55:25] everything. And so just here to ask and
make sure we do our due diligence on
[55:31] everything. Federal Highway Administration
access management guidance recognizes the
[55:36] driveway frequency, spacing,
[55:38] and sight distance as legitimate Roadway
safety considerations.
[55:43] I think these are all legitimate roadway
safety considerations to take into
[55:48] safety considerations to take into
account.
[55:48] So, once these driveways are constructed,
[55:51] these access points will be there for a
long time.
[55:55] That's why the time to evaluate their
impact is right now,
[55:59] not after the houses and development is
built.
[56:02] It's before the access points are
approved. So, thank you.
[56:06] Thank you, Mr. Foster. We did get some
feedback.
[56:10] There are some people watching us online.
[56:14] You can watch our meetings on the
internet, and the sound quality is low,
[56:20] so I'm just going to ask everyone to speak
up.
[56:24] All the— you know, if you come forward to
speak,
[56:29] just please make sure you're speaking into
the microphone so everyone can hear you,
[56:36] please. The next person signed up to speak
is Bart Watley. If I got that correct.
[56:43] Good evening, sir. Just state your name
and district, please. Thank you.
[56:50] I'm Bart Watley. I live at 2626 East
Sheepneck Circle, District 9 in Cullioca.
[56:55] I've lived there since Yes.
[56:57] I've lived here since '87, almost 40
years,
[57:00] and I watched it grow and things improve.
[57:03] And y'all blacktopped the road about 20
years ago, which was a big improvement.
[57:08] It was so dusty, just a one-lane road,
really. It's a very crooked road.
[57:13] It's got some deep drop-offs, no curbs,
[57:16] and the said driveways we've been talking
about,
[57:19] they Come off of a hill and a little
gravel and right into the road,
[57:24] and there's really not enough room to make
a good turn.
[57:27] So something's got to be done if it goes
through with the road.
[57:32] Water lines, I don't know about that,
[57:34] but I think they're right down the middle
of the road,
[57:38] and I think that's got to be improved.
Should have a fire hydrant down there.
[57:43] A lot of things going to be done to make
it compatible, I would think.
[57:48] But one driveway would be the most
important thing, like most subdivisions.
[57:53] And that way you're dealing with one
driveway.
[57:56] You can have— you can have turn lanes and
so forth, and that would improve it.
[58:01] The big thing, though, I've lived there 40
years, like I said,
[58:06] and people go there and they spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars just to
[58:11] hundreds of thousands of dollars just to
get in a
[58:11] rural area so they don't have to deal with
the traffic and a lot of neighbors and
[58:17] things. And, and so this is kind of going—
[58:20] disrupting what we expect out of Sheep
Neck Road.
[58:23] And I put a business in there myself,
Watley and Sons Trust Company,
[58:28] about 30 years ago and had it there 25
years.
[58:31] And I had to jump through hoops for over a
year to make it compatible with the area
[58:36] and the neighbors and work with them and
work with County,
[58:40] and there was plenty of attention drawn to
it.
[58:43] And we had a trust company there, and
people that lived up Sheepneck Road,
[58:48] some of them didn't ever know we had one
there, I think,
[58:52] because it was out of sight.
[58:54] You couldn't hear it hardly, trees, you
couldn't see it. We respected the
[58:59] couldn't see it. We respected the
neighbors.
[59:00] And then when we shut it down, it was back
to the private citizens.
[59:04] There's a couple with 3 kids have it now.
[59:07] There's good people on Sheepneck Road and
they are tolerant,
[59:11] but this right here is just pushing the
envelope.
[59:14] And it's— more houses would go in there
than I've seen in 40 years, I think,
[59:20] would go back in there.
[59:21] And I just think that these things need to
be really thought through.
[59:26] Thank you a lot.
[59:27] Thank you, Mr. Watley.
[59:30] I appreciate the commission.
[59:31] I wouldn't want to be in your position
with all the growth today.
[59:35] Robert's position, for one. But we're
growing fast.
[59:37] And one thing I didn't mention, you can
get the water line in,
[59:40] but we don't have the water. We don't have
the water for new subdivisions.
[59:44] Thank you.
[59:45] Thank you, Mr. Watley. Don Barnett.
[59:49] Don Barnett. I live at 2632 Double Branch
Road.
[59:54] I will be talking about development on
Double Branch because the
[1:00:00] Double Branch developer is the same one
that's on the Ridgeline
[1:00:07] project. Is that okay?
[1:00:12] No? Okay. No, no.
[1:00:13] Because I'm talking about the developer.
[1:00:16] No, sir. So the way our comments,
[1:00:18] per what I mentioned at the beginning of
our meeting,
[1:00:21] we have public comment on items. So you
signed up.
[1:00:26] Can I speak then at the very end of the
meeting?
[1:00:28] We have open comment, public.
[1:00:30] You can speak on any item at the end of
the meeting that is an open public
[1:00:34] the meeting that is an open public
comment.
[1:00:35] I do think it's very relevant to your
decision process around Ridgeline.
[1:00:39] Yeah, we're just talking about this
particular development now, sir.
[1:00:42] I understand.
[1:00:42] Thank you.
[1:00:42] Thank you.
[1:00:43] The next person, I have Jordan. Sorry,
Jordan, I can't read your last name.
[1:00:48] You write like my husband, so. What is
your— if you just state your name.
[1:00:54] Jordan Rauden, District 9.
[1:00:55] I do not live on East Sheepneck,
[1:00:57] but I've had the pleasure of getting to
know some of the folks that do live on
[1:01:01] know some of the folks that do live on
East
[1:01:01] Sheepneck, and which means I've had an
opportunity to drive out there a couple
[1:01:06] times. And, uh, yeah, you know, um, I
think if I did the math right,
[1:01:09] there's currently, if you exclude the
extra parcels that are coming up,
[1:01:13] 35 parcels on East Sheepneck.
[1:01:15] So that's a 37% increase in, in density
out there on that small road.
[1:01:19] And that road itself, we've already
acknowledged tonight,
[1:01:22] is substandard for what you're trying to
accomplish out there,
[1:01:25] or what the developer is trying to
accomplish. That's not okay.
[1:01:29] It's not okay to let this go forward
without having real issues—
[1:01:32] these things resolved and accounted for
in, in what's being brought forward.
[1:01:36] That's 12. That's, that's, you know, we've
got this small road,
[1:01:40] we've got no shoulder, we've got These
driveways that can— can a fire truck—
[1:01:44] how does a fire truck even work in those
driveways?
[1:01:47] Can it get 7 acres down to get to those
back lots and take care of folks on the
[1:01:51] back lots and take care of folks on the
back
[1:01:51] lots? And once it's down there, how's it
getting back?
[1:01:54] Is it backing up 7 acres to get back onto
Sheep Neck?
[1:01:57] There's a lot— it's a lot of stuff here
doesn't make sense.
[1:02:00] I appreciated the recommendation for a
singular entrance point.
[1:02:04] But on that note, has anybody considered
the amount of traffic that this is going
[1:02:08] the amount of traffic that this is going
to
[1:02:08] do? We've talked about it tonight. Y'all
have mentioned it tonight.
[1:02:12] But has anybody done a quantitative,
[1:02:14] numerical look at what this will do
traffic-wise. It's farm community.
[1:02:18] You've got tractors, you've got ATVs,
you've got four-wheelers,
[1:02:21] you've got people running and walking.
That's already been mentioned.
[1:02:25] So this is not a cool approach. You've got
to take care of this.
[1:02:29] This has to be addressed. The line of
sight is a real concern.
[1:02:32] We've heard already about the curves and
the hills, the S-curves.
[1:02:36] You've got new driveways that are going to
run up against that.
[1:02:39] It's going to add dangerous situations.
[1:02:41] Tonight we've had a question asked about
these,
[1:02:44] these driveways and whether or not we can
have multiple lots with one driveway.
[1:02:48] And honestly, I was not comfortable with
the decision from that.
[1:02:52] This body should have an answer to whether
or not that's acceptable and say
[1:02:56] objectively this works or this doesn't
work. And we need to hear that.
[1:03:00] And then ultimately construction itself is
going to massively disrupt this You've
[1:03:04] got this smaller road, less substantial
road,
[1:03:06] and you're going to have the dump trucks
and the diggers and the front loaders,
[1:03:11] all the things my 6-year-old loves to see,
[1:03:13] is going to be on there disrupting traffic
and tearing up the road.
