And welcome to the Richmond City Planning and Zoning Meeting.

Clerk would call the roll, please.

Commissioner De Grant?

Here.

Commissioner Francis.

Commissioner Short?

Here.

Commissioner Miller.

Here.

Commissioner Perkins?

Commissioner Miles?

Here.

Commissioner Estell.

Here.

Next is the approval of the March 18th, 20 to 26 minutes.

If each commissioners had time enough to look over that, I'll get a motion on it, please.

I make a motion.

We approve the March 18th 2026 minutes.

Second.

Commissioner de Grant?

Yes.

Commissioner Short.

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Perkins.

Staying.

Commissioner Miles.

Yes.

Commissioner Stell.

Yes.

Next on the agenda is the request for zone map amendment for property located at Amber Way.

PVA 0042-042A-0000.

Proposed zone change from B1 slash P 1 to B3.

And this is an open meeting at a public hearing.

So everyone would have opportunity to say something, and the ones that will come forward, we'd have the city attorney would be uh was swearing in to the oath of the meeting.

Yes, the the people in attendance who are wishing to give testimony in this matter.

Uh when you do approach uh the stand to give your testimony, I'll just ask for you to state your name and your address on the record, and then I will administer an oath uh for you to give testimony.

Thank you, Chair and members of the planning commission.

Thank you for waiting just a few minutes.

I wasn't coming that way.

So you already have uh for the record, Preston Worley representing the applicant, Richmond Place LLC.

Um Richmond Place um is a entity that has owned this property since uh the beginning of its development, um, and some form of Richmond Place or its ownership developed the majority of Amberley Way, including going back into the residential area and has uh and has held this property for some time.

They're local folks.

Uh the purpose of our zone change tonight, obviously uh we could either we have statutory grounds to state our our purpose.

It's 21 and plus or minus acres that are cross-zoned at the end of the commercial uh development and are currently the cross-zoning is P1, your professional office, and B1, which is your another one of your business districts.

So my first justification for the zone change is that the current zoning is inappropriate.

I think any time you have cross-zoning on a property, it is inherently inappropriate, it makes it confusing and difficult to develop.

And then I would also put to you that for the several years, I don't know exactly how long, Kevin, but uh as long as I can remember since this property started developing, this portion has been both P1 and P1, B1 and P1, and has not been successfully marketable or developed under those zones.

So both the cross-zoning and just the clear underutilization of the property would argue that it's it's inappropriate zoned.

And then to get to why we think that B3 would be a more appropriate zone, um, one, just in generalities, we we believe that the B3 has been successful on Amberley Way, um, and so that should make it a better utilized zone.

But then to look to your comprehensive plan and in the alternative to argue to you that this is in agreement with your comprehensive plan, the request.

If you look to our proposed findings of fact that we put together, I detailed several of your goals and objectives that one are related to increase retail opportunities within the community, particularly around I-75, and take advantage of I-75 corridor to attract business to Richmond to utilize underutilized land.

Uh, and again, this land is set vacant for some time because it's current zoning it has not allowed for its development.

So you have underutilized land that has existing infrastructure.

So this is technically considered an infield project, which again your comprehensive plan calls for.

So at this time, we don't have a specific intended use to ask you about.

Um oftentimes I've come to you and I've got a specific use, Miss Perkins, it's a lot of times apartments, you know.

Um, but in this instance, the owners just believe that they have they have not been able to come up with a viable use for the property as P1 and B1.

When they've been approached by people that want to purchase or lease or develop the land, they say that the existing zoning doesn't work for them.

Um and so for one reason or another over these years, they believe that extending the B3 uh a little further down would utilize this property.

So tonight's a little bit different that I'm not asking you to say we want to rezone this for the purpose of putting in a hotel, we are not.

We want to rezone this for the purpose of putting in a gas station, we are not.

We are hopeful that by rezoning this B3, which extends that corridor down, that the property will then be able to be utilized and be marketable because several of the f a lot of times a large department developer or a large sometimes a large retail outlet may take on the zone change.

You know, several times I'm in front of you all and I represent the landowner, but through their developer buyer.

In this case, these are just the owners, and they have for the all these years they've owned it, found themselves unable to find this a marketable use for the property, and so they're seeking to make the property more marketable and then go to the market and find somebody in that instance.

Then, when that user comes along, depending on the particular use and layout, then you all would see a development plan or potentially a subdivision platinum would divide the property out or lay out the property and then show appropriate curb cut landscaping, buffer, all those sorts of things.

So at this point, we truly are just talking about what is the highest and best use of this property pursuant to your comprehensive plan.

And I would again put to you that the B3 in that exact corridor has been successful and so should be successful, that general retail trade along your I-75 corridor is called for in your comprehensive plan.

Um and we think that this would give plenty of opportunity.

I know that the community will have some questions and some concerns.

I think probably a lot because we don't have a specific use to put to it, but I would just put back to you that when those specific uses come along, those commercial structures in this zone, those development plans are required to come back to you.

And I don't want to overstate that or misspeak Kevin, because there may be some instances that would be staff approval, but by and large, the majority of things that you see in your B3 zone and the way that curb cuts would have to be put in here and those sort of things would likely come back to you.

Uh, but at a minimum, they have that they have staff oversight at as far as you know traffic in and out and the and those sorts of things.

So again, for the for the record, our justification is that cross-zoning is generally always inappropriate, that the existing zoning crossways or not has not been marketable and is causing the property to be underutilized.

Your comprehensive plan, disagreement with the comprehensive plan, because you you don't want to have underutilized property, you encourage the use of underutilized property and you encourage retail in these specific areas.

And I will put to you that the property is large enough that whatever ultimately comes, there would be ample opportunity and property with co the existing contour to create and then exist and then creation of landscaping and that sort of thing to create a buffer between uh whatever comes there and the neighboring residential property.

So you've got basically extending exactly what you already have on the road for a bit more road frontage, but still enough acreage that you could create a buffer down the road, which you all would see.

So I obviously questions and Dr.

