[0:00] You got it.

[0:01] Good evening. Welcome to the Nolensville Regular Planning Commission

[0:07] meeting. Thank all of you for coming here tonight.

[0:11] Um, I do believe we have a quorum,

[0:14] so let's lead off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join me.

[0:19] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

[0:21] and to I the pledge republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

[0:24] with allegiance liberty and justice for all.

[0:26] to the flag of the United States of America,

[0:28] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

[0:32] with liberty and justice for all.

[0:33] All right.

[0:42] Thank you.

[0:45] The minutes for the August 11th meeting. I'll entertain a motion.

[0:53] Motion to approve.

[0:53] Is there a second?

[0:54] Second.

[0:56] Okay, is there any discussion?

[0:59] Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye.

[1:02] Aye.

[1:03] Opposed? Passes unanimously.

[1:05] Abstain.

[1:06] I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

[1:08] Sorry.

[1:08] Okay, one abstention.

[1:14] Staff announcements?

[1:17] Uh, just one announcement. I spoke a little bit about it prior.

[1:21] Uh, training is— the training hours are coming up.

[1:24] Um, I did actually just send, uh, resent the link to— there's 4 videos that,

[1:29] that you can watch. I know majority of you have had a couple hours here and there

[1:35] with various kind of training opportunities.

[1:37] Um, we do need to start thinking about Trying to wrap those up and getting,

[1:42] getting those done. I wish there was more options that we all had to watch, but, um,

[1:48] I think those last couple videos will help get us over the finish line.

[1:52] But we'll continue to be on the lookout for any other opportunities that we come

[1:57] across, and, and we'll send them along.

[2:00] And will you send everyone that list that we saw earlier in the year that had

[2:05] multiple items?

[2:06] Yes, that's what I— so I said, yeah, I sent that list, and I sent a, uh,

[2:11] perfect the, the form.

[2:13] Let's, let's really make an effort to make sure it gets done.

[2:16] This has to be turned in.

[2:17] We want it to reflect well on the town of Nolensville and on our Planning

[2:20] Commission.

[2:22] Next item on the agenda is citizen comments. I have a question here.

[2:26] Mr. McGuire, sorry, are you residents of Brentwood?

[2:31] We are.

[2:31] Okay, I need to get advice here from our council.

[2:38] Yeah, they can.

[2:40] They can. Okay, delighted to have you.

[2:43] First on the list is Andrew McGuire.

[2:45] Please state your name. And Stephanie— oh, okay.

[2:48] Stephanie McGuire, please state your name and your address, please.

[2:52] You have 3 minutes.

[2:53] Sure.

[2:54] My name is Stephanie McGuire.

[2:56] I live at 9731 Jupiter Forest Drive, Brentwood, Tennessee. Um, so good evening.

[3:01] My name is Stephanie McGuire and this is my husband Andrew.

[3:05] We are here because we own the rights to 5 cemetery plots in the Nolensville Hill

[3:10] Cemetery, plots 759, 760, 761, 762, and 763.

[3:12] Our daughter Adeline, you can see below, is buried in plot 761.

[3:16] Adeline passed away from brain cancer when she was 5 years old.

[3:20] She was joyful, loving, full of life,

[3:23] and deeply loved by our family and this community.

[3:26] We understand that this meeting is about a subdivision and final plat,

[3:30] and we understand that growth and development are part of a living and

[3:35] development are part of a living and growing

[3:35] community.

[3:36] Thank you.

[3:37] We are not here to oppose reasonable development.

[3:40] Our concern is that after reviewing the documents submitted for this application,

[3:45] we believe there is a significant discrepancy that needs to be resolved

[3:49] discrepancy that needs to be resolved before this

[3:50] plat is approved. The survey submitted to the Planning Commission depicts our 5

[3:55] cemetery plots in a location that is different from the location shown on the

[4:00] cemetery plot map that was provided to us.

[4:03] Most importantly, Adeline's actual grave Is not located where Plot 761 is shown on

[4:08] the submitted survey.

[4:09] This matters because the submitted plat is not simply drawing a new property line

[4:14] near the cemetery. On Sheet 2, the plat states that recording it will void,

[4:19] states that recording it will void, vacate,

[4:19] and supersede a portion of the recorded Nolensville Cemetery plat,

[4:23] and specifically identifies Cemetery Plots 745 through 1147.

[4:27] Okay.

[4:27] among the plots affected. Our plots, 759 through 763, are within that range.

[4:32] So from our perspective, this raises a very basic question:

[4:35] how can this plat be approved if the documents being used to establish new

[4:39] documents being used to establish new property

[4:39] boundaries do not accurately identify where existing cemetery plots and an

[4:43] where existing cemetery plots and an existing

[4:44] grave are actually located?

[4:45] We are not asking the Planning Commission to determine a dispute between us and the

[4:50] Cemetery Association.

[4:51] We are asking you to make sure that the information being relied upon to approve

[4:55] this subdivision is accurate,

[4:57] and that existing cemetery plots and graves are not inadvertently affected by

[5:01] graves are not inadvertently affected by the

[5:01] recording of this plat.

[5:02] For our family, this is not simply a question of lines on a survey.

[5:06] This is where our daughter is buried.

[5:08] We want to be able to continue coming to her grave and remembering her in a

[5:12] her grave and remembering her in a peaceful

[5:12] and respectful place.

[5:14] We are respectfully asking that the Commission require the actual location of

[5:18] Commission require the actual location of these

[5:18] plots and Adelyn's grave to be established and reconciled with the submission plat

[5:22] before this application proceeds. Thank you.

[5:25] Thank you.

[5:25] And I'm going to yield the rest of my time.

[5:27] Okay. You have a full 3 minutes as well, sir.

[5:30] Thank you. My name is Andrew McGuire.

[5:32] I want to follow up on Stephanie's comments by explaining why we believe this

[5:37] warrants additional scrutiny from the Planning perspective.

[5:40] We recognize that Planning staff has reviewed the application and recommended

[5:45] approval. As Stephanie said, we are not opposed to reasonable development.

[5:49] Our concern is what the current plat would establish if it is approved and recorded.

[5:54] First, the plat expressly states that recording it will void, vacate,

[5:59] and supersede a portion of the existing recorded cemetery plat,

[6:02] including the cemetery plots 745 through 1147.

[6:05] Our 5 plots, as Stephanie stated, are 759 through 763, which fall within that range.

[6:10] We believe the Commission should therefore require the Applicant to clearly

[6:15] establish what effect recording this plat will have on those existing plots.

[6:19] and burial rights and ensure that no existing grave or plot rights are

[6:24] existing grave or plot rights are inadvertently

[6:24] affected. Second, there's a future access issue that we believe deserves attention.

[6:29] The plat states that access to the newly located Lot 3 will be located along the

[6:34] western boundary between Lot 3 and the remaining cemetery property with access

[6:39] remaining cemetery property with access from

[6:39] Clovercroft Road. The actual location and configuration of that future access are

[6:44] not established in the final plat.

[6:46] Okay.

[6:47] We believe the Commission should understand exactly where that access will

[6:51] understand exactly where that access will be in

[6:51] relation to the actual graves,

[6:53] particularly given the discrepancy in the location of the cemetery plots.

[6:57] We also believe that appropriate protection should be established for the

[7:02] protection should be established for the cemetery

[7:02] boundary before commercial development proceeds.

[7:05] Construction, grading, vehicular access,

[7:07] and future development immediately adjacent to the cemetery could affect the

[7:12] peaceful and respectful nature of the cemetery,

[7:14] even if The final property line does not cross the existing grave.

[7:18] We are therefore asking the Commission for 3 things before the subdivision is

[7:23] finalized. First, establish and reconcile the actual location of Plots 759 through

[7:28] 763 and Adeline's grave with the submitted plat.

[7:30] Second, require the Applicant to demonstrate that recording this plat will

[7:35] demonstrate that recording this plat will not

[7:35] adversely affect those existing plots or burial rights,

[7:38] particularly given the language recorded Regarding plots 745 through 1147.

[7:43] Third, establish location and parameters for future access to Lot 3 and provide

[7:47] appropriate protections along the cemetery boundary.

[7:50] Those protections could include reasonable setback, a berm, landscaping,

[7:55] natural screening, or other measures the Commission believes appropriate.

[7:59] We are not asking the Commission to stop development.

[8:02] We're asking that these property lines and future development plans be finalized

[8:07] only after there's accurate understanding of the existing cemetery and appropriate

[8:11] protections are in place.

[8:13] We respectfully ask the Commission not to approve the plat as currently presented,

[8:18] but instead require that the issues be resolved and reflected in the final

[8:22] documents. Thank you for your time.