[1:03:17] So I think there's a lot more work that
needs to be done before this can be moved
[1:03:21] forward.
[1:03:22] That's it. Thank you, sir. Mathew Fuhrman.
[1:03:38] My name is Matt Fuhrman, 3134 Sheep Neck
Road, District 9.
[1:03:41] My family and I are absolutely opposed to
this development.
[1:03:45] As you've heard, the proposed subdivision
would add 13 new driveway conflict points
[1:03:50] and potentially 70 to 120 additional
vehicle movements every day on a narrow
[1:03:54] vehicle movements every day on a narrow
rural
[1:03:55] agricultural road with a dangerous
S-curve.
[1:03:57] I said, in addition to this, I'm going to
keep this short.
[1:04:00] I wanted to make it longer,
[1:04:02] but I don't think that the county and
representatives of the taxpayers should
[1:04:07] representatives of the taxpayers should
reward
[1:04:07] folks who have apparently—
[1:04:09] who have and apparently continue to
attempt to skirt the law for personal
[1:04:13] attempt to skirt the law for personal
gain.
[1:04:13] These developers.
[1:04:14] Thank you, sir. Catherine Corden.
[1:04:17] My name is Katherine Cordon, and I live in
District 7.
[1:04:20] And the reason I'm here is because all of
this growth is really disturbing to what's
[1:04:26] happening to these developers that are
coming up and tearing up our farmland and
[1:04:32] putting in 13 homes here, 82 homes here.
[1:04:35] And I just wonder if there is a 5-year
plan for this county that will address the
[1:04:41] water The schools, the police, the fire
departments.
[1:04:45] I mean, these are true concerns for all of
your constituents that are saying no to
[1:04:50] any more development till we look at a
5-year plan. What does that look like?
[1:04:56] We can't just keep approving more
subdivisions.
[1:04:59] It's just ruining the whole landscape of
this beautiful county.
[1:05:04] And I just ask you to please listen to the
people whose hearts are bleeding as their
[1:05:10] farmlands and the homes that they live in,
[1:05:13] the places that they raise their families
are just being destroyed by greed.
[1:05:18] And these developers come in here under a
shell company,
[1:05:22] and then they turn the land into something
that it wasn't proposed to you to be.
[1:05:28] So I just ask you to take a really hard
look at these developers who's come in and
[1:05:34] what their plan is, and really understand
the full impact for the next 5 years on
[1:05:40] Murray County, because we live here and we
love this place.
[1:05:44] So I just ask you to please listen to the
people who are here this evening.
[1:05:49] Thank you. God bless you. Thank you.
Dustin Kittle.
[1:05:53] Dustin Kittle, District 6, and I'm also
going to be speaking on behalf of Brian,
[1:05:59] going to be speaking on behalf of Brian,
uh,
[1:05:59] Easterly And Taylor Easterly, who are in
District 9.
[1:06:03] And there's kind of a threshold issue that
somehow— I mean,
[1:06:07] you would think on this one that this,
[1:06:09] this particular subdivision will go down
in Murray County history as being a
[1:06:15] in Murray County history as being a
turning
[1:06:15] point, because it's the one that we
figured out that we've been
[1:06:20] figured out that we've been
misinterpreting what
[1:06:21] the subdivision rules require for who
knows how long.
[1:06:25] And I would bet if I drove around this
county,
[1:06:28] there have been a lot of subdivisions that
did not go before this body.
[1:06:33] And that's not the Planning Commission's
fault. It's the county's fault.
[1:06:38] And I think at this point we're
interpreting right—
[1:06:41] interpreting it right to where even if
it's over 5 acres,
[1:06:45] if it is a subdivision and it meets the
qualifications for it under Tennessee law,
[1:06:51] it has to go before this body. And that
makes perfect sense.
[1:06:55] So I had confidence that maybe we were
going to start interpreting things right
[1:07:01] until I realized that we did not even get
right the fact they don't even own all
[1:07:07] this land. I'm speaking on behalf of Brian
Easterly, and I have his deed right here.
[1:07:12] Brian Easterly owns Lot 6 because they've
already sold it to him.
[1:07:17] And so it's a violation of Tennessee law
for this to have even been presented to
[1:07:23] this Planning Commission tonight. It
requires unified ownership.
[1:07:27] And we did a public records request and we
got information,
[1:07:31] and that question was asked to them
specifically. I believe it was by Mr.
[1:07:36] Muhammad, asked them, do you own Lot 6?
[1:07:39] And I don't see any reference back as far
as them indicating, no, we don't own that.
[1:07:45] And it's very clear in Tennessee law that
the only way they could bring this before
[1:07:51] this body would be with Mr.
[1:07:53] Easterly's approval,
[1:07:54] particularly given the fact that also what
they're requiring or what they're asking
[1:08:00] this body to do is to void a prior plat
that has been filed.
[1:08:04] And this is just an example of how a
simple mistake could create chaos for
[1:08:09] simple mistake could create chaos for
people in
[1:08:10] the county. Mr. Easterly has financing.
[1:08:13] He has a deed that is tied to a prior plat
that's been filed.
[1:08:17] One of the things that's interesting is
they filed 2 plats.
[1:08:21] They only reference to this body that
there's only— that there's one plat.
[1:08:26] Tennessee law requires if you're going to
void a plat,
[1:08:30] you've got to have all owners' approval.
[1:08:33] So if they would have got this planning
commission to have approved this tonight
[1:08:38] commission to have approved this tonight
and
[1:08:39] voided that prior plat, it could have
actually voided Mr.
[1:08:43] Easterly's deed and his financing. And he
was never told about this.
[1:08:47] And as, as you all know,
[1:08:49] you had authorization to go on all of this
property to look at it. Well, they did.
[1:08:55] They gave that authorization. They don't
even own it.
[1:08:59] And there's even another defect that's
almost just inconceivable in the fact that
[1:09:04] they listed the owner as being a Mr.
Blackmon when he's not even the owner.
[1:09:10] It's Cedar Grove Partners. So they don't
own all this land.
[1:09:14] It'd be a violation of Tennessee law for
this to even be considered.
[1:09:18] And my recommendation would be for this
application to be rejected.
[1:09:23] May I have an additional 15 seconds?
[1:09:26] Yes. Finish your thought, please, Destin.
[1:09:27] It, it would be a violation for this to go
forward.
[1:09:30] My recommendation, and I would ask Ms.
[1:09:33] Ransom to have this application withdrawn,
require it to be refiled.
[1:09:37] And part of the reason that I think it was
filed early is new subdivision
[1:09:42] regulations went into— went into place on
July the 20th.
[1:09:45] This was filed earlier that same month.
[1:09:48] If they get vesting rights,
[1:09:49] then all of a sudden they don't have to do
these soil studies and the more
[1:09:54] scrutinized water studies. I think they
presented this for one reason.
[1:09:58] That was to avoid that.
[1:10:00] I would reject the application, make them
refile it,
[1:10:03] but there's no way this body could,
[1:10:05] could consider it tonight in anything
other than a denial. Thank you.
[1:10:10] Thank you. Yeah, go ahead, Kristi, you
have the floor.
[1:10:14] So, I mean, Dustin's right— I'm sorry, Mr.
Kittle is right.
[1:10:18] Um, the zoning ordinance, even not talking
about state law,
[1:10:23] the zoning ordinance says that there are
only certain people who can present
[1:10:28] applications. So if the property owners
haven't all consented to considering this,
[1:10:34] then it's not properly before And you
can't take action on it at this point.
[1:10:40] So I need to take a look at our
procedures, but if they—
[1:10:44] and I assume they've closed on it, Dustin.
It's like straight up theirs.
[1:10:50] They own it. It's closed.
[1:10:52] Can I have a copy of the deed?
[1:10:53] No, that's okay. I trust you. I knew there
was a contract on it.
[1:10:56] I wasn't sure whether it had closed.
[1:10:58] It did close about—
[1:11:00] A while ago? Okay. Okay. Okay.
[1:11:03] So yeah, you can't apply for an action on
a property that you don't own without the
[1:11:09] consent of the property owner.