Millages, are you ready?

No, I will, um I can understand the B3 up on Barnesville.

Because the traffic flow is very high.

But when you come back, the density is uh traffic flow is not as high.

It really doesn't fit for a B3.

Uh if it was up further or near the expressway closer, I could see that.

But uh it's really B1, and across from it is uh professional buildings, etc.

Um the question is do you really want to make it uh with a high dead intensity of traffic back here because you've got the homes back there and you've already got a traffic problem, and we've already got a lot of projects going on there.

So there's several reasons why I kind of wonder about it, and we've got a lot of B3 businesses right now that uh our spots that are empty.

Um maybe even overbuilt a little bit.

So it it bothers me a little bit, maybe a little too much building uh area doesn't really fit a B3, and professionals would really fit.

Professional obviously is not worked, is is the issue.

I can't help that.

Well, but you're I mean I can't help that.

If it doesn't fit the code, you know, if it doesn't fit a B3, it doesn't fit a B3.

And I think it fits a B1.

Yeah, and I can respect that, but if I if I could parse that just aside the two different things, you your comprehensive plan calls for using underutilized land within your urban services area that has infrastructure.

This does.

So it's existing zoning does not work.

And so that's where you all do take in the market issues because you have underutilized land, and you you want to, in order to prevent urban sprawl, according to your comprehensive plan, to you know, to paraphrase it, you want to encourage more dense development within your urban services area where you have infrastructure.

And here you have the water, the sewer, the curb cuts, and a wide amberly way.

I won't I won't at all argue with you that any development here, no matter what it is, will increase traffic.

Now, what that ends up being will be what will be the issue.

You know, ultimately, your B3 may have has a lot of lesser intense uses.

It has some more intense uses, I'll give you that.

But ultimately, there'll have to be some development plan that shows that those more intense uses can be facilitated there.

Again, we don't we I don't have that.

What I have is B3 gives the most opportunity, and I know and I respect what you say that up near Barnes Mill, but I would put to you to look at that map there.

The orange is B3.

So B3 comes all the way down to the property down Amberley Way already, exactly where we are, and a little bit across.

The B1, P1 across the street is actually a vacant lot and a water tower primarily, and then there's a small prof like a four-plex professional office.

So that that that's not being used as the transition there, it really doesn't work.

And then when you look to the other side of the interstate, you know, Clarney, Porter, all that, we tend to we tend to have a scheme of B3 as far back as the market will bear, and then transition to residential.

And so I I don't disagree with with what you're saying.

I'm just putting back to you that that generally has been how the corridor you develops and what Amber Lee Way really is now.

Um but I I don't disagree with you that B3 is more intense than B1 coming down.

Um it's just when you look through this area, there is no B1 that's been that is being successfully developed.

It is more restrictive, whereas B3 gives gives a few more options.

Can I ask you a question?

Yes, ma'am.

The terrain of that land, there was one area that was very flat, and then there's a uh another section that really drops off, and I'm not sure if yours is inclusive of both of those areas or just the flat area.

So there's one area you're saying it's not well, it's not going, it's gonna be very difficult to uh build, period, regardless of what it is.

And I'm not sure which section you are to do.

And I'll be honest with Ms.

Perkins, it's been a little while since I've seen the topography.

There are some topography challenges there, which might be their their problem.

It's just the land itself.

That's true.

But and it goes right into a subdivision, which it does, which these property owners developed and and have friends and neighbors and and family members that live there.

Yeah, well, we'll see what they say.

Well, my only and I understand what you're saying, but like you say, you do have B3.

This right there, just right there with it.

And that's the that's what I'm you know, and that's the end of it be right there.

Yes, sir.

Right?

That's right.

You I mean it butts right up to a B3 right now, right?

That that's correct.

If you have a pointer, Kevin, or then you know why you're all are looking.

How you do apartments, then you doplexes, and then you do homes.

Well, to me, this is very sensible to go from uh B3 to B1 to the homes.

It's uh nice trans zip transition from one area to another.

That's fine.

And and I don't disagree with that either.

And where possible stepping down in zone itself to create a transition is uh is a great planning technique where that's not available to us by way of the market or the topography, and when I say not available to us, obviously, maybe I should say not desirable to us, then you use your development ordinance, your landscaping ordinance, your or all of your requirements to create buffers and to create those transitions.

So I would put to you that in the future if somebody came and they wanted to build something very intense on this property that was right here.

I assume that you all would take issue with that.

That that issue should that should be lesser intense, even if a B3 viable use, or that should probably be wherever the opportunity to use your landscaping ordinance and and create and create that buffer.

So I think that that will be available to us in the future.

Mr.

Chairman, to your question, this is the outline of the northern end of the property right here.

So this is the B1 zoned, this is the P1 zoned, but this is all the 21 acres here.

So you can see the B3 comes down and abuts the entire northern side, and then is a adjacent caddy cornered on across the street.

Here you do have to uh I think Dr.

Miller pointed out there is some B B1 and P1 here, but this is a water tower, this is a vacant lot, and this is a very small professional office.

And then um, so you so you can see that's not the primary step down.

Predominantly, you come to this vacant area all the way from Barnes Mill down with B3.

There is no stuff.

So there so that's why we one of the reasons we have put to you that Amberley Way has developed well as B3 and could continue on and make this property more viable as a uh for you know for its users, but again, you have a develop you have a very good development ordinance in town with very direct landscaping and buffering requirements that would have to be met along this along this corridor right here.

So I I say that to you all to answer your questions.

I say that trying to be you know uh open and transparent about this process and about the next steps for the for the people in the public.

I I've never been at one of these podiums and had people in the gallery ready to speak for me, so I'm interested to hear I hear what they have to say and answer their questions.

Um but I would put to you that this this corridor, as opposed to the northern part of it, has developed well and generally not problematic, and the B3 does extend already all the way to this property, and also has you can see it doesn't exactly stub to the property, but you have an interconnected system of roadway that depending on the topography already comes to the property, and then you've got of course all of this in Amberley Light.