[8:24] Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. McGuire. Adelyn was a beautiful little girl.

[8:28] Please know that you have our deepest sympathy.

[8:39] We have no items on the consent agenda. Surety actions.

[8:41] Anyone have any thoughts or comments on the surety report?

[8:45] Just point of order really quick if we can.

[8:47] Um, if possible, could you tell us those plot numbers again?

[8:50] You were speaking pretty fast. If we can have that clearly stated. Uh, it was—

[8:55] we have everything that we talked about.

[8:59] Okay, perfect.

[9:01] Do you want— so 759 through 763 is the numbers that they gave us for the

[9:05] numbers that they gave us for the ownership

[9:06] of.

[9:06] Okay.

[9:11] Surety report. Anyone have any thoughts, comments on the surety report?

[9:19] Hearing none, we'll move on to unfinished business. We have no unfinished business.

[9:24] We'll move to next item, new business, A9A,

[9:27] Neil Padden subdivision minor final plat.

[9:33] Is there anyone here from the Neil Padden group?

[9:36] Yes.

[9:38] I don't see anyone. I think staff, right?

[9:41] I think given the discussion, you know, I, I'm—

[9:43] we put out a staff report that recommended approval,

[9:47] but given the information we've heard tonight, I think staff would be okay,

[9:51] you know, if we look to defer the item for further and, you know,

[9:55] to investigate this further.

[9:57] So what I will say is, based on the information provided,

[10:01] obviously what we are given as staff,

[10:04] and then what you all provide to us is what has been provided to us.

[10:09] And so based on the conversation that we have had,

[10:13] based on what happened even at the Historic Zoning Commission and discussion

[10:18] Historic Zoning Commission and discussion with

[10:19] the sign, and just further analysis being needed to, to be taken at that point,

[10:25] what I would do is ask that we postpone until we have had—

[10:29] Okay.

[10:30] Further time to look through and make sure that we have evaluated the proper

[10:35] placement of not only the plots.

[10:37] One of the questions that I had before I make a motion for postponement was I had

[10:43] asked both at the historic meeting but had asked a follow-up question, which was,

[10:48] will there be any current plots that are affected that are—

[10:52] that have been purchased And I was told that that was a no.

[10:56] And so clearly, based on what we've heard this evening and maybe some of what may be

[11:02] incorrect that we are seeing, that would be my biggest—

[11:05] so I will make a motion to postpone until further documentation has come in from

[11:11] both the applicant and from staff.

[11:13] I will second. Discussion?

[11:15] I have a question. I believe, if I'm not mistaken,

[11:20] items B, C, and D also relate To all of these

[11:23] things.

[11:24] So Charles, do we need 4 separate—

[11:27] It's B and C.

[11:29] I'm sorry, B and C but not D. I apologize.

[11:31] B and C.

[11:32] Uh, no, if you're reading them at the same time.

[11:34] But are they being read at the same time, or are they—

[11:37] they're separate on the agenda?

[11:39] They're separate. So I will make a motion to postpone item A, B,

[11:43] and C until further time that staff has reviewed additional

[11:47] documentation.

[11:48] And I will second. Any discussion?

[11:50] Uh, just one quick— that if, since we're— there are questions that we have, um,

[11:56] if town staff could strongly encourage the representatives who want this to,

[12:01] to be changed that they need to be here to answer these kinds of questions, um,

[12:07] that in itself I think is grounds to postpone it. So that's all.

[12:12] Any further discussion?

[12:14] Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye.

[12:18] Aye.

[12:19] Opposed?

[12:20] Motion passes unanimously.

[12:22] The next item under number 9 is D,

[12:25] and that has also requested a postponement, which we've done.

[12:29] So that moves us to—

[12:30] Charles—

[12:32] oh, excuse me, point of order.

[12:33] Charles, do we— applicant requested the postponement,

[12:36] but do you still need a motion? Yes, since it's on the agenda.

[12:41] Yes.

[12:41] So I will—

[12:42] thank you.

[12:43] I will motion to postpone Sagebrook Site Development Plan Revision 1

[12:47] until further time that the applicant has provided additional

[12:50] information.

[12:51] Second. Is there any discussion?

[12:53] Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye.

[12:57] Aye.

[12:58] Opposed?

[12:59] Motion passes unanimously. Item E, Farrington Phase 3A Final PD Site Plan.

[13:08] Staff.

[13:09] Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the Farrington Phase 3A final PD site plan.

[13:14] Uh, it's kind of traveling differently than the preliminary plat.

[13:19] They used to travel together, but now we have them come in separately.

[13:24] So essentially a lot of the information is, is very similar to the preliminary

[13:30] is, is very similar to the preliminary plat,

[13:30] which is previously approved.

[13:32] Um, this plat— this final PD site plan creates 67 residential lots and 6 open

[13:38] creates 67 residential lots and 6 open space

[13:38] lots, and staff is recommending approval of this with staff comments.

[13:43] Okay, is there anyone here representing Barrington?

[13:47] Yes, uh, Colton Dorris, Kimley Horn, civil engineer.

[13:51] Okay, any comments from your end?

[13:54] No, sir.

[13:54] Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

[13:56] Motion to approve including staff recommendations.

[13:59] I will second. Is there any discussion?

[14:02] Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye.

[14:06] Aye.

[14:07] Opposed?

[14:08] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

[14:11] Next item on the agenda is Fifth Third Bank Darcy Lot 3 Site Plan.

[14:16] Staff?

[14:16] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[14:18] This is the site plan for a proposed, uh,

[14:21] Fifth Third Bank located at 8020 Marketplace Drive,

[14:25] which is Lot 3 of the Darcy Planned Development.

[14:28] Uh, this proposal is a one-story,

[14:31] approximately 2,100-square-foot building constructed on the site that will house a

[14:37] Fifth Third Bank, which has a drive-through and ATM feature.

[14:42] Um, staff has reviewed this. It's, it's, it follows the pattern book for Darcy.

[14:48] Um, it meets all the requirements in the 2020 zoning ordinance.

[14:52] Staff is recommending approval with staff conditions.

[14:56] Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here representing Darcy?

[15:00] Yes, sir.

[15:03] My name is Dayan Chindanusong.

[15:05] I'm in Field Engineering under Civil.

[15:06] Okay, any comments?

[15:09] No, sir.

[15:09] I'll entertain a motion.

[15:11] Motion to approve the staff recommendations.

[15:13] Is there a second?

[15:14] Second.

[15:14] Discussion?

[15:16] I have one question on your landscape plan.

[15:19] And it also shows up on your submission of the drawings of the facility,

[15:26] of the building, where you have your ADA handicapped parking.

[15:31] If you look at the diagram, it's Submission 02.

[15:35] It shows you've got plants right along the curb of that handicapped parking spot.

[15:41] And I would suggest, if that's possible,

[15:45] to pull those out because if you park and if you're the driver of the vehicle and

[15:52] you have— don't need to use the wide area to get out on the passenger side,

[15:58] but if you're walking with a cane or a crutch,

[16:02] you're actually swinging your door into those grass areas.

[16:07] It would be better to be a grass area where you've got— just expand it over.

[16:13] Does that make sense?

[16:15] Yes, sir.

[16:16] That's all I'm saying is just Those bushes would interfere with somebody needing to

[16:21] step out of their vehicle.

[16:22] They can shift the shrub about 2 feet to the plan line.

[16:25] Yeah, and just give some grass there,

[16:26] something where they can more easily get out of the car.

[16:28] Yes, sir.

[16:29] That's it.

[16:29] Okay. Further discussion?

[16:31] Does anyone feel the need to amend the original motion to

[16:36] include what Commissioner Adams asked for?

[16:39] If they can just go ahead and do it, I don't know if we need to—

[16:43] do we need to I'm just asking how you guys feel about it. I'm fine with it.

[16:46] Yeah.

[16:47] Okay.

[16:47] Thanks.

[16:48] Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

[16:52] Aye.

[16:53] Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

[16:56] Thank you.

[16:56] Okay, the next item on the agenda is the Torque Club Nolensville site development

[17:00] plan. The applicant has requested a postponement.

[17:04] I'll entertain a motion.

[17:11] Move to accept the, uh, applicant's request to postpone.

[17:15] Is there a second?

[17:17] Second.

[17:18] Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye.

[17:26] Aye.

[17:26] Opposed?

[17:27] Motion passes unanimously.

[17:29] And that takes us to item 10, which is our discussion,

[17:33] and we are discussing tonight, Article 8, some of which we did at our last meeting.

[17:40] I'm going to turn the leadership on this over to staff.

[17:44] Sure.

[17:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[17:50] So at the regularly scheduled August meeting,

[17:54] we did discuss a good portion from the beginning of Article 8, uh,

[17:59] what you're seeing on the screen, 8.1 to The modification of standard provision.