[1:11:11] So, I mean, you might want to take the
rest of the public comment.
[1:11:17] You know, I'm not suggesting that you shut
everything down, but—
[1:11:22] and I need a minute I'm going to look at
the procedures.
[1:11:26] So, I mean, it would probably be helpful
to the developer should they bring
[1:11:32] something back without this Lot 6 to get
the rest of the concerns and comments.
[1:11:38] Because as I said, a concept plan, it's
really— it's not a vesting document.
[1:11:44] That's a preliminary plat.
[1:11:46] But it is for you all to share your
comments and concerns so that they can
[1:11:52] comments and concerns so that they can
take that
[1:11:52] back.
[1:11:53] Yes.
[1:11:54] in deciding how to move forward with any
kind of proposal.
[1:11:58] So I'll let y'all proceed while I look at
the procedures.
[1:12:02] And Dustin, I appreciate you bringing that
to our attention.
[1:12:07] Next time, call me the afternoon so I can
prepare,
[1:12:11] but I appreciate you bringing that to our
attention. Thank you. Thank you, Kristi.
[1:12:24] Theresa Sparks.
[1:12:29] Theresa Sparks, District 9. I also live on
Sheep Neck.
[1:12:33] I've been speaking about this project for
over a year, and we have raised legal,
[1:12:39] which you just heard, ethical,
[1:12:41] and public safety concerns about
surrounding this subdivision.
[1:12:46] Tonight I want to focus on primarily the
ethical concerns,
[1:12:50] and you're going to hear more about the
safety concerns.
[1:12:54] These concerns started with a simple
question:
[1:12:57] how could approximately 82 acres be
divided into as many as 16 5-acre lots
[1:13:03] divided into as many as 16 5-acre lots
with no
[1:13:03] oversight from the Regional Planning
Commission at all?
[1:13:07] It simply didn't add up, so we began
researching state law,
[1:13:12] ultimately questioning whether this
development should be classified as a
[1:13:17] subdivision, primarily due to the
infrastructure triggers.
[1:13:21] That's state law, regardless of the lot
size.
[1:13:24] On February 26th, Humble Law submitted a
legal memo to the Regional Planning
[1:13:30] Commission concluding that this project
should be, in fact,
[1:13:34] classified as a subdivision.
[1:13:36] And then, Kristi, thank you for— I mean,
this is a detailed,
[1:13:41] detailed document also agreeing with that
Kristi wrote agreeing with Humble Law that
[1:13:47] the development is subject to the
subdivision regulations.
[1:13:51] Yet the concept plan before you this
evening, as you heard earlier,
[1:13:56] does not comply with the subdivision
regulations.
[1:13:59] And the concern does not end with East
Sheepneck Road.
[1:14:03] We have examined another development
involving the same developer on Double
[1:14:09] involving the same developer on Double
Branch.
[1:14:09] And this is important because We know that
in a records request,
[1:14:14] even though we were told Double Branch is
not— does not meet the same criteria,
[1:14:20] it does. And those record requests are
available. We have them.
[1:14:24] And so here's the point that ties it into
East Sheepneck.
[1:14:28] Double Branch is a public safety concern.
Several residents still lack water.
[1:14:34] Yes.
[1:14:34] And they've had— at least one has had to
dig a new well.
[1:14:38] Let's not repeat those same mistakes on
East Sheepneck.
[1:14:41] That's why it ties in, because if this
happened on Double Branch,
[1:14:46] it can happen on East Sheepneck.
[1:14:48] It's the same developer and they're
pulling the same shenanigans over and
[1:14:52] pulling the same shenanigans over and
over.
[1:14:53] You can't build a subdivision and say, oh,
the water's coming, wink wink,
[1:14:57] the water's coming, and then say that
people are going to dig wells.
[1:15:02] Do you think Mr. Easterly Hill here wants
13 wells?
[1:15:05] Yes.
[1:15:06] dug around his, that's going to compromise
his water source.
[1:15:11] So I'm asking you tonight to—
[1:15:13] respectfully asking you to apply those
regulations fully and deny this concept
[1:15:20] plan and this and the entire subdivision
and not let it go forward.
[1:15:26] So we, we can see what's happened on
Double Branch will be repeated on East
[1:15:32] Sheepneck.
[1:15:33] Thank you.
[1:15:34] Thank you. Bree Foster.
[1:15:35] Hi, my name is Bree Foster and I live at
2740 East Sheepneck in Collioca.
[1:15:40] Chairman and commissioners, my concern
tonight is very specific— the site
[1:15:45] tonight is very specific— the site
distance.
[1:15:46] You've heard it already tonight multiple
times.
[1:15:49] Our road contains an S-curve, and my
family and I live directly behind it.
[1:15:54] Just last week, I was coming home from the
grocery store with my 5-year-old in the
[1:15:59] back seat, buckled into his car seat,
[1:16:02] when a Mack truck was within feet of
smashing us head-on.
[1:16:05] The driver was speeding to a concerning
degree,
[1:16:08] and had I not been driving defensively and
cautiously,
[1:16:12] You might not be seeing my face right here
tonight because I might be on the news.
[1:16:17] A potentially fatal accident almost
happened within feet of my own property.
[1:16:22] Curves matter because they limit how far a
driver can see ahead of them.
[1:16:27] Imagine traveling through our curve and
encountering a vehicle that slowed or
[1:16:32] stopped to turn into one of these brand
new driveways that are proposed.
[1:16:37] A UPS truck delivering mail, a school bus,
or a tractor pulling farm equipment.
[1:16:42] Now consider the opposite perspective.
[1:16:45] A resident pulling out of one of these 13
driveways needs to be able to see that
[1:16:50] they have roadway clearance on either side
before continuing safely into the
[1:16:55] roadway. This isn't something we should be
guessing about. It can be measured.
[1:17:00] Maury County's roadway and drainage
technical standards contain minimal sight
[1:17:05] distance values that are based on the
current roadway classifications.
[1:17:10] According to those standards,
[1:17:12] the minimum The required distance
referenced in the county materials for a
[1:17:17] referenced in the county materials for a
minor
[1:17:17] local road are 150 feet, 250 feet for a
local road, and 450—
[1:17:21] 400 feet for a collector road.
[1:17:23] So I have several very simple and basic
questions for you.
[1:17:27] What's the official classification of my
road?
[1:17:30] What is the required site distance for
that classification?
[1:17:34] And most importantly,
[1:17:35] what is the actual measured site distance
at each of these 13 proposed driveway
[1:17:40] locations? I'm not asking for a
guesstimate.
[1:17:43] I'm asking for an exact measurement,
[1:17:46] and if a qualified professional has
actually evaluated the sight distance
[1:17:50] actually evaluated the sight distance
through
[1:17:51] and around that S-curve. These are
objective questions that have objective
[1:17:56] objective questions that have objective
answers.
[1:17:56] If the driveway meets the appropriate
standard, then demonstrate it.
[1:18:01] But if we don't know if they do,
[1:18:03] then we shouldn't permanently create 13
new access points first and then ask
[1:18:08] questions later. Measure the conditions.
[1:18:10] Thank you.
[1:18:11] Apply the standards. The lives of us
living on East Sheep Neck might depend
[1:18:17] living on East Sheep Neck might depend
upon it.
[1:18:17] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:18:20] And I have, um, if anybody'd like to see
it,
[1:18:23] I have photos of all these access points.
And just if anybody'd like to see it.
[1:18:29] John Sparks.
[1:18:38] You get to hear from another Sparks other
than Theresa Sparks, so you're welcome.
[1:18:45] Sir, if you— if when you come to the
podium,
[1:18:47] if you could just state your name and
district, please. Thank you.
[1:18:51] John Sparks, District 9.
[1:18:54] I have 2 letters to submit that are in
opposition to
[1:19:02] this development, and I'll be short.
[1:19:07] Can I give this to someone?
[1:19:11] I'm kind of the patriarch of the family,
[1:19:17] and the safety of all my grandkids, 5,
[1:19:23] and all my kids were privileged to live on
the same
[1:19:30] road. Not a lot of families have that
opportunity,
[1:19:37] but We have it. And can you imagine having
this kind
[1:19:45] of mess ruining what you've invested a lot
of time
[1:19:52] and energy and money? I love my family.
[1:19:58] This is a safety issue.