Mr.

Worley Okay, once again this is a public hearing and if anyone's got any more questions from Mr.

World you can come to the podium and the attorney will sore you in.

Yes if if you want to be heard on this matter just please approach the podium I would ask you to give your name and your address I'll administer the oath and you can give whatever testimony you would like to give on this matter don't everybody brush up at once here you come hello I'm Mark Meek I live at 103 Castlewood Drive.

Would you please raise your right hand?

Yes where you I'd like to swear you in we please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear the testimony you'll be giving in this matter on this day shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do continue all right so uh twenty three years ago um my wife and I built our house there and our land actually backs up right to where you're talking about where that buffer zone's gonna be um but when I bought that from uh Ray to Slover he said nothing will ever be built back there that was just uh because the landscaping it would cost absolute millions to fill all that in and there used to be trails down through there we get deer and turkey coyotes everything back in there all the time but uh the way the terrain is we got natural springs coming in and everything like it would cost millions to fill that in and I know it's uh uh a good space because I 75 you can put signs up and everything there you reach a lot of people but what I'm afraid of we're just gonna get the foot in the door and then there's gonna be more apartments and then those apartments run down and then the crackheads come in and it affects the whole neighborhood this is just a middle class neighborhood and we're set back there the reason why we bought it is because it's kind of away from everything and we lived there before it was Meyer or Pennies or any of that was there.

So and I understand uh the the businesses that are there right now but they're closed by like five o'clock and it doesn't bother anybody so I just don't want uh I don't know more hotels or whatever uh coming in there or definitely just not apartments um the traffic is already just horrid we really need to extend the Barnes Mill on around like new circle connecting to the bypass or something because now we got the soccer development Publix is coming we got schools and everything and then we got this one stop light and it's just ridiculous.

We've got to get some some sort of order around there so uh it's not jammed up but making a left hand turn into Castlewood is just unreal um but I trust you all you know what you're doing so uh it's gonna go from there but I just want to speak my piece about that and I don't know I always heard that the buffer zone is like 10 feet so that's what a row of trees and I don't want my grandkids out there playing and you know and then you got uh the more apartments or whatever coming in so I just uh that that zoning has been changed a couple times I think since we've been there and uh right now I just think the small business is fine none of us mind the clo the businesses that close at five o'clock and uh go on but if we're talking about more apartments or hotels or whatever it's just gonna get out of hand but that's my piece I just want before we get started I we we don't do have anything about traffic about the road that's state okay and the state is coming in and going to put a lot of money in for changing the way it's routed the traffic but we don't have any control of that okay that's fine I don't know who does what I know so you all know that we don't yeah they should have done that first anyway freeway around there but that's that's not my okay well thank you okay anyone else and as you approach I just would remind you to state your name and your address and then I'll administer the oath to you ma'am I'm Jennifer Lemieux I live at 117 Castlewood drive please raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will be giving in this matter on this day shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth will help you God I do.

I know you mentioned that you have no control over the traffic, but you do have control over the zoning, which will cause an extensive amount of traffic, whether it's apartments, they put a shopping center, a hotel, whatever they want.

Once you get past the small businesses that we have there, it is a nightmare.

We have one way out, and that's the Richmond Centerway.

And now they have apartments coming in.

Um the traffic is a two-lane road.

We will not be able to get out of our subdivisions.

It's going to cause noise.

We're going to have the lights on all night, depending on what you put.

I don't know.

I'm not okay with changing a zone and knowing what's not coming in, because anything can come in once we change that zone.

We are a private community that a lot of people still don't even know we exist back there, which is nice.

We already have the bowling alley, Texas Roadhouse, gas stations, everywhere you look.

You I want you to go about five o'clock and come down our way.

And you see, we got truck, big truck drivers parked everywhere on a two-lane road, and now we have to pretty much risk our lives to go around the trucks coming head on to get to wherever we have to go.

I know that Richmond's growing and we want all of this business, but it's coming at a cost.

And if I you can't control the traffic and the road department, whoever, but something's got to be done.

And I would appreciate if you would really think hard.

You may not live out there, but it will affect you as well.

So I am totally opposed to this zone change.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Is there anyone else?

And again, I just remind you to please state your name and your address before I administer the oath, please, ma'am.

My name is Janice Barton.

I live at 1084 Amberley Way.

Okay, please raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will be giving on this matter on this day shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

Floor is yours.

Um I'm sort of going on, I'm not going to repeat everything that was said, but I actually requested a traffic study from the K D O T, and the engineer sent it to me, and I read through it to the extent that I could because she told me it was technical and it was.

But one of the things that stuck out to me was that they had done some studies about the most clogged up time at Barnes Mill and Amberley.

And their thinking was that that is acceptable delays right now.

I think if you ask my neighbors, they're gonna say, nah, not really acceptable.

So we are concerned about the traffic.

I know that is not your bailiwick.

You don't control that, you don't get to say what's improved, you know, or not.

But anything that is added to Amberley Way is going to affect traffic.

And I'll be honest, uh after listening to the um speaker for the developer, I'm actually more concerned that we are just that he is asking you to give him a B3 zoning change without a plan because that could be anything from well, I mean, what all it does B3 include hotels, big box stores, automobile dealerships, high density businesses.

So that didn't reassure me.

I know he would they would have to come back, but right now you all are the zoning board and you might be sympathetic.

The next one might not be.

So we are concerned at opening Pandora's box and sacrificing our neighborhood, which is a lovely neighborhood.

Um, just like Jennifer said, many people don't even know we're back there, and we are just look at the audience, predominantly a slightly older neighborhood.

So I thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Is there anyone else?

And again, I would just ask you to state your name and your address before I administer the oath, ma'am.

Okay, I'm Patty Curry, and I live at 149 Castlewood Drive.

Okay.

And my big thing is traffic traffic.

Can I can I administer the oath to you?

This is a hearing.

It's quite all right.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will be giving in this matter on this day shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so I'll help you guys.

Yes, I do.