[18:06] Um, first one to ask,

[18:08] is there anything else that we need to talk about between that portion and the

[18:15] modification of standard provision, uh, further down?

[18:20] We talked a little bit about most of those things, but that was last month.

[18:26] So certainly want to give you all the opportunity if there is anything between

[18:33] opportunity if there is anything between page

[18:33] 1 to page 33 or 32 if we want to go.

[18:37] Okay, is there— I'll give everybody a second to check their notes.

[18:42] You know I've got a couple.

[18:46] Okay, uh, on 8.3, would you give us the page numbers

[18:53] on those? Yeah, page 4.

[18:56] And I'll need to go to it too.

[19:00] And some of these— one of these is, uh,

[19:05] the home occupation use permits.

[19:09] I'm not sure which page that— if that's correct.

[19:16] Page 4.

[19:17] Um, that may be in the wrong— that This may be a note in front of that one,

[19:22] but anyway, shouldn't home occupation use permits be under codes and not,

[19:28] not under part of the planning zoning ordinances? Which is— it's a question.

[19:34] It's a good question, and it's one we've asked internally, but as of now,

[19:39] they have existed. Uh,

[19:40] even more troublesome in a way is that Further down in Article 8,

[19:45] it talks about no home occupation shall have a permit. It says so.

[19:50] Yeah, enforce that. Um, but as of right now, it is essential—

[19:54] I think it's okay in where it's one way or another,

[19:58] even if it was handled internally by the Codes Department,

[20:02] that Section 8.2 You know, we would be involved potentially in that.

[20:07] So I think it's okay for it to remain there.

[20:10] And when we get down to the home occupation permit more in detail,

[20:15] I think we can talk more about it. But I think it is okay where it is there.

[20:21] For example, um, you know, there's other—

[20:24] I got rid of certificates of occupancy and building permit in that section because

[20:30] it's specifically talking about the zoning administrator.

[20:34] And we, you know, we may even want to keep that, at least certificate of occupancy.

[20:40] Okay.

[20:40] Because there's a portion that talks about not from the ordinance that Charles is

[20:46] looking at me, but just from what the zoning administrators—

[20:50] the text is 8.2 zoning and zoning administrator.

[20:54] Then it goes to powers and duties C,

[20:56] and then shall have following specific powers and responsibilities from those

[21:02] things. And maybe we need to keep CO and building permit,

[21:06] but All that's essentially saying is that I would have some amount of oversight or

[21:12] something on home occupation permits.

[21:15] As long as you're good with it.

[21:17] Okay, then on page 4, you take out all that descriptor of Planning Commission.

[21:22] Is that where else— is that somewhere else then?

[21:25] Yeah, that's in the municipal code.

[21:27] Okay, that's what I thought.

[21:29] Okay, uh, on page 14, we talk about the Design Review Committee.

[21:34] And it sets up all of that. Do we need a design review committee?

[21:39] We've got an outside consultant and we have the Planning Commission.

[21:45] Can that be removed?

[21:46] We still wanted to give that some teeth to— okay, you require a third party,

[21:52] where does it say that, right?

[21:54] Because, you know, in my understanding,

[21:57] we have This kind of provides a framework to say a third party can do the role of

[22:03] this and can provide review to this.

[22:06] I kind of have some questions further down in the article.

[22:10] It talks about it again in the design review process,

[22:14] that maybe it could be this portion, establishing a committee,

[22:19] could potentially be removed and it would just exist in the design review process

[22:25] piece.

[22:25] Yes.

[22:26] Further 8.5, 8.6, give or take. But I think that's a good question.

[22:31] Because if it's in there, then aren't we supposed to have it?

[22:36] Well, we—

[22:38] Not the way it's worded.

[22:38] Pardon me?

[22:39] I don't think so in the way they worded it.

[22:41] That's where, okay.

[22:42] Yeah, shall be provided by third party unless the Board of Commissioners

[22:45] unless the Board of Commissioners otherwise

[22:46] determines. I think that was—

[22:47] But I will say, it might be good, and maybe that is in here, In powers and

[22:52] maybe that is in here, In powers and duties,

[22:52] just to— it says the Design Review Committee shall be responsible for

[22:57] Committee shall be responsible for reviewing.

[22:57] Right.

[22:59] Are we calling the third party the Design Review Committee?

[23:02] I'm trying to remember what I called it further down,

[23:05] but I believe I called it the third-party design consultant or something in that

[23:10] nature. And I referenced it at the header of 8.3.6.

[23:13] Maybe you could say something like a Design Review Committee,

[23:16] whether appointed by the Right.

[23:18] And I tried to link them.

[23:21] Whether a third party appointed by the— or a regular committee, however you say it,

[23:25] shall have these responsibilities.

[23:27] And I tried to link them in terms of—

[23:29] Okay.

[23:29] If you think you've done that.

[23:30] Of A, and there may be a better way I can do it, but I've linked them,

[23:35] or I've tried to link them, at least in theory, under A,

[23:38] authority shall be provided by third party unless otherwise done,

[23:43] and then But I certainly see the point.

[23:45] Then there's all this— because if it is a town board, okay, who, who, what, where,

[23:51] when, how, why, you know, what's their term, what's their—

[23:54] But at that point, we could go through what we have done in the case of

[23:59] what we have done in the case of Buttercup,

[23:59] right? And so there can be—

[24:01] You could create one.

[24:02] So the verbiage that you have left within that particular section gives the

[24:08] allowance to determine if the third party is no longer working,

[24:12] we could then adjust as needed.

[24:15] Right. And it may be one where this is almost a vestige piece,

[24:18] and it doesn't have to be.

[24:20] We can— but I'd like to maybe talk, continue to explore this one.

[24:23] I think this is a good— because the section that we're in is kind of saying

[24:27] section that we're in is kind of saying the who,

[24:28] right? We've talked about zoning administrator.

[24:31] We, at least in their previously mentioned BOC, but we've taken that out.

[24:35] Because we don't need to say they were created by state law, you know.

[24:39] But the zoning, you know, historic zoning is in here.

[24:42] And other places where it's not otherwise created, membership,

[24:45] all those kinds of things, if they have no other home,

[24:48] this is a good place to give them the ability to— you know,

[24:52] we could either leave them there and it's already in there,

[24:55] or we could remove it and say in the design review piece further down in the

[24:59] document, design review shall be done, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[25:03] By?

[25:04] By committee or— Because we'll talk about it.

[25:07] It's just that— and like I said earlier,

[25:09] I don't want to beat it to death because we've got good explanations.

[25:12] It's just if it's here, somebody's going to say, wait a minute,

[25:16] where's the review committee? You said you have a review committee.

[25:19] You're not having a review committee now. Why is my stuff turned down?

[25:23] You say, well— so just so that it's kind of an either/or,

[25:26] that's clear is all I'm looking for.

[25:27] And I think we've got that in A.

[25:29] Yeah.

[25:29] Okay.

[25:30] As long as that's— that's—

[25:33] well, you have other questions?

[25:34] Uh, yeah, just real quick. On page 15, you talk about a development review.

[25:38] Part of the time it says committee, part of the time it says— in your notes,

[25:43] I think it says team, and I think it should state team because, again,

[25:46] committee gives the impression that there are going to be other people involved.

[25:51] At least on my screen, it looks like I've every cross out is—

[25:54] UK.

[25:55] Yeah. I've removed them.

[25:58] Yeah, yeah, you started to change, but there's still some.

[26:02] Okay, there was still a couple spots where I saw.

[26:05] But anyway, and then, um, the only last thing, um, I had was for public notices,

[26:11] readable signs. I think somebody recently just posted on social media about

[26:16] complaining about trying to read a Zoning change signs on the side of the road,

[26:22] you know, you either got to pull off to try to read it, uh,

[26:26] and I'm sure there are probably statutes say they only have to be this size or this

[26:32] size, but just out of convenience,

[26:34] it would be nice if those were more visible for people when you're—

[26:39] when your neighborhood is being changed.

[26:42] It's nice to see, be able to catch the information.

[26:45] For that, for that portion, I generally— that's My opinion, I guess, in a way,

[26:50] is that I generally see the posted sign as, you know,

[26:53] a physical reminder that something's going on, go look,

[26:57] versus here's all the information you're—

[26:59] that you would ever have and you'll see it as you're zipping by.

[27:03] That's kind of at least how I imagine the purpose of it is that, hey, I drove by—

[27:08] I drive by here and I want to, you know, and there's something that has, you know,

[27:13] gone to the level that requires a posted—

[27:15] Sign.

[27:15] Notice, go look at the town's website or whatever it may be.