[1:20:01] I wish you would consider the safety part
of this and
[1:20:09] deny this development. Thank you.
[1:20:14] Thank you, sir. Chris Gramling.
[1:20:25] Hi everyone, Chris Gramling, District 9.
[1:20:28] Um, I prepared, uh, uh, uh, comments,
[1:20:30] but I'm going to have to go off script
because I don't want to be shut down, uh,
[1:20:35] for talking about other things. So I'm
just going to speak from the heart.
[1:20:40] Um, this is vile and disgusting what's
happening.
[1:20:43] Every person here in this room needs to go
out to East Sheep Neck and see what's
[1:20:48] been done. We've talked about safety.
[1:20:50] They've already had a trailer fall off the
road in one of their new driveways.
[1:20:55] They just went ahead, thought they'd skip
by you.
[1:20:58] They had an attorney,
[1:20:59] and they just thought that apparently that
part of the law didn't apply to them.
[1:21:04] I find that hard to believe, that you've
got an attorney and a team,
[1:21:08] they're doing this all over the county,
[1:21:11] and they don't realize what the triggers
for subdivision are. What disrespect.
[1:21:16] To you. And this— some of the people on
this side of the room,
[1:21:19] I'm deeply upset with you. I'm deeply
disappointed.
[1:21:23] Why do I need to hire an attorney, spend a
year of my life, 40 hours plus a week,
[1:21:28] trying to protect what I've spent my
entire life trying to build,
[1:21:32] to get you guys to recognize the law and
do the right thing? It's, it's gross.
[1:21:36] It's morally reprehensible what's
happening. We're a farming community.
[1:21:41] This thing is developed with those lots
for a specific reason.
[1:21:45] The, the engineer comes up and says, oh,
well, this is our first plan.
[1:21:49] That's obviously developed for financial
gain.
[1:21:52] And they do it rinse and repeat, not only
throughout Maury County,
[1:21:56] it's all over southern middle Tennessee.
[1:21:59] This same exact developer.
[1:22:01] There's controversy everywhere they go.
Upset buyers, upset neighbors.
[1:22:05] You've got ethics complaints about public
officials.
[1:22:09] This is bigger than the myopia of what
we're looking at.
[1:22:13] There's a bigger picture, and Don Barnett
should have been heard in part about it.
[1:22:18] I invite everyone, please come,
[1:22:20] come down to East Sheepneck and find out
who is really behind this and what is
[1:22:25] really going on before we take that word
agriculture, tear it off,
[1:22:30] and say Troy Blackman or development.
Please, enough is enough.
[1:22:34] Drake Sparks.
[1:22:41] Hello, my name is Drake Sparks. I'm a
District 9 resident.
[1:22:46] I live at 3090 East Sheepneck Road.
[1:22:49] And I just want to talk about this
development from a farmer's perspective.
[1:22:56] I'm vocationally a farmer at this point in
my life.
[1:23:00] And the traffic, even the existing
traffic, creates a lot of safety
[1:23:06] traffic, creates a lot of safety
challenges.
[1:23:07] So the way I do business, I bring my kids
with me everywhere.
[1:23:12] So if you look in the cab of You look on
my tractor or you look on my UTV,
[1:23:19] there's 1 to 2 small humans with me doing
everything.
[1:23:23] And that means we're stretching water
hoses across the road, watering cattle.
[1:23:30] That means we're pulling hay down the road
in a truck.
[1:23:35] That means we're taking hogs or cattle to
the butcher, et cetera, et cetera,
[1:23:41] et cetera. You know,
[1:23:43] the transportation and all that stuff that
comes with agriculture.
[1:23:49] So I believe that Sheebneck, even unto its
early days of being paved and everything,
[1:23:56] was conceived as an agricultural road to
serve the farmer.
[1:24:01] And I don't know how it's going to serve
the farmer anymore when it's going to have
[1:24:08] a subdivision I've had people trying to
run me off the road when I'm pulling hay
[1:24:15] down the road. So it's already pretty
sketchy and totally against it, you know,
[1:24:22] for the sake of agriculture, which should
be a priority of this body and all of us,
[1:24:30] is preserving that. So thank you for your
service and what y'all do.
[1:24:35] I really appreciate it genuinely. Have a
great night.
[1:24:40] Thank you. Lauren Sparks.
[1:24:42] Hello, I'm Lauren Sparks and I'm at 3090
East Sheepneck in District 9.
[1:24:46] I'm a little nervous, so I wrote it all
down,
[1:24:49] so I'm just going to read it for y'all.
[1:24:52] But thank you so much for your guys'
service, first of all.
[1:24:56] First off, um, I'm speaking tonight on
behalf of the residents of East Sheepneck
[1:25:01] Road in opposition to the proposed 13th
lot.
[1:25:04] Ridgeline Reserve concept plan—
[1:25:06] this plan represents a direct threat to
public safety,
[1:25:10] as we've heard many times tonight.
[1:25:12] I want to focus on the 13 additional
homes,
[1:25:15] what they actually mean for our small
rural road.
[1:25:19] When you hear 13 homes, that number can
sound relatively insignificant,
[1:25:23] but the fact is that Murray County
households have approximately 2 vehicles
[1:25:28] available per household.
[1:25:30] Applied to 13 new residences,
[1:25:32] That suggests roughly 26 additional
resident vehicles regularly using this
[1:25:37] resident vehicles regularly using this
road.
[1:25:37] And those vehicles don't just make a trip,
like one single trip a day.
[1:25:42] They leave for work, they take kids to
school, they go to the grocery store,
[1:25:47] appointments and activities, then they
come home.
[1:25:50] And that's before we count for Amazon, UPS
deliveries, visitors, contractors,
[1:25:55] school transportation, the emergency
vehicles, et cetera, et cetera.
[1:26:00] This is a major road.
[1:26:01] The different transportation methodologies
estimate that this—
[1:26:06] or this activity differently. It's not
just 26, you know, cars going back and
[1:26:11] just 26, you know, cars going back and
forth.
[1:26:11] Actually, it would be more like 73
additional vehicle trips per weekday,
[1:26:16] all the way up to as many as 120 trips per
weekday vehicle movements.
[1:26:21] I'm not suggesting that there's 120 new
cars. That's not what I'm saying.
[1:26:25] I'm saying that, um,
[1:26:27] 13 homes can generate dozens of additional
vehicle movements every single day.
[1:26:32] Those movements occur on, as we know, a
narrow, like, single road or single lane,
[1:26:37] um, for at least half if not more of the
road.
[1:26:41] Um, yeah, just a narrow with, you know,
S-curves. It's just dangerous.
[1:26:45] Um, I'm one of at least 4 other moms that
regularly walk on this road.
[1:26:50] I know there's probably 7 of us with Young
kids,
[1:26:53] but I know 4 actively walk on that road
with small kids.
[1:26:57] We obviously are very concerned about
this, as you've heard.
[1:27:01] We also— you also heard we're farmers,
[1:27:03] so we move cows across the road at 2
different access points as well.
[1:27:08] And we, you know, usually have to keep
cars waiting as we're moving our herd
[1:27:13] cars waiting as we're moving our herd
across
[1:27:14] the street back and forth. And we do that
weekly. So there's a lot going on.
[1:27:19] Thank you.
[1:27:19] Over there. The development should be
designed around the limitations of the
[1:27:24] designed around the limitations of the
public
[1:27:25] infrastructure it depends upon rather than
expecting the public infrastructure to
[1:27:30] somehow accommodate whatever development
occurs,
[1:27:33] because that's not fair for us or really
anybody, the people that buy the property,
[1:27:38] all of that. Before these 13 homes
permanently change the traffic pattern of
[1:27:43] permanently change the traffic pattern of
this
[1:27:43] road, I'm really asking you guys to
demonstrate that the road—
[1:27:47] or not necessarily you guys, but the
county—
[1:27:50] to demonstrate demonstrate that the road
can safely handle the additional activity.
[1:27:55] Thank you, guys. Thank you. Chandra Cecil.
[1:27:58] And I am a resident of East Sheep Neck
Road as well and District 9.
[1:28:02] And thank you for listening today to our
comments.
[1:28:05] I've lived here since I was Since, well,
12 years old.
[1:28:09] And we moved onto East Jeep Neck Road. My
parents built a house out there.