Okay.

Yeah, the traffic traffic traffic.

I go to Florida part-time.

And I'm in a town down there, it's 220,000 people.

It is so much easier to get around in that town than it is right there in front of the Richmond Center and trying to get into our Amberley Way.

I mean, there's a beggars right there at the corner.

My husband almost hit one the other day because he was jumping across traffic on the other side on the left side to get money.

And so my husband did stop.

He told him, you know, he was going to call the police, and then you know, I know you don't have any any you can't deal with that.

But um he went into the uh, I guess second shake and told them that if he saw the man out there anymore, he would never go in that place again.

Well, he was out there today.

So you've got no those biggest at the corner, and then you've got all the traffic going around trying to get on Barnes Mill, going to away from uh the Richmond Center, and then the ones that are trying to get on the interstate.

The ones that are trying to get on the interstate, it's backed up almost well, past Amberly Wise some days.

And then uh, yeah, so it's just I mean, it's just so much traffic there.

Now we don't mind like little like what's across the street there, those small little uh buildings that's there, that's not bad.

But when you're talking about big scale buildings, you know, like a retail store or another restaurant, hotel, apartments, yeah.

Apartments, you know, you get riffraff there, and then they'll be tempted to go down our little neighborhood and maybe do some robbing, you know, some vandalizing.

So that's my concern right there.

So that's all I get to say.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Good evening.

My name is Paul Aragon.

I live at 142 Castlewood Drive.

And would you please raise your right hand?

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you'll be giving in this matter on this day shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So help you got.

Yes.

All right.

Floor is yours.

You know, I this I know this meeting is not about infrastructure, but I believe the developing in that area had I think you put I think the state, including Richmond, put the carpet for the horse, and that's all I'm gonna say about that.

It is terrible.

But I I believe rezoning it to uh uh a B3 uh with what what is the buffer?

I mean, what between Castlewood subdivision?

Is it a 10-foot buffer?

Is it a hundred foot buffer?

You know, yeah.

Um but also it's it's you know, and and I I've heard that from a B3 you could rezone it again to an R3, which is residential.

And um, you know, I I've I I have family that's been here for 30 years, and we moved here about a year ago from out of state.

We love it here, and it's a unique subdivision.

We got great neighbors.

Um, and my brother-in-law didn't even know it was back there.

And and the beauty of that is that was one of the selling points of of us buying that home.

It's a really unique subdivision back in there.

But I I think with opinion-wise, I think with uh building closer to our subdivision, you are gonna get some riffraff, and we have, you know, it's unfortunate, but granted, it's growth.

I I get it.

Um but I'm I'm against it, man.

I I I think that you know, you know, approaching all the way up to wherever that buffer zone is, even if you do some really cool landscaping, you you're still gonna get people into our subdivision.

And and and I know it's a public place.

I don't give me wrong.

You know, people have the right to drive through.

But uh I I just think bringing it bringing the businesses closer, and then um one other question I had.

I know the uh you know rezoning was for B3 on the on the east side, and that now 22 acres or whatever it is.

What about those lots on the left side?

Are are those in the question of being rezoned to B3 also?

No, they not don't think no those are still those are still B1.

The only thing he's represented is what he showed us on the that borders uh 75 and and Amberley.

Or yeah, Amberley.

But it's just uh, you know, it's a it's you know, I'm speaking for my neighbors.

I I I just think it's it's a bad idea.

Um, and we are uh an aging community, and you know, uh we don't want to see our house values tank.

I mean I'm gonna say they're gonna tank, but you know, we we got some nice homes back in there, and we want to keep it that way, you know.

So but that that's all I got.

I just want to voice my opinion.

Thank you.

Yep.

Anyone else.

My name's Jason Webster.

I live at 112 Castlewood Drive.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you'll be giving on this matter on this day shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing about the tree, so I hope you got it.

Yes, I do.

Floor shares.

I'm not a speaker.

Um I speak a lot from my heart and reality.

And I haven't lived in this subdivision as long as many of the other residents have, and I respect everyone here.

I respect the panel that hopefully will look at our side and understand where we're coming from and how you would feel if this was your subdivision, if this was your home.

I chose Castlewood Drive for her security for safety for my granddaughter mostly.

Uh she was staying with us with her mom and dad when we first moved there, and they stayed until they found a place, and they were so fortunate that the house right beside of us became available, and they bought it.

So my granddaughter has the security of her parents with her in the house, and her grandparents right next to her, and watching and being in that subdivision and seeing the residents walk the subdivision, maybe all by themselves, maybe with uh another uh resident.

Everybody waves, everybody cares about each other.

We all don't know each other, but we care for that subdivision, and we know the traffic is a problem.

I worked in human resources for over 50 years, and I retired, and I got a part-time job at Owen Robertson and Powell funeral home, which literally I could walk, but I choose to drive because I do use my car for business purposes for the funeral home.

And the stoplight to get on Barnes Mill takes four turns, and I'm the first car in line before it blinked green so I could go and make a left turn.

Traffic is a definitely a problem, and we know you know that in your professional uh responsibilities, but I just want you to know how much the residents care about their homes and taking care of their homes and making it a safe place for all of us to live in.

So I just plead to you not to pass this code change and allow Castlewood and Amberley Way to be what it is and continue to be for the residents that love it so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin, you get no sir, Mr.

World.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh just a brief rebuttal and a chance to sum a uh summation.

Uh so first off, while there's a few there was a few questions I'd like to address and a few points.

I uh would be the first to tell you and admit with everyone here that that is a beautiful neighborhood.

It 100% is.

Uh I've been back in there many times.

Um it's a fantastic neighborhood.

And it's obviously my position and my client's position that extending the business corridor for which they already drive through to get to that neighborhood is not going to ruin the neighborhood by extending it just a few, you know.

I I don't even know how that's 150, 200 feet of roadway.

Um this is 20 acres for B3 purposes that are already in B3.

This can be done appropriately and will be done appropriately at every stage that you and your staff will get an opportunity to approve.