[27:19] Any further discussion on items on pages, I think, 1 through 32?

[27:26] Just under third party, is there another space that tells us, you know,

[27:31] it's the third party, is that decided by a request for proposals,

[27:36] request for qualifications? Is that defined in another section?

[27:41] It has to through state law for us to go into—

[27:44] we have to follow the procurement process for us to do

[27:48] anything, essentially.

[27:50] So I know we have to. I'm saying, do we need to make that clear?

[27:53] I don't think so, because we have to, right?

[27:56] No matter if we say, you know,

[27:59] we have to comply with all federal and state laws no matter what, for everything,

[28:05] for public notice even. No matter what, we have to comply with state law.

[28:11] Are you comfortable with that?

[28:13] Sure.

[28:16] Okay.

[28:16] You could have Charles give you the TCA that matches with that particular one just

[28:22] to list underneath.

[28:23] Right.

[28:24] And for example, those 2 design reviews went to a contract and went to the Board

[28:29] went to a contract and went to the Board of

[28:29] Commissioners ultimately for their approval on that. And that contract.

[28:34] If no other questions, on page 32, kind of the main one we left— excuse me, page 33.

[28:40] But so, and again, kind of big picture reminder,

[28:43] one of the big changes that we've talked about is the splitting or the addition of

[28:49] what we are calling as a development plan.

[28:52] And the development plan is something that has a modification of standard.

[28:57] Yes.

[28:59] A modification of standard as we have written is listed on page 33,

[29:04] and the 2 ones that we came across from when we talked about it—

[29:08] you scroll down just a little more— is the following standards,

[29:12] and this is from last month's meeting:

[29:15] the following standards shall not be considered for a modification of standard

[29:20] request. And we're— if I recall,

[29:22] there's kind of Almost evenly split among the Commission of some,

[29:27] what I'll call guardrails,

[29:28] or some sorts of limitations to modification of the Standard,

[29:33] and then another kind of half that wanted the allowance of you ask for them.

[29:38] The 2 that we have right now listed shall not be considered for modification of the

[29:43] Standard's request are twofold, and it's density and open space.

[29:48] Okay.

[29:51] So I guess I kind of asked the Commission, is, is that acceptable?

[29:54] That was kind of the, the big topic of last month's meeting,

[29:58] so I want to make sure we touch on that.

[30:00] Height is still one of my concerns, right, that we need to look at, um, when,

[30:07] when you have an additional story above.

[30:10] And it depends on whether you're looking at residential, uh,

[30:15] and what's facing the street versus what's on the back.

[30:20] And if you're looking at more of CD-4 or CD-4C,

[30:24] where you're looking at mixed-use buildings that all of a sudden are—

[30:30] people are going to be saying, we've got 3-story max now.

[30:34] Well, it says here I can add another story. And I don't—

[30:39] Well, it says you might be able to add another story.

[30:42] Right.

[30:42] It doesn't guarantee it.

[30:43] But it still gives them that opportunity.

[30:46] It does.

[30:46] And I would be opposed to any height limit behind.

[30:50] And that's been proven both— in both of our major developments right now,

[30:56] Town Square and Darcy, that they're quite successful building 3-story buildings.

[31:02] They're all 3-story except for one in Town Square.

[31:05] So I think there needs to be— Uh, some real serious thought because let's face

[31:11] real serious thought because let's face it,

[31:12] you give somebody a crack in the door,

[31:15] they're going to have their foot in there and they're going to be pushing for, well,

[31:21] it says I can ask for more, so I want— and, and this board right now may say,

[31:27] and, and this board right now may say, hey,

[31:27] you know, we're opposed to it, but 2 years from now we have a change in,

[31:33] in who's on this board, and we may have folks who are saying, hey, yeah,

[31:38] I want high density. I want 4 and 5-story apartments.

[31:42] So I think, you know,

[31:44] I will fight for not being able to raise particularly buildings in CD-4 for another

[31:50] story.

[31:51] What are the advantages to allowing one additional story in specific situations?

[32:03] Is that—

[32:08] wait.

[32:08] From a design perspective,

[32:10] it's not inappropriate to consider increasing the number of stories,

[32:16] especially if you're trying to feature certain prominence of architecture.

[32:21] You know, when I went through graduate school in urban design and planning,

[32:27] there was a lot of emphasis on corners and the need to really emphasize that from an

[32:34] architectural standpoint.

[32:36] If you look at the modification of standard provisions, we've included in the

[32:41] standard provisions, we've included in the draft,

[32:42] I hope, a provision that basically says that we will do a visual analysis of the

[32:48] surrounding context.

[32:50] And—

[32:52] Discussing this with certain members of the Planning Commission in advance of the

[32:58] meeting, the concern was raised about having an abrupt change going from 2

[33:03] having an abrupt change going from 2 stories

[33:04] to 4 stories or 5 stories, or going from multiple stories down to 1 story.

[33:09] I think again it behooves us from a design practice standpoint to try to temper that

[33:15] type of request so that you're basically considering In the case of a multifamily

[33:21] structure going from 2 stories to 2.5 or 3 to 3.5,

[33:24] where you're allowed the opportunity to occupy that otherwise unusable attic space

[33:30] in a pitched roof structure.

[33:32] In the case of a building like Village Square— or excuse me,

[33:37] Village Green down here where Publix is located,

[33:40] it wouldn't be unusual in good urban design practice to see that corner With a

[33:46] design practice to see that corner With a punch

[33:46] of height in order to emphasize and frame the public space and the public realm

[33:52] around that intersection.

[33:54] It really boils down to something that's tasteful, but also practical,

[33:59] and it reinforces kind of the urban or public edge to include that.

[34:03] Is it going to give a developer, you know, some extra developable real estate?

[34:09] Obviously, yes. That would be—

[34:11] Yes.

[34:12] Certainly something to consider.

[34:14] It's very unfortunate when you look at the Village Green project,

[34:18] you see a number of 2-story structures from the outside,

[34:21] but when you look at the inside of them, those aren't 2-story buildings,

[34:25] they're one. And it's unfortunate that, you know,

[34:28] there was an emphasis placed on something that really created kind of a false

[34:32] impression from, you know, the interior of the structure.

[34:36] I'm not suggesting that we look for a similar type of Yes.

[34:39] I think that's a reasonable kind of approach here that should be a usable

[34:43] approach here that should be a usable component

[34:44] within a building. I think as the community continues to build out,

[34:48] we obviously need to be sensitive to height and obviously the surrounding

[34:52] height and obviously the surrounding context.

[34:52] And I think it's in that spirit that you would want to consider that.

[34:56] Can you place certain limitations or design criteria for height? You absolutely

[35:01] design criteria for height? You absolutely can.

[35:01] further modify the modification of standard provision to say that you can't

[35:05] standard provision to say that you can't increase

[35:06] the number of stories by more than 1,

[35:08] or it could be by more than a half in the case of a residential structure.

[35:12] I mean, there's, there's things you can do to create guardrails so that you don't

[35:17] have a situation where somebody's creating a kind of a runaway design consideration.

[35:22] Could you limit it to a corner like you're talking about?

[35:24] It could be corners.

[35:25] It could be something that's to the interior of a major development.

[35:30] That way it's not— you're not imposing a multi-story or a much higher structure on

[35:35] the edge of a project that's basically adjoining in terms of impact.

[35:39] There's lots of different design criteria that you could put on that that would set

[35:45] limitations on it, but still provide an applicant with a reasonable opportunity

[35:50] based on good design practice to give consideration to that. Okay.

[35:55] Anyone else on the Commission have a thought on—

[35:57] My only concern with limiting it completely is even if you take what we

[36:02] completely is even if you take what we currently

[36:03] annexed, which is roughly 700 acres,

[36:06] and you look at the topography of that particular area, if you were to put—

[36:11] so here's what I appreciate, no more than one.

[36:14] So if that particular verbiage could be added in, I think that's beneficial.

[36:20] But limiting it there now—

[36:22] It is, right. And so having that in and making that—

[36:25] all of these items Brad and I spoke through would be individual modifications,

[36:29] I'm assuming, much like, you know, that town that starts with an F,

[36:33] where they come in and each modification is something that gets approved.

[36:38] So there might be 10 modifications, you accept 6 of them.

[36:41] My concern with eliminating height completely is if you look at topography of

[36:46] certain places, i.e., the land that we just Annexed.

[36:49] Annexed.

[36:50] And there is the capability of putting the first or second story at ground level and

[36:55] then working up, but it's level to the rest of the building.

[36:59] You may end up with a 3, dare I say 4-structure building,

[37:03] but it's the same height as 2.

[37:05] But if we limit height completely or story completely,

[37:09] that would not lend towards having an architectural view that might be somewhat

[37:14] appealing. So that's my only concern with putting it on as a totality of no.

