[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.