Just to point out a few things.

Uh, first, the gentleman, uh it was Paul, but I didn't I couldn't catch the the last name, I apologize.

Um ask about the buffer and what would it look like.

And the shortest answer to that is your ordinance calls for landscaping buffer.

Off the top of my head, I can't tell you what that is, but you have to transition zones, and that will have to be done according to whether that's by berm, by trees, by fencing.

It's prescribed in your ordinance, and that would be the minimum that would have to be brought before you.

In whatever development plan or preliminary plat or whatever that's brought before you, because I've brought them before you and I've watched engineers that I work with bring you them before you.

Uh that there is appropriate buffering and transitioning being done.

And I think that that can all be done at the appropriate time.

Um again today we're just talking about the zone change.

Um to be clear on that, you can we no longer allow apartments in the B3 zone.

Correct, Kevin.

That's correct.

They're not permitted in a B-3 zone.

So many years ago, apartments were allowed in the B3 zone.

And you and you have seen um older apartment stock that at one time was in the B3 zone.

That's no longer allowed in the community.

So zoning it to B3 would prohibit apartments, absent someone coming back for an additional zone change, as you all know, and we would have another public hearing like this.

So this would not be apartments.

But Ms.

Perkins, you know me in apartments.

I would put to you that that would be an appropriate transition from residential to multifamily residential.

But Dr.

Miller, you and I would argue that having R3 next to R1 is usually we don't like that.

We would prefer a different transition.

So that's why we want to.

If they want a whole bunch of duplexes in there, but I don't think we could think we can make that work.

The that's why we put to you that B3 is appropriate.

You're just extending the corridor that is there that is really the entranceway to what into the neighborhood as is now.

Um and it and it can be done, it can absolutely be done appropriately.

While I don't want to get deep into traffic, I think we have to acknowledge it.

I appreciate what you said, Dr.

Miller.

It it it is a Barnes Mill is a state highway, and I have stood I've stood up here and the the uh I think it was uh uh uh seems uh Miss Bardin said that talk to the state highway uh traffic department.

I have presented privately done traffic studies, the state's traffic studies to you, um, and all of the arguments that it is safe and it is safe, but it's inconvenient and it needs improved.

Absolutely.

And the state has improvements planned.

Um they are in the works.

Um we hope those those happen as fast as possible, but my clients can't be punished by state delay because the roadways, while inconvenient, are still safe.

Um but as I have put to you before the state uses your planning to influence their planning.

So when the state highway traffic engineer looks at all of District 7, the counties that he oversees and looks at the six-year highway transportation plan, and he sees that Richmond is developing here, like we have new schools, apartments on the other side of Richmond Place, that that encourages them to put make those those projects a priority, and I hope they do.

But I don't want to argue to you that they are or make that a part of tonight's presentation.

I think some nominal increase in the B3 corridor that exists will not create the traffic problems any worse than what they what they are now.

They just they are and they won't be any any any any worse.

We talk about peak traffic hours, multifamily residential has very intense peak traffic hours.

Um to school, coming home.

B3, your general business creates more trips, but those are generally gradual throughout the day.

Those are not at hard peak times generally.

Um so I I think again this can be done in an appropriate way that really keeps the status quo along Amberley Way and in this corridor, but allows for underutilized property to be appropriately developed.

And so for that I would ask for your approval.

Again, I think the existing zonings are inappropriate to be vacant.

And the proposed zoning is not only more appropriate, it's actually in agreement with your comprehensive plan, particularly using under utilized land, emphasizing the I-75 corridor.

I mean the fact that this actually abuts I-75 and right up to the uh uh right up to the uh the interchange.

So again, I I appreciate your time.

Uh respect everybody's opinion here, and and obviously any change or potential change is is sometimes worrisome.

Uh but I do believe that this is a good use for the property and then can be done the right way.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that has a thing to say?

You saw me swear the testimony you'll be giving.

This matter on this day shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

I moved here about 10 years ago, of course.

Now I I go in and out quite a bit because I do work for gates, and I'm in and out different times of day.

Uh we have quite a bit of traffic, and I have to turn left.

I have lined up down in front of the old best western to get to the turn lane.

Make their turn at three o'clock in the afternoon at five o'clock, whatever.

But that's not my biggest priority.

On the street there, there's no crosswalks.

We got motels, we've got some restaurants and stuff.

I've seen people run for their light from people that's turning in to go back to the motels or something, and they've come from a restaurant going back to the motel, they have right across the street so they don't get a hit.

There's no no walk crosswalks, there's no uh turn the turn lane 90% of the time somebody runs a red light there, and that's not the only place they run the red lights, but that's that not that problem.

Uh I feel that right now we have a danger of cars already in that area because of traffic, they'll make a left turn from the right lane, make a U-turn out there.

So I feel adding more stuff and under a button block, Bs, B3s, they could be uh service station going back in there.

Maybe a uh repair job, big trucks and stuff running back in there under D3, right?

B3 or E3.

I don't have all these problems.

We don't I you know stuff like that would make the neighborhood less you know, the value of the neighborhood less and cause a lot more traffic, and like I said, I've seen people run for their life trying to get across the street here.

That's about all I've got to say.

I agree with everybody else.

Thank you.

Please raise your hand.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you'll be giving in this matter on this day shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so I help you God?

Yes, I was gonna address Dr.

Miller.

He was talking about something about a I wouldn't like to see it with the developer, change it to like a R1 single family residential area, and that's mean the developer and the committee, because land is at a premium in Richmond right now, and then the other thing is the traffic.

I have called the law multiple times, they've got my name.

Semi trucks literally just drive, and I'm it's dangerous.

And somebody needs to do something about that.

I know that's not your thing, but you can pass it on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Carmen Legends, I live at 100 Castlewood Drive.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you'll be giving in this matter on this day?

Shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I'm not going to talk about traffic because everybody knows the traffic's too bad.

Okay.

But what I will talk about is the fact that if they put another hotel, which we already have seven, seven in walking distance hotels.