[37:19] But I do understand the concern where we're looking at like 3 stories in an area

[37:25] that is prominently single or 2 stories. So I do understand the thought process.

[37:30] I just don't know if it's complete for me.

[37:33] That's an excellent point because in the case of a residential structure,

[37:37] oftentimes when you're dealing with topography,

[37:40] you have a walkout condition basically off You may have a story that as you are

[37:44] looking at the dwelling from the front is completely concealed,

[37:48] but it's still part of the number of story makeup.

[37:51] Then perhaps my compromise is what's facing out, street face,

[37:55] could remain 3 stories,

[37:57] but if it's in the back of the building because of the topography, you could Yes.

[38:03] You could have an add— you could residentially, you've got a basement, you

[38:09] residentially, you've got a basement, you know,

[38:09] you could have a 3-story house that's built on a slope and you've got a garage

[38:15] built on a slope and you've got a garage or a

[38:15] basement in the back.

[38:17] I can see that same thing with some of the—

[38:20] I think there's some of the townhouses in Town Square on the front appear to be

[38:26] 2-story, but they're actually 3 because of the topography and they've put a garage

[38:32] underneath. So, you know, if we're looking at something like that, that would—

[38:38] You could still see a similar experience even with a nonresidential structure on

[38:43] occasion.

[38:43] Yeah.

[38:44] And I'm saying—

[38:45] Especially if you're having to deal with grades.

[38:47] Any other Commissioners have some thoughts on this?

[38:49] Yeah.

[38:49] I'll just— I'll also just weigh in and say that I think of these that are listed,

[38:55] height is also the one to me that stands out as one to rethink.

[38:59] Because you state above that the purpose of this is for— how do you write—

[39:05] to grant minor relief from development standards under limited circumstances.

[39:10] Adding another story to a development is not minor relief.

[39:14] That's on a 3-story building, 33% increase.

[39:17] I think it's verbiage change is what we need.

[39:21] There's just some— a little bit of clarification.

[39:24] As to how we go about presenting what they are able to do.

[39:28] And so I do think there's some verbiage change to what you have presented.

[39:34] Again, I have some hesitation on the limitation that we put on the height.

[39:39] I think it should be there,

[39:41] but I also am concerned again about how the project build-out happens,

[39:46] especially with— as we work our way towards the the South and what those plots

[39:51] towards the the South and what those plots look

[39:52] like, I do worry about putting that limitation.

[39:55] So I think if there is some better legal verbiage that we could put within that

[40:01] maybe specifies a singular story or— and so maybe that is something, Charles,

[40:06] that you could work with staff and just kind of rewrite that issue.

[40:11] Does anyone else on the Commission have a point of view you would like to express?

[40:16] Just that I agree. I think the height one is a bit tricky because we've seen those

[40:20] structures where they drop down and they're definitely not 2 stories,

[40:24] they're much more. So I don't know, I don't have a solution right now.

[40:28] When architects design and they—

[40:31] I'm using the corner because I think it's the easiest for me at least.

[40:35] Yeah.

[40:37] The reason that they— sorry.

[40:39] Go ahead.

[40:40] The reason that they I think the reason they do it is because it adds an effect

[40:46] that's pleasing to the eye and maybe as well, perhaps it should be as well,

[40:51] not maybe, there is a practical reason for doing it in terms of making the most use

[40:57] of the property. I struggle a little bit with an absolute insistence that nope,

[41:03] 3 is it, can't do any more than that,

[41:06] because the world doesn't really work quite that way.

[41:10] In most cases, there are reasons why it is allowed in so many other places,

[41:15] why we are saying 3, and we're not—

[41:18] I haven't heard a reason for that yet that could get me behind it.

[41:23] I would allow the extra, again, as a modification of standard.

[41:27] We'll commit to doing some additional research to see if there's some additional

[41:32] practices and Are there some policies that we could present that will help to create

[41:36] a better framework that will limit the extent of the number of—

[41:40] Yeah, possibly when listing height,

[41:42] say limited to either an additional story or 10-foot increase,

[41:46] whichever is lesser of the maximum or something.

[41:50] I'm confident that we can find some examples out there that will give us a

[41:54] examples out there that will give us a nice

[41:54] balance, but also give applicants a little bit more of an array of tools that they

[41:59] can consider. Obviously, the intent is to try to improve design and development,

[42:03] not necessarily just give somebody a boost in the square footage.

[42:07] Right.

[42:07] You know, do it for all the right reasons.

[42:09] Thank you.

[42:10] And I will note just one is that in the current,

[42:13] we do have it stated limited to one additional story above maximum allowed.

[42:18] So that is stated currently in the draft version.

[42:21] Now, so to Chuck's point, I mean, we can— again, it's almost one where I go,

[42:27] what do I do? I'll say it more bluntly, I guess, is that I go, I'm not sure.

[42:32] I don't want folks to raise their hand or anything, but part of me is like, OK,

[42:37] I'm counting 2. I'm counting maybe 2 to 3.

[42:40] I think we're talking about the fact that it might be more than one story based on

[42:45] topography, let's say. That could be a situation to the south, right?

[42:49] Or, I mean, I know for sure, like, even in my own neighborhood, right,

[42:53] we have houses that look one story and they're like 3,

[42:56] and you wouldn't know unless you were going around to the back and you saw that,

[43:01] but that was purely based on just the landscape.

[43:03] Mm-hmm.

[43:04] So if we say you can't add more than one story and that's our limit,

[43:08] should that be our limit?

[43:10] And what I'm hearing is us saying,

[43:12] I'm not sure that should be how we define the limit.

[43:15] If it's within a— you know,

[43:16] as like Len was saying about the focal point of the corridor, right?

[43:20] There could be a reason for it to be more than one story.

[43:24] Right.

[43:25] And one additional note that I'll state is, you know, this is to Terry's point,

[43:30] is that right now we have these modifications of standards going to the

[43:35] modifications of standards going to the Board,

[43:35] Board of Commissioners essentially.

[43:37] So it would— similar to how we handle resolutions or ordinances,

[43:41] that this commission would give a recommendation and then ultimately the

[43:45] recommendation and then ultimately the board would

[43:46] be the arbiter or the decider.

[43:48] I don't know if that allays the fears or, or the concerns or not,

[43:52] and I'm happy you guys let me know.

[43:54] Meaning that the Planning Commission is not the ultimate decision maker with the

[43:57] modification of standards?

[43:59] Correct.

[43:59] Which I think is a good guardrail.

[44:01] Correct.

[44:02] Um, one other thing before we maybe leave page 33.

[44:06] Potentially other than height, right?

[44:09] Wherever height lands,

[44:11] whether it lands where it's currently listed or moves to the one above it.

[44:16] Are there any other kind of—

[44:18] this was another one where we were kind of split last time.

[44:23] Are there—

[44:24] would it be beneficial for us to list, you know, as the wording is right now,

[44:30] the following standards may be considered for a modification of standard parking

[44:36] set, but So on and so forth.

[44:38] There's some discussion to say don't have anything or have some under point being is

[44:44] that here's your zoning ordinance. These are your two to three non-negotiables.

[44:49] We're not even talking to you if if the request is density, open space,

[44:54] and maybe height. And do we need to list out just those or should it be Just for

[45:00] discussion, let's keep height where it is. Do we delete—

[45:04] is there—

[45:05] do we delete the rest of them?

[45:08] Or— sorry. So you're basically— if I understand you correctly, may I?

[45:11] Yes.

[45:12] It sounds like you're saying the following standards shall not be considered for a

[45:16] modification of standard request: density, open space.

[45:19] That's it.

[45:20] We make no further reference to it which says that any other areas—

[45:24] Correct.

[45:25] You could request a modification of standards.

[45:26] And we may have to— we'll figure out a way to do height in some capacity, you know,

[45:31] and maybe it's just that one.

[45:32] Let's assume height makes it.

[45:34] Right.

[45:34] And let's just assume it's somewhere in between, just for discussion's sake.

[45:39] The following standard may be considered for modification of standard with a caveat

[45:45] or with additional rules.

[45:46] Height limited to 1, blah, blah, blah, blah, whatever we say.

[45:50] All other standards are applicable.

[45:53] Within state law, you know, or something to that nature.

[45:56] Thoughts on doing it that way?

[45:58] So the alternative is that we, we again say, okay, you can modify standards,

[46:03] it can be these, and then we're double, we're double going.

[46:07] And maybe somebody says, okay, I want—

[46:09] I'm asking for something that we haven't considered yet. Signs. There's a good one.

[46:15] Signs.

[46:16] What was it?

[46:16] Landscape.