[1:28:13] And I remember the roads being dirt roads.
[1:28:16] And Mark does too, I know, and many of my
other neighbors.
[1:28:20] But so we've seen, you know, just like she
just said, I mean,
[1:28:23] just imagine all the extra traffic and,
yeah, all the other— I mean,
[1:28:28] we already have a lot of traffic.
[1:28:30] And without You know,
[1:28:31] 13 extra houses and all the extra vehicles
and things coming onto the road.
[1:28:36] So, and a lot of people do like to walk on
that road.
[1:28:39] Um, years ago, I used— my family, we used
to bike on the road,
[1:28:43] but we had to be very careful because it
is a very narrow road and no shoulder.
[1:28:48] There's not a, you know, not shoulders.
There's ditches and it's curvy.
[1:28:53] And like everybody— everyone pretty much
has said,
[1:28:56] you get in certain areas of that road and
if someone—
[1:28:59] if you're met with a big truck that is
Like right in your lane and you have
[1:29:04] Like right in your lane and you have
nowhere
[1:29:04] else to go. You could be in the ditch. And
that's happened before to some of us.
[1:29:10] And my parents couldn't be here tonight,
[1:29:12] but they are definitely against this as
well.
[1:29:15] They live near— next door to us, actually.
[1:29:18] Our daughter was raised in our residence
and we built our house back in 2002 or had
[1:29:23] it built in 2002. And yeah, we just— I'm
just— I don't— I'm frustrated.
[1:29:27] I don't understand how all these driveways
got put out there.
[1:29:31] Without approval, that this guy was able
to just come in and just start, oh,
[1:29:36] I'm going to build here, and without
approval from the county commission,
[1:29:41] from y'all. And like Chris said, how
disrespectful.
[1:29:44] I don't understand how people think they
can just bulldoze into Middle Tennessee
[1:29:49] can just bulldoze into Middle Tennessee
and
[1:29:49] do this. I, you know, it's just, again,
it's a mess.
[1:29:52] So please, please don't approve. Please do
not allow this to happen.
[1:29:57] Thank you.
[1:29:58] And like Dustin said, they've already done
illegal things.
[1:30:00] Why, why is it that— or unethical,
whatever you want to call it.
[1:30:03] Um, what's going to keep them from doing
that anymore?
[1:30:06] And the other places around the county
where they're doing this kind of stuff.
[1:30:09] Um, this is not okay.
[1:30:10] And we— I just plead with you to please
listen to everyone that's talked tonight
[1:30:14] that said they do not want this
application approved.
[1:30:16] Thank you so much for your time. God bless
you.
[1:30:18] And again, I wouldn't want to be in your
position.
[1:30:20] Oh, another thing I wanted to say too. I
have 55 seconds.
[1:30:23] Thank you.
[1:30:25] I love farmland. I love being in the
country.
[1:30:27] That's the reason why I grew up in the
country. I love being in the country.
[1:30:31] My husband and I love being in the
country. My parents love being in the
[1:30:34] country. My parents love being in the
country.
[1:30:34] We love having neighbors,
[1:30:36] but we like having that distance as well
and not having tons of traffic on our
[1:30:39] and not having tons of traffic on our
road.
[1:30:39] But the animals and the farmland and all
that is— that's going to be taken over,
[1:30:43] that natural habitat that's going to be
disrupted.
[1:30:45] And again, we don't have enough water in
our county. We're running out of water.
[1:30:49] Where are we going to get the water to to
give these people water in their houses.
[1:30:53] We've already got the issue going on on
Double Branch Road as well.
[1:30:56] And anyway, that's another thing I take on
that.
[1:30:59] So thank you.
[1:30:59] And again, we have all these families that
we want to make sure that they can
[1:31:02] provide for their family for the future.
[1:31:04] The people that currently live here,
please, please listen to us.
[1:31:07] We'd appreciate it so much. God bless
y'all. Thank you again.
[1:31:09] Thank you. Glenn Alexander.
[1:31:16] Okay. Gabe Howard.
[1:31:20] Thank you, Madam Chair, uh,
[1:31:23] members of the Regional Planning
Commission.
[1:31:28] I'm asking you tonight to not—
[1:31:32] Gabe, I'm sorry, can you just state your
name and district number for the record?
[1:31:35] Sorry to interrupt. Gabe Howard, uh,
District 8.
[1:31:38] Uh, tonight I'm here representing my
friends on East Sheepneck Road.
[1:31:42] I'm asking you tonight to vote no on the
Ridgeline Reserve concept plan.
[1:31:46] I know that y'all were just presented that
maybe this should be withdrawn.
[1:31:51] I would ask y'all tonight to go ahead and
actually deny it.
[1:31:54] They submitted an application, uh,
[1:31:56] but that basically they didn't even have
the right to submit.
[1:31:59] So send that message loud and clear and
deny it.
[1:32:02] This is bigger than one subdivision.
[1:32:04] It's about whether our rules actually mean
something and whether Everyone in Murray
[1:32:09] County is expected to play by the same
rules.
[1:32:12] This plan proposes 13 residential lots,
more than 3,300 feet of new water line,
[1:32:16] an individual septic system.
[1:32:18] The plan also states that its purpose is—
[1:32:20] includes voiding and vacating the
previously recorded plat.
[1:32:23] This is a residential development, plain
and simple.
[1:32:26] But before we get into planning policy,
[1:32:29] this commission should vote no based on
public safety alone. East Sheepneck Road.
[1:32:33] How many of y'all have actually driven
down East Sheepneck Road?
[1:32:37] East Sheepneck Road is already dangerous
and rural road.
[1:32:40] The plans say the pavement is 24 feet
wide. I would question that. I know that
[1:32:45] wide. I would question that. I know that
road.
[1:32:45] I've been driving that road for 15 years.
[1:32:47] And whether that road is actually 24 feet
and whether it's been represented
[1:32:52] correctly, I don't believe that it has.
[1:32:54] Before we approve more homes and more
traffic,
[1:32:56] that should be independently verified.
[1:32:59] The applicant's own plans identify steep
slopes, large trees, culverts,
[1:33:03] and rock outcroppings.
[1:33:04] In some places, even the proposed water
line has to be placed only 2 or 3 feet
[1:33:08] line has to be placed only 2 or 3 feet
from
[1:33:09] the edge of the pavement because of the
conditions. That should tell us something.
[1:33:13] Then look at how these lots are
configured.
[1:33:16] The concept plan relies on multiple
25-foot easements throughout the property.
[1:33:20] That should be alarming in itself.
[1:33:22] When we start using easements and
administrative mechanisms to squeeze
[1:33:26] administrative mechanisms to squeeze
additional
[1:33:27] residential lots out of rural farmland,
[1:33:29] we have to ask whether we are honoring the
intent of our subdivision regulations or
[1:33:34] simply finding another way around them.
[1:33:36] It should not be harder for a farmer to
preserve and protect their own farmland
[1:33:41] preserve and protect their own farmland
than
[1:33:41] it is for a developer to administratively
carve that farmland into residential
[1:33:45] tracts. That's completely backwards.
[1:33:47] I believe strongly in property rights,
[1:33:50] but the rules should apply equally to
everybody.
[1:33:52] At some point, we have to say enough is
enough.
[1:33:55] Enough loopholes, enough workarounds,
[1:33:57] enough development greed being placed
ahead of public safety,
[1:34:01] Good planning and the protection of rural
Murray County.
[1:34:04] Protect our roads, protect our farmland,
respect the rules.
[1:34:07] Make a motion to deny this tonight. Thank
you all so much.
[1:34:12] Thank you. Okay, that's everybody.
[1:34:14] That's everybody that I had signed up to
prior to the meeting to speak on this
[1:34:19] particular agenda item. Kristi, you have
the floor.
[1:34:23] Sorry, I don't ever wait for the light
like I should.
[1:34:26] I looked through your procedures,
[1:34:29] and I think at this point I understand the
sentiment asking you all to take some
[1:34:34] action, but I don't believe you have the
authority to do so.
[1:34:38] So at this point, I'm going to ask the
applicant to withdraw the item from the
[1:34:44] agenda because you can't take action on it
even if you wanted to because you don't
[1:34:49] have the authority to. without that
property owner's consent.