If they put another hotel there, they're gonna be peeking into Mr.

Meek's backyard into his windows.

Because they're not gonna put a one-level hotel, they're gonna put a five, ten story hotel.

They're gonna be looking at the Fred Fredericks in the back of their yard.

This is ridiculous.

We have too much over there already.

If you all want to put in a residential area, absolutely.

We don't mind houses, but we do not want another hotel, another restaurant, an uh gas station, whatever is going to go back there, we don't want it.

We want our homes to stay like they are now.

We want it safe, and we don't want people looking into our bedroom windows.

I mean seven stories hotels right into their windows.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else, gentlemen?

My name is Charles.

Hey, I live 113 Castlewood Drive.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you'll be giving on this matter on this day shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I sure do.

I want to preface my war uh my remarks by giving a little history of this property.

It originally was zoned R1A, which is for large family housing uh residential, and that just simply won't work there.

We know that.

Then it got rezoned to I'm not sure exactly what this, but it was ended up, Mr.

DeSlover said we're gonna put condominiums there.

Well, that didn't work out, so there was a plan to uh put uh apartments back there, federally subsidized low-income housing, which we as group of neighbors uh did not feel that was appropriate.

That was turned down by the commission a bit after that uh there was a another planning session, I believe, if I'm correct, that I was there, several other neighbors are there, and they were talking what to do with this property, and finally it was decided there that we're gonna put a P1 for half and a B1 for the other half, and the property owners, Richmond Place LLC accepted that now, and I said to myself, I bet we've not heard the last from them, and uh now we have it today.

I think when you look at your comprehensive plan there, it's not perfect as we all know, and there are flaws, and this is a flaw coming very much through.

I think we need to look at this transitional phase from something that's rather large like B3, and we've talked about various types of things could be developed on B3.

We have B3, which you would call the stake and shake galaxy bowling alley, I guess would be classified B3.

Then you have the Senior Citizen Center.

I feel very confident that is not classified B3.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that's B3.

It would seem appropriate for the property, and we want to get some mixed development.

We've got a lot of already highway business.

Some of them are not doing very well financially, I might add.

And put more back there, and we're talked a variety of things that could be put up there on this property.

There's 21 acres that we're talking about.

I see that uh a P1 or a B1, one or the other completely, because we have P1 across the street.

I don't see mixing P1 with B3.

Exactly.

I don't think that is what the comprehensive planners thought would be appropriate.

And I think you as a committee should not feel should feel the same way that that's simply not appropriate.

Now we would be looking at a transitional phase of I know this property abuts the interstate, and there's a little sliver that goes to Barnes Mill Road and the exit out of uh to I-75.

I would uh contend that either keep it P1 or B1, you've got P1 across the street.

I would say that uh B1 would be something of value to the community.

But B3, I think that's a big stretch.

So with that in mind, I respectfully appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does any of the uh commissioners have anything to say?

Just that that's a very nice subdivision back there, I think.

And I think uh a B3 will substantially affect it if we allow that to go through.

I think if you want to put an R2, you want to put in an R3 up further.

I could see that.

Uh but I agree that uh tells other things that that's just not appropriate next to that R1, I don't think not, I'm good.

I'm motion on this, please.

I'm gonna make a motion that the request for the zone map amendment for property located at Amberle Wayne, the proposed uh zone change from B1, P1 to B3 be denied.

I second could I say something?

I'm sorry, go ahead.

I understand what everyone's saying, but really we don't know what's going back there.

Well, you do with the Dr.

Miller.

We we really don't know what's going back there, and and I understand what what what everyone is saying, but you also like us like I asked Mr.

Worley, you've got a B3 already there, and this would be buttoned up right to a B three.

Now that's that I mean this might say on it right there.

If it was jumping over it, if it wasn't a B3 already there, but you do have a B3.

Up further.

Yeah.

But you don't have a back or R1 in.

Yeah.

And you have the B1 across the street.

You know, it's where it's but you're going from, but when you come out of that, you go into a B three, and you come out of B3, you go on to that.

Correct.

Um we gonna have congestions anyway.

I think what this committee is is to protect the citizens of the community.

You right I think the commissioners are actually the best thing because technically they're given it's not our job to do what y'all are doing up here.

We're supposed to make sure that the plan was set.

It's done correctly by Mr.

Worley over here.

Do I agree with them?

Yes.

Do I also look at their their opinions?

Yes, but the thing is this is not our job to make that decision.

It is the commissioner's job above us to approve or deny, and they can go and take it up with them.

If he's presented a proper plan, I believe in that proper plan.

If it's proper.

And I think it is proper from B3.

Is proper.

And I know and I will, but I know.

I know.

But technically, they should go above us.

But it was previously even a lesser amount, and that was part of the comprehensive plan.

So you know you can argue it both three ways.

But I think we give our stamp of approval.

And I don't want to approve something that I don't think is beneficial to the area.

That's fine.

I have no problem.

Just to clarify the question as it's been called on the floor with the first and second.

That the motion has been made to deny.

Therefore, if you are wishing to deny the proposal as presented, you would need to vote yes.

So if you vote no, it's kind of a double negative.

If you vote no, you're voting in favor of it.

Believe me, I've been on the side of phone calls, people saying I didn't mean to vote the way I voted, but for the purpose of the question on the floor, it is to deny, therefore, if you wish to deny it, you will need to vote yes when the question is called.

Well, yeah.

Do we also not need a second on that?

No, he seconded the challenge.

Oh, she said.

She said, it all just went to pieces as soon as I said it.

Ready for the roll?

Yeah.

Commissioner De Grant?

No.

Commissioner Short?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Perkins?

Yes.

Commissioner Miles?

No.

Commissioner Estell.

No.

That always goes.

Split.

So procedurally right now, it's a 3-3 vote, which means that it would then go to the Commission with no recommendation from the planning commission.

That's as much for the gallery as anybody else.

So at this point it's a 3-3 tie based upon the question as presented.