[46:17] There's a lot of signs, landscape buffer signs, landscape buffer area, whatever.

[46:24] Just—

[46:25] I'm just picking stuff right now.

[46:27] We could say we cannot even entertain that application.

[46:30] I'd be for either having nothing or saying could be included and not limited to,

[46:35] and then basically referring to them as examples, right?

[46:39] But this is implying that this is not an exhaustive list.

[46:43] Agreed.

[46:43] Okay.

[46:44] Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[46:45] I got a majority.

[46:46] Okay.

[46:47] Okay.

[46:47] Is there—

[46:50] you're going to ultimately forget one?

[46:52] Yeah, correct.

[46:53] So it better— which I think is the same way Smyrna, Franklin, Henderson Builders—

[46:58] yeah, correct. Um, and you know,

[47:02] I'd also say is that as we move through this,

[47:06] potentially move through this process,

[47:10] if there's ones that we find out real quick is a,

[47:15] is a no-go We can add it. We can add it.

[47:20] Is there anything else under the development plan, uh, process?

[47:26] So that goes from page 34 to page 40, uh, further down.

[47:32] No.

[47:40] 56.

[47:40] Any comments between where we were and page 56? Any comments for site plan?

[47:46] If— and just interrupt me if I went past you.

[47:50] For site plans, that's the one that is not as fleshed out. It may be obvious.

[47:56] Part of the reason is I wanted to kind of hear and get through development plan and

[48:03] maybe use some of that same language and cadence in, in terms—

[48:07] so those are kind of some placeholder comments on site plans.

[48:12] So more to, more to come there.

[48:15] What page?

[48:17] 56.

[48:23] More to, more to come on that one.

[48:37] But we are now going to be requiring a—

[48:45] no, I'm sorry.

[48:45] The site plan portion is probably the one that is the least

[48:52] fleshed out. Um, wanting to grab feedback from there.

[48:58] Anything with some of the additional permits?

[49:03] This goes to the On page 56 down.

[49:07] That includes a temporary use permit, home occupation, COs.

[49:13] Certificate of appropriateness is a part of that.

[49:19] Let me ask it this way.

[49:21] Given your experience,

[49:24] Have you consciously excluded something in terms of

[49:29] permits?

[49:30] No.

[49:31] That should be noteworthy?

[49:32] No.

[49:33] So what you're asking is, is there any one-off or unusual—

[49:38] Or has anyone seen anything in the removal or deletion or change in the proposed

[49:44] regulatory text that there's questions or issues about?

[49:48] One thing that's kind of a big picture item,

[49:51] and I'll use this time to talk about it, is we removed a large portion of—

[49:56] I don't want to say removed,

[49:58] but we relocated a large portion of submittal requirements. That's exactly

[50:03] submittal requirements. That's exactly right.

[50:03] So you'll see pages and pages and pages of applicant shall provide A, B, C, D, E, F,

[50:09] G. Well, Brad, why are you taking that away?

[50:12] Right now, if we wanted to alter one that says, instead of a north arrow,

[50:17] I want a north arrow with, you know, a certain kind of font,

[50:21] something that is now a requirement that every submittal should do for a

[50:26] every submittal should do for a development

[50:27] plan, a site plan, whatever it may be, that'd be about a 4-month process.

[50:32] We would have to change the zoning ordinance to do that.

[50:36] Let's say, you know, we don't— let me give you a better example.

[50:40] Okay.

[50:42] Right now, you know, the applicant is required to submit 5 hard copies.

[50:47] We currently have an online submittal system. We need essentially zero.

[50:52] Now, it's currently—

[50:53] we would need a 4-month process for us to strike that comment and that requirement

[50:59] from each application or permit that requires 5 submittals, 5 hard copies.

[51:04] What staff is proposing is that Under each application,

[51:07] it would say a checklist will be provided on the town's website,

[51:12] and some language to say that the checklist is approvable by the Planning

[51:17] Commission. So we've had some folks question some of our other checklists.

[51:22] Some applicants question some of our checklists.

[51:25] We haven't fully talked through well in in great detail, but in in the big picture,

[51:31] the Board of Commissioners approves this.

[51:34] Zoning ordinance as a whole,

[51:35] which gives power to Planning Commission to kind of regulate its own checklist,

[51:41] and it will be found here.

[51:43] So let's say I want to remove item 1 on the checklist that says you should bring

[51:48] the checklist that says you should bring me

[51:48] 5 copies to submit to the town's online submittal system.

[51:52] I would bring it to you all at a regularly scheduled meeting, you'd vote on it,

[51:57] and that checklist would then be changed. That's the goal. It's still transparent.

[52:03] It's still there. The Board of Commissioners has bequeathed that power

[52:08] Commissioners has bequeathed that power rather than

[52:09] saying, I want to know every single submittal document that's needed.

[52:13] And we've done that or proposed to do that for every application or permit.

[52:18] And so that's what you've done?

[52:20] Yes.

[52:20] That's what you're proposing that we go along with?

[52:24] Does anybody have comments on that?

[52:27] Well, it sounds like you've got the green light.

[52:31] Great.

[52:31] Yeah, there are other municipalities that do it.

[52:37] Um, Commissioner Salamida mentioned Farragut.

[52:41] It's a joke.

[52:43] Okay.

[52:44] One of the other things on the certificate of appropriateness,

[52:47] there's some discussion needed on, uh,

[52:50] condition of Demolition by neglect and certificate of economic hardship.

[52:54] We've talked about that internally. Page 71.

[52:56] 71.

[52:57] Um, right now those are kind of happening as separate processes.

[53:01] State law allows us to do that.

[53:03] It allows us— it doesn't say you shall,

[53:06] at least my reading of it says you can do this, and if so,

[53:10] you have to have reasonable standards and here's these other things.

[53:14] We've talked about potentially making that a part of a certificate of

[53:19] appropriateness, so it kind of follows one submittal process.

[53:23] Right now, the demolition by neglect—

[53:25] essentially a petition has to be done and certified to me that then I do—

[53:30] it's a long— I challenge, or I'd ask you to read the process essentially, and, and,

[53:35] and you'd see why we've had zero.

[53:38] The economic hardship portion can be a part of a certificate of Appropriateness

[53:43] part of a certificate of Appropriateness is

[53:43] how I would kind of reword that, or a demolition by neglect.

[53:47] So are you asking in terms of demolition by neglect whether we agree with those?

[53:52] That's one thing. Or also what— a little bit of— this is what I'm thinking about.

[53:57] And this is within the historic district?

[53:59] Correct, only.

[54:00] So, so, and so there is that house on the corner of Nolensville Road, whatever.

[54:06] Um, is that—

[54:07] would that be a house that It would need to do the process—

[54:11] shall be made by the zoning administrator after an investigation that is initiated

[54:15] by a petition from any person who is familiar with the subject property,

[54:19] which may include but not limited to a town employee.

[54:22] On receipt— I mean, you can kind of follow that.

[54:25] It becomes what I can— I think it becomes a—

[54:28] I would put it as a part of the certificate of appropriateness process.

[54:32] Would it then go before the historic zone? Correct.

[54:35] So the—

[54:36] And here's my question ultimately.

[54:39] If there is clearly neglect based on what you've listed here,

[54:43] can the Board of Zoning Appeals— Historic Zoning, I'm sorry— can they overrule?

[54:49] Can they say, yeah, we agree with all that, but we're not taking that building

[54:55] that, but we're not taking that building down?

[54:56] I'm not sure. They would not issue the certificate of appropriateness.

[55:03] Say again?

[55:04] Sorry, they would not issue the certificate of appropriateness.

[55:07] So, okay, yes, they could do that, correct?

[55:10] And the demolition by neglect provision, it's actually aimed at staff,

[55:13] the town going out and enforcing it,

[55:15] as opposed to someone coming and asking for a certificate of appropriateness and

[55:19] then you determining whether they've demolished it by neglect.

[55:22] So the town could make that determination without Historic zoning?

[55:26] Yeah, well, the historic— it'd be— it would still go through historic zoning,

[55:30] but I'm saying it would—

[55:32] it could come before you without anybody ever asking for a certificate of

[55:35] appropriateness.

[55:36] Okay.

[55:39] Yeah.

[55:40] Okay.

[55:40] My point, in a way, is that it's a con— I think there's a lot of work.

[55:43] I'm almost just trying to kind of say, here's some things we're looking to do.

[55:47] I guess more so maybe I'll—

[55:48] that's a big thing where if you note that that's different next time I'd rather tell

[55:52] you ahead of time we've got our eye on that one.

[55:55] Okay.

[55:56] Next is to the aforementioned design review.

[55:59] This is maybe another portion where we could look at the page 76.