[1:34:53] So I don't have a whole lot of other
choice at this point.
[1:34:57] Just ask, ask for it to be withdrawn.
[1:35:02] Yeah, yeah.
[1:35:04] I mean, that the item be withdrawn.
[1:35:06] Okay, we're gonna, we're gonna withdraw
it.
[1:35:09] Why don't y'all just take an action to
accept the withdrawal just so that it's
[1:35:15] clean? Um, no, it's withdrawn as of right
now,
[1:35:18] and And y'all just move to accept the
withdrawal so we have it on the record.
[1:35:24] And it's— this is a weird situation.
[1:35:26] Oddly enough, I had it happen in another
county just last month.
[1:35:31] I don't know what's going on. I haven't
seen this in 15 or 20 years.
[1:35:36] Yeah, let's just take a motion to accept
the withdrawal and take an action on that,
[1:35:41] and then we'll, we'll move along. Debbie.
Okay. Thank you.
[1:35:46] Debbie, Debbie was first and Quentin was
second. I'm sorry. Yes, Mr.
[1:35:50] Delk, you have the floor.
[1:35:52] I want to ask you one question. Lot 6
already sold.
[1:35:57] Can't be part of the plat, right?
[1:36:00] Unless they consent.
[1:36:02] Like, I mean, unless they join in with
the—
[1:36:05] yeah, yeah. I mean, because you can see,
you can void, vacate,
[1:36:08] and supersede with But if they don't
consent,
[1:36:11] then all the easements and everything on
there cannot be in place either?
[1:36:15] I don't know. We'd have to look and see
what was part of what their deed is.
[1:36:20] I mean, there may be easements contained
within their deed when they took title to
[1:36:24] the property, and that's not something I
would really know anything about.
[1:36:29] But that's also something that the
developer and their consultant would need
[1:36:33] developer and their consultant would need
to
[1:36:33] clarify. So it may be that it has to show
up on the plat to affect the easement.
[1:36:38] I mean, it's— This is kind of a tangled
web here we'd have to figure out.
[1:36:42] Okay. I don't need no— all right.
[1:36:45] No other questions from the commission?
[1:36:48] We have a motion and a second to accept
the applicant's withdrawal.
[1:36:52] All those in favor say aye.
[1:36:54] Aye.
[1:36:55] Those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
[1:36:58] Take a couple minutes, let everybody back
in.
[1:37:04] Um, this has been a long meeting.
[1:37:06] Let's just take like a Let's take a
5-minute break so people can get something
[1:37:09] 5-minute break so people can get something
to
[1:37:09] drink and go to the restroom. Thank you.
[1:37:11] Yes,
[1:38:23] right.
[1:40:11] That's the thing. I was looking at the
[1:40:17] timer. I'm like, okay. No, but I still—
[1:40:24] What's that? Oh, oh, yeah, you're right.
[1:40:28] I was gonna
[1:40:34] say,
[1:40:37] I remember it
[1:40:45] being there
[1:40:52] last year.
[1:40:58] I'd like to
[1:41:05] get started
[1:41:12] again, please.
[1:41:21] Thank you.
[1:41:27] All right,
[1:41:34] I'm going to
[1:41:41] call the
[1:41:46] meeting back
[1:41:54] to order.
[1:41:59] Thank you,
[1:42:06] everyone.
[1:42:11] We're going to
[1:42:20] move to item 9
[1:42:29] on our agenda,
[1:42:38] which is a
[1:42:44] recommendation
[1:42:53] for a rezoning
[1:43:02] from RG to an
[1:43:10] AP district,
[1:43:17] property being
[1:43:26] located at 26
[1:43:34] 2626 Double
[1:43:41] Branch Road,
[1:43:49] Columbia,
[1:43:54] District 5.
[1:44:01] Is the
[1:44:05] applicant
[1:44:11] present,
[1:44:16] please?
[1:44:20] Could you come
[1:44:29] forward, sir?
[1:44:37] If you would
[1:44:45] just state
[1:44:51] your name and
[1:44:59] district and
[1:45:07] just tell us
[1:45:14] what you're
[1:45:21] proposing,
[1:45:28] please.
[1:45:32] Darryl Manzolini, District 9, 2626 Double
Branch Road.
[1:45:37] Can you— do you have any information you
want to give?
[1:45:41] No, we just would like to try to move
forward with this and try to go along with
[1:45:46] forward with this and try to go along with
the
[1:45:46] settlements here going on,
[1:45:47] I'm part of the complaint that's attached
to that previous menagerie.
[1:45:51] They started on our road and we're getting
overrun.
[1:45:54] And so we just want to try—
[1:45:55] there's a couple of us are getting
together with this to try to protect from
[1:45:59] together with this to try to protect from
being
[1:46:00] encroached on. You know,
[1:46:01] we moved out there to try to enjoy the
peace of the countryside and it's being
[1:46:05] closed in on us. And this is just one step
that we're trying to make to make sure
[1:46:10] that we buildings and people, you know,
[1:46:12] they hear a rooster crow or don't like the
smell of a pig in their yard,
[1:46:16] they start crying and complaining. This
gives us a little protection against that.
[1:46:20] Okay. All right. Thank you, sir.
[1:46:22] You bet.
[1:46:23] Any questions or comments from the
Planning Commission?
[1:46:27] All right. We have a motion and a second.
[1:46:30] All in favor say aye.
[1:46:31] Aye.
[1:46:32] Those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
[1:46:36] Okay, moving along to item number 10.
[1:46:39] This is also a recommendation that will be
sent to the County Commission for
[1:46:46] a rezoning from RG to AP district at
location 3090 East Sheepneck Road,
[1:46:52] Columbia— excuse me, Culeoaka, District 9.
Is the applicant present, please?
[1:46:59] Yes.
[1:47:05] Good evening. If you all could just state
your names and your district number,
[1:47:10] please. Yes, ma'am.
[1:47:12] Drake Sparks, Lauren Sparks, Teresa
Sparks, John Sparks, District 9.
[1:47:15] Okay. Is there anything you all would like
to say to the commission?
[1:47:19] Um, obviously from our previous
statements, uh, on other matters,
[1:47:24] we're passionate about preserving farmland
and The farm is used,
[1:47:29] or the land is used to farm.
[1:47:32] Okay.
[1:47:32] So, all right.
[1:47:34] Any questions from the commission? We have
a motion and a second.
[1:47:39] All in favor say aye. Those opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you all.
[1:47:45] Moving along, item number 11 is also a
recommendation for a rezoning from RG to
[1:47:51] recommendation for a rezoning from RG to
AP
[1:47:51] district at 3083 East Sheepneck Road in
Culeoaka, District 9.
[1:47:56] Is the applicant present, please?
[1:47:59] Sam, I know you're responsible for a lot
of this AP district,
[1:48:04] and you're going to hear tomorrow we're
going to try to push to make it more
[1:48:10] going to try to push to make it more
easily—
[1:48:11] to make it happen more easily, because—
and I think I have a plan for that,
[1:48:17] because I don't think anybody else will go
through the 14 steps. It's a lot.
[1:48:23] It's a lot to get through it.
[1:48:26] And I have a plan, so I'm going to present
that tomorrow at the comprehensive plan,
[1:48:33] land use plan. But yeah, this is also— the
next 2 are our property.
[1:48:38] For the record, would you all just state
your name again, please? That's okay.
[1:48:45] Theresa Sparks. John Sparks, District 9.
All right. We have a motion and a second.
[1:48:51] All in favor say aye.
[1:48:53] Aye.
[1:48:54] Those opposed? Motion carries. All right,
next item. You can, you can stay.
[1:49:01] The next item is also a rezoning from RG
to AP district located at 3192 East
[1:49:08] Sheepneck Road in Culeoaka, District 9.
Okay, second. We have a motion and a
[1:49:14] Okay, second. We have a motion and a
second.
[1:49:15] All in favor say aye. Those opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you all. All right.
[1:49:22] Item number 13, also a recommendation for
rezoning from RG to AP district located at
[1:49:30] 2691 East Sheepneck Road, Culeoaka,
District 9. Is the applicant present,
[1:49:36] District 9. Is the applicant present,
please?
[1:49:37] Good. Okay. Good evening.
[1:49:39] Could you all just state your name and
district number for the record, please?