It will now go to the Board of Commissioners at a future meeting without any recommendation from the planning commission because of the 3-3 tie.

Thank you all very much.

Uh, because you you've had an opportunity just procedurally, since this is a tie, and then it would just move forward to the to the board of commissioners without recommendation.

I would just point out that the floor would be open for someone to make a motion to approve and for you all to debate that.

Um and we would certainly ask for it.

That being said, if it's not going to change the outcome of the vote, then that would just keep us all here past supper.

But that procedurally, uh there is still much debate that you all could have uh based on the merits uh of the of the uh continuation of B3 on through the corridor.

Uh but since we've I've been here before with you with a tie and uh and the other motion was never taken up or discussed, certainly you're all's prerogative, but I just wanted from behalf of my clients put that out that procedurally it's available and we would certainly accept an approval if we could get that.

Okay.

Thank you.

So that's it.

So that that would conclude.

Yes.

It goes to the commissioners.

Yes, without our approval.

Yes.

We'll prepare that document.

Next on the agenda would be the home occupation permit draft, but this was on the table.

We had tabled this, so it's gonna be taken off the uh the table.

So I need to make a motion that uh the home occupy permit uh draft be laid back on the table.

And I need to second, I guess.

I'll yeah, I'll second that commissioner de grant?

Yes, commissioner short?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Perkins?

Commissioner Miles?

Yes.

Commissioner Estell?

Yes.

Kevin.

So we uh after speaking with um with you guys on the on the last meeting.

What I did there is I took out from the type two home occupations uh a permit is required.

I took out that 25 percent floor area.

So it's completely missing.

Um Dr.

Miller, this might help uh in the historic area where it is no longer 25 percent.

So I want to let you all know that currently the type two home occupation, you can occupy 100% of the home with that being taken out with no justification of a percent of the home to be utilized uh in the nature of any business.

So I want to point that out to you.

Um the second bullet, um the business employs no more than used to say one person, it has been changed to uh changed from one person to two persons.

Uh the rest of this, um, quite honestly, we we didn't get any comments.

So what I did is I changed everything that we spoke about that night, and those are reflected here.

Um if there's any questions or you've gave any more thought to it, uh be willing to discuss and and review.

We know that the questions on this here when you when if I had a house and I wanted to be a poet in the house, whatever, but yearly or bi-yearly inspection, shouldn't we have some kind of inspection from additionally?

I mean, I get a I get an inspection.

I'm okay.

Shouldn't you sometime down the road have to have it renewed?

Well, I think what what we're doing here in our department is whether or not we're just going to allow it or not.

Now, if it boils down to safety of whatever that business is providing, I don't think my department would be that responsible party for that.

Well, I didn't say yours would, but but somebody should be responsible for looking into it in in the future.

Don't you think?

Well, I mean if to give an example, you know, uh, you know, I've been here a long time as well, but uh I have recalled certain home occupations for washing cars.

And for an example, you know, to support your thought process, they were to wash cars within their garage, not outside and soap bubbles and things of that nature running down, listed discharges, stormwater things that nature.

You know, and and I won't say that I have not been guilty many years later, driving by the same place and witnessing the car outside being washed.

Um to support a reinspection to make sure that they are doing their due diligence.

We might entertain an annual inspection of the home occupation to make sure that they are confiding and and doing what they're supposed to.

Um seems like a lot.

Every couple years would be, don't you think?

And I I will say, Dr.

Miller, that you've you've hit the nail on the head as far as a an enforcement area that that we are we're looking at in the city as far as home occupations, because they have exploded.

Everybody has a side business, side hustle.

And you know, that is that is sort of the friction point as far as you know, how can we how can we you know pursue this?

And the the problem we have oftentimes is we're catching the people that are trying to follow the rules, you know.

Uh, there's a situation with uh home baking.

Uh we didn't know the state had made a such a focus on allowing home baking, and you know, we only knew that we had somebody wanting to do home baking because he came in trying to get a business license and diet all the I's and cross a T.

Having said that, there are probably 50 home bakers that we don't know about that are out there that you know are doing something that we don't know about.

So you're absolutely right that we are looking at and and we nothing is firm yet, but absolutely a a follow-up inspection, be it home occupation, be it be it any sort of business licensing is part of that.

But Kevin's absolutely right that unfortunately, until somebody says something, we oftentimes don't know about it.

So you know, if there is a home occupation and a neighbor says, hey, I think this is being abused, or they ain't doing what they say they're doing, then that would give us the the sort of the the lever point for us to say and come in and say, hey, we've gotten reports that you're not following what it should be due and inspected on on that aspect.

But I do think there's an area to where we could potentially not under planning and zoning, but through business licensing through code enforcement, have that have that ability to do that to reconfirm when they do have to renew their license annually that they are in fact continuing to behave in that in the business that they're that they're licensed for.

And the other thing I had was on number three, you said we conducted an accessory structure.

Uh that's if the deed permits it.

And uh, like where I am, I can't do that.

The deed is not permitted accessory structures in many areas.

code enforcement have that have that ability to do that to reconfirm when they do have to renew their license annually that they are in fact continuing to behave in that in the business that they're that they're licensed for and the other thing I had was on number three you said we conducted an accessory structure that's if the deed permits it and uh like where I am I can't do that the deed does not permit accessory structures in many areas so I don't want to get in the fact where they you said I could do it in accessory structure but when you look at the deed you can't feel the the deeds are always gonna control in those situations and I can tell you that you know for for calls I would get from cities when I was at the League of Cities you know especially the 82 communities in Jefferson County that are glorified homeowners association that one of my first questions was before we go about this from the governmental side of things are there restricted deeds or the restrictive covenants in place because those are basically inviolable I mean if you've got a restrictive deed or restricted covenant um short of an act of God you're you're gonna be beholden to that so you know that that's a little bit different and you're absolutely right to where I think that even the language here allowing that the default's always going to be if the deed allows it.