[56:03] The design review is intended to— prior,

[56:06] it talks about design review shall be required for all non-residential and

[56:11] required for all non-residential and attached

[56:12] residential, so on and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[56:16] All the standards are there, page 76, towards the bottom of the page.

[56:21] Yeah, that's one where potentially, to Commissioner Adams' point,

[56:26] we'll have to relook at it, but could we remove the Design Review Committee,

[56:31] or do we need to— or does it— do they need to—

[56:34] it could potentially that be removed and it lives here as a requirement, you know,

[56:40] that we've linked the requirement when I require an applicant to go to one of our

[56:46] third parties. for review, what's the basis?

[56:49] Where's the legal that tells me that thou shalt?

[56:52] Just really quick, are there any requirements that we're aware

[56:56] of that says that it must be posted somewhere besides a website?

[57:01] Yes, for—

[57:03] Well, just something like this, because you have like on C, checklist, uh,

[57:08] requires some information to be found on the town's website.

[57:11] Does it have to be somewhere else?

[57:13] Not for the— not for check submittal requirements. That's not public.

[57:18] Just for something that's like that, right?

[57:20] Kind of like the checklist we were talking about before.

[57:23] Correct.

[57:23] It's going to be referenced.

[57:25] Is there any requirements that we're aware of that it has to be somewhere besides a

[57:29] website for people who may not have access to the internet?

[57:33] Not that I'm aware of.

[57:34] Okay.

[57:34] Not that I'm aware of.

[57:35] If anybody came to us,

[57:36] I'm sure we'd be happy to print it out for them and hand it to them if they so

[57:40] asked.

[57:40] Is your question right now whether or not you want to remove—

[57:46] you want to move the Design Review Committee or third party to this

[57:52] section?

[57:53] Not necessarily. It was more of this is the next section we were talking about as

[57:58] the next section we were talking about as it

[57:58] relates to Commissioner Adams had questions about the Design Review

[58:02] questions about the Design Review Committee in the

[58:03] first section or so. And kind of stating this may be one that we'll look at.

[58:08] This is one I've got noted down that we'll look to see, can we look at that?

[58:13] I just wanted to say I think that's really— I think it's doable.

[58:16] Right.

[58:17] Yeah, I think just keep the design review shall and then—

[58:21] And then be done.

[58:22] Yeah.

[58:22] Okay.

[58:25] I won't go over each one.

[58:26] Is there anything else within the—

[58:29] because we're just kind of listing through the applications The permits of

[58:33] processes. Those include variances, signed permits.

[58:37] Charles, for legal purposes, when we say third-party design consultant,

[58:43] is that specific to—

[58:45] so based on the verbiage that we went through a few minutes ago,

[58:51] it says third-party design consultant. Is that appropriate?

[58:57] Should there be a committee?

[59:00] Does that cover both a committee as a consultant or vice versa if they're hired?

[59:08] I was going to recommend later to Brad that rather than make any

[59:11] distinction, just say the third-party consultant is the Design Review

[59:15] Committee.

[59:16] Okay, because then that covers both no matter which way, right?

[59:20] Okay, thank you. No, that's the only question that I had.

[59:23] So that it matches.

[59:24] Asking about variances in here,

[59:27] where it moves forward talking about the BZA and their role in

[59:33] this. How does this now modification of standard play into

[59:39] BZA's role in this whole process?

[59:42] So a variance— so they are separate. So they would still be considered as

[59:47] they would still be considered as separate.

[59:48] A variance would be something Topographical, environmental features,

[59:53] things like that. This is more of a mod. This is saying I have no variance need.

[59:59] I have no other hardship done by that other than I this this this it would be a

[1:00:04] self-imposed hardship,

[1:00:06] and that was kind of the thing is that if an applicant said this this rule this you

[1:00:12] know. Minimum lot width, I'll just pick one, is 100 feet.

[1:00:16] Well, you know, there's no topographical reason I can't do it,

[1:00:21] but I just don't have enough, you know, is 99 okay?

[1:00:24] There was no avenue for them to even ask that question to get in front of a

[1:00:30] decision.

[1:00:30] I guess what I'm asking though is, so in that example,

[1:00:33] they come in and say lot width is 100 feet, we want to build 90,

[1:00:37] we say we give a negative recommendation for Correct.

[1:00:40] Does—

[1:00:42] can they take that to the BZA, or because it's not a hardship,

[1:00:46] it is between us and the commissioners?

[1:00:49] Right. Now, if they wanted— now, they could go to a BZA for something else,

[1:00:53] appeal of the administrative decision, if they disagree with something I've done,

[1:00:58] or whatever it may be. They can go— they have an avenue that way.

[1:01:01] But ultimately, if the Board says no,

[1:01:04] your modification of standard for Whatever is denied,

[1:01:07] their next one is whatever the appeals process is for the Board of Commissioners

[1:01:11] decision.

[1:01:12] Okay.

[1:01:12] Which I don't believe is Board of Zoning Appeals.

[1:01:15] Okay.

[1:01:18] Okay.

[1:01:18] Um, is there anything else within the— you know,

[1:01:22] we have zoning ordinance amendments and appeal administrative discussion,

[1:01:28] annexation, rezonings are all You know,

[1:01:31] the annexation one needs to be fleshed out a little bit, but the rezoning—

[1:01:37] those are all just the processes. Any questions on those processes and how-tos?

[1:01:43] If I may, is there anything in particular you'd like to point out to us?

[1:01:47] Not that I can think of.

[1:01:50] Okay.

[1:01:57] The BZA didn't have a separate document, right?

[1:02:01] The whole point was to put this together, right? Right.

[1:02:04] And, and they don't have one now.

[1:02:06] They have bylaws, which is some portion of this that has been—

[1:02:10] that we've removed because it either exists in the bylaws or, or it can,

[1:02:15] in my opinion. Um, and a lot of the B—

[1:02:17] so when I would reference stuff to BZA staff reports,

[1:02:20] I was referencing the zoning ordinance.

[1:02:23] You know, there are some questions I have about the variance procedure and the list

[1:02:28] of things we have, but that's something that I think staff needs to continue to

[1:02:33] that I think staff needs to continue to work

[1:02:33] out before we come.

[1:02:35] But it would still be within this living document, correct?

[1:02:39] Did any of the changes that just came out in the training from July—

[1:02:43] I think it was July— impact these years' timing either,

[1:02:47] or is it just Not that it impacted us because we're pretty—

[1:02:51] Yeah, it impacts everybody.

[1:02:53] It impacts everybody,

[1:02:54] but I don't know that there's anything specific to variances or BZA that would—

[1:03:00] it impacted everybody, um, all the different processes.

[1:03:04] So in annexation under the Board of

[1:03:09] Commissioners actions or home page?

[1:03:16] 91.

[1:03:17] Um, is it a certificate of appropriateness?

[1:03:19] Is that the right language there?

[1:03:20] No.

[1:03:23] Are those all crossed out?

[1:03:24] I can't—

[1:03:25] So it's now— it's new number 4 on page 91.

[1:03:29] No, that's, that's, that's— no, that's just— that's incorrect.

[1:03:34] Yeah.

[1:03:34] So the, the annexation one is still a work in process.

[1:03:38] Site plan and annexation are the 2 Big ones that,

[1:03:41] that still need more fleshing out.

[1:03:43] So it would just be approved, denied?

[1:03:44] Correct, correct. We just get rid of the annexation request.

[1:03:51] I probably just liked how it was worded in an order and grabbed it.

[1:03:58] Any other questions on applications and things of that nature?

[1:04:05] I guess it's page 99. Hearing none, I think we'd get this far.

[1:04:12] Yeah, the other big one that you will see that I handed out a paper

[1:04:19] copy in this There were some additional changes that needed to be made.

[1:04:27] We didn't make those in time to add it to your agenda.

[1:04:33] We will send out this copy in digital form as well.

[1:04:38] So before— because when I start adding stuff,

[1:04:43] deleting it with new added stuff, it's gonna,

[1:04:48] it's gonna just double the length of it.

[1:04:53] So I'd almost like to look at the document that I provided, uh,

[1:04:58] and I will email out a This is the document that's going to be doubled

[1:05:03] in size?

[1:05:04] No, no, no.

[1:05:05] I'm sorry.

[1:05:05] I'm talking about just Word formatting. I added all this portion.

[1:05:09] There's changes that need to be made.

[1:05:12] If I just copy, paste, delete, it shows— it becomes a mess.

[1:05:16] So what I'm trying to do is to have for you all to review essentially the surety

[1:05:21] section separate just for now.

[1:05:23] And once we've kind of worked that out,

[1:05:26] we do have some internal discussions discussion, a good bit of internal

[1:05:30] discussion, a good bit of internal discussion.