[1:49:47] Mike Foster and Patty Foster, 2691 East
Sheepneck Road, District 9.
[1:49:53] Okay.
[1:49:54] Okay.
[1:49:56] We have a motion and a second on the
table. All in favor say aye.
[1:49:59] Aye.
[1:50:00] Those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you
all. We have one final— yes.
[1:50:07] Who was my second on that, please?
[1:50:10] Yeah, uh, we also— item number 14 is also
a recommendation for a rezoning
[1:50:18] from RG to AP district located at 1001
East Sheepneck Road in Culebra,
[1:50:25] District 9. Is the applicant present?
[1:50:29] If you would just state your name and
district for the record, please,
[1:50:36] sir.
[1:50:36] Chris Grambling, District 9.
[1:50:37] All right, thank you. Who was my— Mike's
my motion, Jonathan's my second.
[1:50:43] Okay, we have a motion and a second. All
in favor say aye. Those opposed?
[1:50:48] Motion carries. Thank you, sir.
[1:50:50] Thank you very much.
[1:50:55] Okay, item number 15 on our agenda is
letters of credit.
[1:50:59] We have a request for a reduction of
letter of credit for LaBella Springs.
[1:51:05] They're requesting approval of a 30%
reduction in the letter of credit, 33
[1:51:11] reduction in the letter of credit, 33
lots,
[1:51:12] reducing the performance amount from
$2,598,000 to $1,818,600,
[1:51:17] which is proportional to the work
completed to date. Is the applicant here?
[1:51:23] Do we have anybody here for LaBella?
[1:51:26] No.
[1:51:26] Okay. All right. Any questions from the
commission?
[1:51:37] Comments? The reduction in amount is 30%,
is that right?
[1:51:41] That's correct, Mr. Delk. Yeah, that's
what it says.
[1:51:44] That's correct. Based on y'all's
[1:51:47] recommendation, I move approval.
[1:51:51] Second.
[1:51:52] Okay, we have a motion from Mr. Delk,
second from Mike. Bless you.
[1:51:58] All in favor, all in favor say aye. Those
opposed? Motion carried.
[1:52:04] Okay, do we have reports of officers,
committees, or staff?
[1:52:09] Okay, floor is yours, Robert.
[1:52:12] There is a published advisory committee
meeting tomorrow evening
[1:52:18] in this room at 5:30.
[1:52:20] That's to continue work on updating the
comprehensive land use
[1:52:26] Plan. Just an announcement. Okay, thank
you.
[1:52:31] I'm going to get to you.
[1:52:32] I do, um, uh, any other— before I move
forward,
[1:52:35] any other items of business from Reports
of Officers, Committee of Staff?
[1:52:40] Okay.
[1:52:42] Under other business, um, Mike Diaz,
[1:52:44] who has served this Planning Commission
for 10 years,
[1:52:48] let us know this evening that this will be
his last Planning Commission meeting.
[1:52:53] So, Mike, I've gotten— most of us have
gotten to know you over the many years.
[1:52:58] I sat next to you for many years.
[1:53:01] So we thank you for your dedication and
your years of service to this commission.
[1:53:06] You will be missed, and, and we thank you.
[1:53:09] So just, just wanted to say, just to
mention that at the end of our meeting.
[1:53:14] So thank you, Mike.
[1:53:16] Thank you.
[1:53:19] Okay, moving on to other business. Anybody
have any topics they would like to cover?
[1:53:26] Any questions, comments?
[1:53:27] Okay, finally, we have—
[1:53:29] this is the portion of our meeting where
we have public comment.
[1:53:34] If you would like to make a comment
regarding something that was not on our
[1:53:39] regarding something that was not on our
agenda,
[1:53:40] this is the time to do it. So, sir, I will
If you— I'm— okay.
[1:53:45] When you come to the podium,
[1:53:47] just please state your name and district
number again for the record,
[1:53:52] and we will provide 3 minutes. Thank you.
[1:53:55] For the record, Jordan Rauden, District 9.
[1:53:57] So there was a moratorium on data center
stuff approved by the County Commission
[1:54:02] last month. In it, it mentioned, hey,
[1:54:04] there's going to be time now for a study
of the impact of data centers on Murray
[1:54:09] County. And the scope seemed quite
extensive,
[1:54:11] but no formal word on what the heck is
going on with that now that we are almost
[1:54:16] going on with that now that we are almost
2
[1:54:16] months in from when this body proposed
sending it to the Commission.
[1:54:20] There were 6 infrastructure systems
mentioned in that: electrical, water,
[1:54:24] wastewater, stormwater, transportation,
other public stuff.
[1:54:28] 6 separate domains which require technical
expertise.
[1:54:31] It also has in it mentioned 12
environmental and operational categories:
[1:54:35] environmental and operational categories:
noise,
[1:54:35] sound, heat, Odors, hazardous waste
disposal, fire safety setbacks, buffers,
[1:54:40] disposal, fire safety setbacks, buffers,
blah,
[1:54:40] blah, blah. Okay. That's also stuff that
requires a lot of expertise to dig into,
[1:54:45] plus all the zoning and regulatory work,
appropriate districts,
[1:54:48] all of that kind of stuff.
[1:54:50] Compounding all of that is that the
moratorium itself defined data centers
[1:54:54] moratorium itself defined data centers
very
[1:54:54] broadly into like 9 separate bullets in
it, which means, guess what?
[1:54:58] And me as a resident,
[1:54:59] and me and most of these folks would be
expecting that any study that comes out of
[1:55:04] this addresses all of those environmental
factors,
[1:55:07] all of those infrastructure factors within
the context of each of those bulleted
[1:55:12] definitions of data center.
[1:55:13] Because each one has a different kind of
impact to Murray County.
[1:55:17] And so my question is, where is it?
[1:55:19] How far along are we in creating a
framework on doing this?
[1:55:22] I emailed this body last week.
[1:55:24] Robert responded that so far there's
nothing determined on how that's going to
[1:55:29] nothing determined on how that's going to
take—
[1:55:29] how it's going to happen. Has that
changed? Is it documented?
[1:55:33] Does it itemize all the infrastructure
systems, all the 12 environmental impacts,
[1:55:37] all of the other stuff? Who's
participating?
[1:55:40] Or as they say, who's going to be at the
table?
[1:55:43] We need technical folks, but the
moratorium also mentions citizens,
[1:55:46] moratorium also mentions citizens,
residents,
[1:55:47] and business owners as core participants.
How is that going to play a role?
[1:55:51] Have you assembled a team yet?
[1:55:54] What is the—
[1:55:54] when does the framework lock in? How do we
know that?
[1:55:57] Who's going to get to see When's the study
going to begin?
[1:56:00] Like, there is a metric ton of work for
this that y'all have set yourselves up for
[1:56:04] that we as residents are expecting to see.
[1:56:06] So I'm not sure if y'all thought about it
yet,
[1:56:08] but it's imperative that somebody move
forward with this and get it going.
[1:56:12] How is this all going to be shared with
residents? How do we get to participate?
[1:56:16] How do we get to hear how it's going?
[1:56:18] Does the framework— is it going to
reference everything in the moratorium,
[1:56:22] which Which I would expect. I'm concerned
we're already behind.
[1:56:25] Like, this should already have been
planned.
[1:56:27] When y'all crafted the moratorium
recommendation to go to the commission,
[1:56:31] you already should have been formatting a
plan and a framework for this.
[1:56:34] So if we haven't— don't have a framework,
we're behind.
[1:56:37] And if you haven't started, I'd say we're
behind,
[1:56:40] because there's a lot of work to get this
done.
[1:56:42] So honestly, what I'd love from y'all is
like, we'd love to hear like,
[1:56:45] what are the dates? When are things
happening?
[1:56:48] When are we going to see a framework, a
strategy, a plan for this study?
[1:56:51] Who's going to be involved? We need to
know that. And so that's my request from
[1:56:55] know that. And so that's my request from
you.
[1:56:56] Thank you, sir.
[1:56:59] Thank you. My name is Don Barnett. I live
on— at 2632 Double Branch.
[1:57:05] I'm speaking about development in Double
Branch because the The Double Branch
[1:57:11] developer is the same developer working on
the Ridgeline project.