[1:05:31] Commissioner Huber mentioned the 1044.

[1:05:34] 1044 has impacted some things more than other things.

[1:05:37] The surety piece is one we're still trying to kind of wrap our heads around.

[1:05:42] We've reached out to some of our colleagues in Brentwood and Franklin and

[1:05:47] colleagues in Brentwood and Franklin and some other

[1:05:48] places about how they plan to handle it, and, and they're still working it out too.

[1:05:53] So we, you know, I don't know that we're not behind the 8-ball on this,

[1:05:58] I don't think. But everybody's feeling a little under the gun, I think.

[1:06:03] So is your hope to not only read— so we'll obviously have a digital copy,

[1:06:08] but to go through this, and then you, I'm assuming,

[1:06:11] would like notes before?

[1:06:12] Correct.

[1:06:13] So we will send that out to you all.

[1:06:16] So since JoJo handles the sureties a good bit, if you,

[1:06:19] if you direct them to me and to, and to her, um, comments and questions on that,

[1:06:24] and that'll just kind of help us speed this up because we have this done,

[1:06:29] or at least done, and it's somewhat done.

[1:06:31] We still need to walk to work internally a little bit to figure out what we're going

[1:06:37] to do. Some examples are, you know, there's a timeline.

[1:06:40] There's a timeline for a surety to get Asked and needs to be put on an agenda

[1:06:45] Asked and needs to be put on an agenda from

[1:06:45] what I can tell. Well, how does that deal with maintenance versus performance?

[1:06:50] How does that deal so on and so forth?

[1:06:52] There's some additional language that I think we need to work out internally,

[1:06:57] but I'd also like us to get comfortable with with some of those things.

[1:07:02] So apologies for not having that in your packet as a part of it,

[1:07:06] but it'll it's a kind of a big enough section.

[1:07:09] And, you know, sureties currently weren't real— you know, other than Article 1.26,

[1:07:14] I think sureties are mentioned.

[1:07:16] It's not really mentioned in other places,

[1:07:18] and other communities have it in the similar kind of location.

[1:07:22] So I think it's good that we put it in the zoning ordinance. So that's a new add.

[1:07:32] Any— So let me make sure I'm clear because I thought I would have I'm a little under

[1:07:38] the weather, so it's totally possible.

[1:07:40] So this document here, we got tonight, you want us to provide copies to it?

[1:07:45] I mean, I mean, make comments to it and then send them to JoJo? Yeah.

[1:07:49] Okay, correct.

[1:07:50] Just outline or—

[1:07:51] correct. Email, email an individual email. Don't include everybody else on it.

[1:07:58] Um, And then when you have time to review it,

[1:08:01] you prefer the paper version or the email,

[1:08:03] just respond with anything that you think is of concern.

[1:08:07] The biggest thing, um, to Brad's point is the change with 1044.

[1:08:11] It's really only impacting the release of the surety,

[1:08:15] but that does change how much work is involved with the surety and how we're

[1:08:20] involved with the surety and how we're going

[1:08:20] to handle that process.

[1:08:22] That's the only part that's still kind of out in limbo right now. Okay.

[1:08:28] Thank you.

[1:08:29] That's the only part,

[1:08:31] but that's the only part that's still kind of out in limbo right now.

[1:08:35] But the rest of it's kind of clearly defined as to how it has been happening.

[1:08:39] Um, so hopefully we can determine what makes sense here,

[1:08:43] and then we'd mimic the same thing in our subdivision regulations if we want to keep

[1:08:48] it there also.

[1:08:49] So then the last thing is 8.6, which is enforcement.

[1:08:53] We just had some, I think, fairly minor— potential minor changes.

[1:08:59] I've been talking with our Codes Department as well as some minor changes

[1:09:06] there. But that concludes Article 8.

[1:09:09] Anybody have any comments or

[1:09:12] conversation, discussion on any aspect of

[1:09:17] Article 8?

[1:09:22] If you're talking about— excuse me— if you're talking about enforcement, uh,

[1:09:28] the only major— you know, you talk about one of the remedies, no heat,

[1:09:34] but given this summer, you may want to also include no air conditioning as well,

[1:09:40] that you, that you've got to look at both sides.

[1:09:44] Yes.

[1:09:48] And then I'll have to look up—

[1:09:50] I'll send you something because when you've made changes on this,

[1:09:54] it changed my notes from a month ago of page numbers.

[1:09:57] So I'll go back through, but that's just— there were just a couple little things.

[1:10:02] Yeah, sure.

[1:10:03] And always feel free to send those to me and then— and I can— we can—

[1:10:09] yeah, it'll be nothing.

[1:10:10] Yeah, I think it's page 112 now where it talks about no heat or heat below 50

[1:10:16] degrees Fahrenheit.

[1:10:18] Yeah, but what about the other end?

[1:10:20] Because there are, there are literally people dying with homes getting up to

[1:10:25] people dying with homes getting up to above

[1:10:25] 100 degrees because they don't have air conditioning.

[1:10:29] And that one, I'll just— I'll probably need to rely on the codes department.

[1:10:33] That's— that one's absolutely more in their in their realm.

[1:10:37] And that it's fine for us to have it in here because I don't really know where

[1:10:41] here because I don't really know where else

[1:10:42] they have a home to put some of those things,

[1:10:44] whether it's in municipal code or here.

[1:10:46] So I wouldn't want to make any— we'll look into it.

[1:10:49] And, and because it may be coming from the IBC.

[1:10:52] I was gonna say that might be an IBC, or it might be— yeah,

[1:10:56] that it's not to say that it could not potentially,

[1:10:59] but it would have to have some—

[1:11:01] I'll need to reach out to Chris and Monty.

[1:11:03] Yeah.

[1:11:03] On that one.

[1:11:06] Anything else? Brad, you okay with where we are?

[1:11:13] Yeah, I think, you know, kind of to summarize,

[1:11:16] we've got some questions on the design review portion,

[1:11:20] some design review team committee kind of cleanup.

[1:11:23] I think we did get— still discussion needed for modification of standards and

[1:11:27] needed for modification of standards and what

[1:11:28] that kind of final list looks like.

[1:11:30] Certainly got feedback on what I'll call the other, you know,

[1:11:34] what we'll just need to decide what are the kind of quote-unquote non-negotiables.

[1:11:39] So I think I'd continue to think through that. We will as well, the staff.

[1:11:43] But, um, but I think we're, I think we're much closer.

[1:11:47] I think it— I mean, if you're asking for non-negotiables,

[1:11:50] the 2 that are there Are my 2 non-negotiables,

[1:11:54] but I would like to see the additional verbiage for height and how we would like

[1:11:59] verbiage for height and how we would like to

[1:11:59] incorporate, and then the rest of the list potentially removed.

[1:12:04] There might be one other, but I'll send you that if I—

[1:12:07] just some additional verbiage for one other, but other than that, no. Sure.

[1:12:14] And I'd ask everybody to do the same if there's any of those.

[1:12:18] You know, I got enough head nods on the, you know,

[1:12:20] these are the ones that shouldn't be, and then the rest are up, you can ask,

[1:12:25] you know, applicable to state law. So we'll make those changes and, and, and go.

[1:12:29] And so with, with that, the next one is really Article 9, which is definitions,

[1:12:33] which I'm not— I'm happy to show you what— where we're at.

[1:12:37] We've been making changes as we've been going.

[1:12:39] I don't know that that almost deserves its own meeting.

[1:12:42] I don't think it does, you know.

[1:12:44] So I would almost look that we're— we may start putting together 1, 2, 3 3, 4, 5, 6,

[1:12:49] 7, you know, and maybe leave 8 off just for a second with some of the surety

[1:12:53] discussion and some of the final touch-up. But we might be closer.

[1:12:57] Okay. All right, are we closing this portion of our discussion?

[1:13:02] I, I have no more questions, and if the commission has no more—

[1:13:08] Next item on the agenda is other.

[1:13:10] Does anybody have anything they'd like to say, report?

[1:13:14] I just wanted to make note of the fact that we do genuinely appreciate staff's

[1:13:20] that we do genuinely appreciate staff's hard

[1:13:20] work in getting this stuff together.

[1:13:22] I know this has not been easy, but I think you have made some great progress,

[1:13:28] and we do really genuinely appreciate everything that you're doing.

[1:13:33] Thank you.

[1:13:35] Anyone have anything else? I'll entertain a motion for an adjournment.

[1:13:39] Motion to adjourn.

[1:13:40] Is there a second?

[1:13:42] Second.

[1:13:42] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

[1:13:44] Aye.

[1:13:45] Opposed? Passes unanimously. Thanks very much to everyone.

Regular Meeting

Transcript