[1:57:17] I realize the Ridgeline project is kind of
off track now,
[1:57:21] but I still think our experience is
relevant,
[1:57:25] as I am sure the Ridgeline project will be
back.
[1:57:29] So I'm just— just a little bit, be less
than 3—
[1:57:33] much less than 3 minutes on our experience
on Double Branch.
[1:57:38] This developer put 16 new driveways On a
half-mile stretch of a steep hill on
[1:57:45] half-mile stretch of a steep hill on
Double
[1:57:45] Branch Road, a narrow tar and chip road.
That's part of a 23-home project.
[1:57:52] About less than half are underway now as
far as builds go.
[1:57:56] But 16 new driveways, which I have a
picture of here,
[1:58:01] which I have one for everybody. You can
get it later.
[1:58:05] I realize it's not as relevant as it was
before.
[1:58:09] One of the driveways has to be seen to be
believed.
[1:58:14] It is not 10 feet from the top of a ridge,
[1:58:17] affording no view of what is coming over
the hill.
[1:58:21] I stood there and watched a 13-foot
18-wheeler come by, and yes, I could,
[1:58:28] I could see the roof of the 18-wheeler and
A little bit before I saw the 18-wheeler
[1:58:34] itself. But that's the kind of driveway,
like I said, 10 feet from a blind ridge.
[1:58:41] It's possible they don't plan on using it.
I don't know.
[1:58:46] But off of that driveway are 2 home sites,
which brings up another issue.
[1:58:52] The developer, when originally came into
this area, showed plans for large lots,
[1:58:59] 5 acres and higher.
[1:59:00] Yes.
[1:59:02] According to neighbors,
[1:59:03] verbal promises were made to potential
buyers about estate lots, mini farms—
[1:59:08] meaning miniature farms, not, not, not
many—
[1:59:11] mini farms with deed restrictions to
guarantee this outcome.
[1:59:15] This has not turned out to be the case.
[1:59:17] Among the new lots, again, on our—
[1:59:20] I'm talking about like just a half mile
where there are 16 new driveways.
[1:59:24] Uh, there are 4 drive— 4 lots that are
less than 5 acres,
[1:59:28] 2 lots that are less than 3.
[1:59:30] And do we— are we sure there won't be
further subdivision of these larger lots,
[1:59:35] yet more cars on this very narrow road?
[1:59:38] I realize the developer may have gotten
case-by-case Planning Commission waivers
[1:59:43] case-by-case Planning Commission waivers
for
[1:59:43] the smaller lots, but the development was
never considered as a subdivision,
[1:59:48] which could have triggered a more
comprehensive study of overall impact.
[1:59:53] After all, in state documents, it is named
Blackberry Meadows Subdivision.
[1:59:57] That's what they call it.
[1:59:59] And they even have an East Subdivision and
a West Subdivision.
[2:00:03] Verbal promises, again, made about what's—
what's— what the size.
[2:00:07] Okay, verbal promises about water
availability when there was no water
[2:00:12] availability when there was no water
there.
[2:00:12] Some had to move in without water. Their
water was hooked up later.
[2:00:16] Um, I believe if it had been considered as
a subdivision,
[2:00:20] water would have been proactively
confirmed rather than reactively reacting
[2:00:25] confirmed rather than reactively reacting
to facts
[2:00:26] on the ground. At any rate, I'm looking at
this as a resident and a layman.
[2:00:30] I'm not pretending to be an expert in
everything,
[2:00:34] and I do understand there's an incredible
amount of expertise that goes into what
[2:00:39] you do. But I do think this is a— this is
one developer who needs guidance.
[2:00:44] Thank you.
[2:00:44] especially if we want to protect future
home purchasers from fraudsters. Thank
[2:00:49] home purchasers from fraudsters. Thank
you.
[2:00:49] Thank you, sir. Scott.
[2:00:55] Scott Sumner, District 5.
[2:00:57] I wasn't planning on speaking this
evening, but I feel like I need to.
[2:01:03] I feel, I feel like every development,
residential, commercial,
[2:01:09] should go through the Planning Commission.
Every one of them.
[2:01:14] I believe there's a state law. It's not a
loophole, right?
[2:01:19] It's state law that allows certain,
[2:01:22] certain developments to not have to go
through the Planning Commission.
[2:01:28] So I feel like everything should go
through the Planning Commission.
[2:01:34] And I hope that you guys,
[2:01:36] and I want you guys and the county
commission to try to work on something to
[2:01:43] commission to try to work on something to
send to
[2:01:43] our state legislatures to try to get them
to see what we've been through here.
[2:01:50] Like District 5, District 9, no, 8, 9?
[2:01:54] 9.
[2:01:54] 9. Those are, I mean, I've had a lot of
calls about Double Branch Road.
[2:01:59] My constituents out there, they're going
through it,
[2:02:03] and it's unbelievable what they've gone
through.
[2:02:06] The folks that have lived there,
[2:02:08] the folks that have moved into their new
homes without water or not being able to
[2:02:14] move into their homes without being able
to get water.
[2:02:17] We finally got them water on a temporary
water line, not the new water line.
[2:02:23] But I would like to see you guys Work with
the county commission on trying to fix
[2:02:28] that state law that would allow everything
to go through the planning commission.
[2:02:34] That way, that way everything is
scrutinized by someone— or not someone,
[2:02:39] but somebody, a body, a planning
commission, a county commission.
[2:02:43] So I would hope maybe Robert can get
something going with that,
[2:02:47] with what the state law is.
[2:02:49] I don't know what the TCA code is,
[2:02:51] but But there is TCA code out there that
does allow this to happen.
[2:02:56] And I would hope that you guys would
potentially send us something that we
[2:03:01] potentially send us something that we
could
[2:03:01] send to our state reps and they could try
to get something going and get that
[2:03:07] amended.
[2:03:07] Thank you. Thank you,
[2:03:11] Scott. Anyone else?
[2:03:15] Please.
[2:03:22] Everyone, Chris Gramling, um, from
District 9.
[2:03:25] Another thing that you should be aware of
regarding this developer,
[2:03:30] they also own a real— a realty. It's
called Wild Olive Realty.
[2:03:33] Most of their transactions we've seen go
through that when they buy land.
[2:03:38] Well, uh, their broker in charge has been
warned by the Real Estate Commission,
[2:03:43] and you can look this up on the, on the,
the commerce site,
[2:03:47] warned over their affiliates' advertising
claims.
[2:03:50] Black— Sam Blackmon, Troy Blackmon's son
himself, has been—
[2:03:54] I don't know what the word— I think he has
a fine or he's got a strike.
[2:03:59] You can see it on there.
[2:04:00] And then at the fire station thing out in
Santa Fe that I think many of you know,
[2:04:05] they uncharacteristically used a different
real estate agent as their buyer.
[2:04:10] And to me, it felt like they were trying
to do this as if they were a straw buyer.
[2:04:15] I know the seller's agent,
[2:04:17] and the seller's agent does not approve of
breaking up farms.
[2:04:21] When they bought it,
[2:04:22] they used a company called FM Provisions
and another one called Provisions Living
[2:04:27] Trust, which would seem innocuous. They're
not Wild Olive Realty.
[2:04:32] They're not Blackman. They're none of
Double Branch Partners Seagrove.
[2:04:36] They're none of that.
[2:04:37] Well, that guy just had his license
suspended on July 29th,
[2:04:41] and I have proof of that.
[2:04:43] So that's what we're dealing with,
[2:04:45] and that's why I say please look behind
the curtain. The Wizard of Oz is
[2:04:50] the curtain. The Wizard of Oz is
operating.
[2:04:50] We got to pull the curtain back.
[2:04:52] Thank you. Thank you, sir.
[2:04:55] We have anybody else that would like to
speak during our open comment
[2:05:02] period? Okay. Mr. Delk, you've got the
floor.
[2:05:06] I found some reports on where we are on a
comprehensive plan on each item,
[2:05:11] and I appreciate it.
[2:05:12] Okay.
[2:05:20] He don't mind.
[2:05:30] Anybody else have it? Debbie, you have the
floor.
[2:05:32] Move to adjourn. Second.
[2:05:33] All right. Everyone in— all in favor say
aye.
[2:05:36] Aye.
[2:05:36] Those opposed? Motion carries. Motion—
meeting is adjourned.