And it currently the our current home occupation will actually ask for covenants and restrictions if you uh reside within a subdivision that retains one and most often covenants and restrictions item number one shall be this whole purpose of residential use only if it says that and it's provided to us because we asked for it if they submit that and it says that it's denied it's done they cannot get a home occupation permit due to their covenants yeah because that D would cover everything on there wouldn't it and and that's in there to you know somewhat protect us uh my department because you know we if we don't look further into into the box or out onto the tree limbs and we issue a home occupation permit and then we get a phone call from someone that's adamant about their HOA and says why did you do this where you're not supposed to do that well we've we've done our homework as best we can we're asking for these things so that our checks and balances will at least keep us level and and not permit things that will just cause us a headache because we weren't aware of something but we already have that in place and that would that just falls right along with this it's actually part of the application process that they must turn in.

Number eight two off street parking spaces shall be provided for customers and clients in addition to Austreet parking for the residents should we say something that they can't be visible from the front because we don't want the front area change because that was one of the comments that we had about one of the places here locally you you'll you'll get into geographic challenges most of these homes and most of these laws especially the R1Cs and B's and heck we'll even go with the A's their lots are tiny and we see that if we require we have had to not approve several home occupations because they simply didn't have the space and they can't get around to their backyard.

It's impossible so we've had to deny many home occupations simply on the parking requirement everything else was fine but uh due to the inspection you know you can't do that and um it it protects it I would love to see everything in the bag too but most of these uh that we see historically you you simply can't get in the backyard you've got some like out on Hampton way those a good example of those out through there you can't I mean you they're in front but you can't get around you can't get around to the back of them well just because they sit so high up I mean they're they're so high up off there so they can't they can't get around to those yeah we we have to look at each one independently because it it's not like the factory you don't go in and do the same thing every day.

Each and every one of these home occupations will have a difference in use type what they're doing how they're doing it where they're doing it where they're not going to be doing it and can they even do it with the parking that they have it's each one is a unicorn and we have to look at each every one of them independently it's not a cut and dry kind of thing anything else director's report uh everybody starved to death uh I will vote on that Kevin you want oh absolutely if you all are comfortable that would be wonderful I would greatly appreciate it because we we pull our hair out into it almost daily yourself a good emotion I make a motion we approve the uh home occupation permit tract second commissioner de grant yes commissioner short yes commissioner miller yes commissioner perkins commissioner miles yes commissioner stell yes director's report super fast um I will uh my budget has been uh amended and approved all of you all will soon be getting brand new tablets uh the city will be moving toward paperless

Commissioner De Grant?

Yes.

Commissioner Short.

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

Yes.

Commissioner Perkins.

Commissioner Miles.

Yes.

Commissioner Astell.

Yes.

Director's report.

Super fast.

I will my budget has been uh amended and approved.

All of you all will soon be getting brand new tablets.

The city will be moving toward paperless.

You'll be notified soon.

Um I believe by the city clerk.

But uh we're getting everybody new tablets, and we will make sure that all of the tablets are updated.

Uh your city emails are working fine and dandy and all that kind of stuff.

We'll provide you some training if need be.

Logging on, uh, but all of these things that a lot of these things that you see up here.

Now this will remain for the benefit of the public, but everything that you will receive, much like you do now, will be digital.

Um, but uh that's really the only change, and I think uh Deborah has some information here.

Um but that was for Commissioner Francis.

Uh he's the only one I think uh we need to get in touch with on KLC training, and everybody else has either completed or is signed up.

So that makes Chris so happy you heard him woo-hooing over here.

But uh preferred we can do stuff legal.

Uh and that's all.

There were two items though that you said you were working on right now that you were going to bring before us.

Yes, and since we had tabled this one, I didn't want to overwhelm, but uh you will see a new one next PNZ meeting.

I've got one thing this off direct, and I talked to Kevin about these uh we holding these contracts' feet to the fire on these walking trails or whatever, you know.

I've talked to you about that.

I think we might want to revisit that.

I know some that I'm in and out every day, and they deserted.

I mean, nobody is HOA is supposed to take care of them, they're not doing it.

If it's just like they it's just like you stuck something out here in a field somewhere.

But I I will tell you if you want to look at a model of something, is it Magnolia Point?

And I was telling you about it.

When you go around through there, of course they got them power lines they put over it, but they have got a nice playground area, grass area.

They've got concrete paid port for picnic tables.

They've got uh on this side, they've got uh a dog part for dogs in, and it's that would be the ideal thing, more so than what we hold on these walking.

They they've got cazebos back in the walk, but I mean they just uh you look they're not being maintained or nothing.

Well, if the subdivision and the people don't want to maintain them, I don't know what to say.

Well, what I'm saying, but we have asked the developers about putting them well, the developers are not responsible once they first and they're gonna continue.

Yeah, they're still trying to sell lots.

Well, I mean in the new part back there, yes, but this is up in the in the front where they the homeowners association should get involved with that, etc.

But if they don't want to do that, but what I'm saying, just but what I'm saying is for the developers to help maybe more minutes.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

For the we shouldn't, you know, for the developer now.

If they want to put in like what they've got up there, but for them to have to put in those trails back there.

I don't think we need to hold their feet to the front of the city.

Yeah, currently it's a nice idea, and it's a good idea.

But it's and it makes the places more desirable, definitely.

The question is is the expense, and the other question is uh if somebody's gonna be responsible for taking care of it.

I don't understand this where people don't take care of that.

I don't I don't get that.

I don't know.

Well it gets down to just if you have like people are just involved, you you'll have one or two people that do all the work.

You know, if you got a change of hands, people move in and people move out, and it's nobody gonna and I thought we talked about this had to elect a board to for the HLAs to maintain that there was some discussion about that, and I think we we ran into some roadblocks with some legalities.

Uh but even prior to that, once upon a time, um we had discussed uh recreation areas for the residential zones.

Um, I should take that back, not residential zones, the new residential developments that are coming in.

We have hard regulations that require them to put in approximately no less than 1200 square feet, it must be centrally located.

You got to do this, yada yada yada.

You can you can um instead of doing this, you can put in a walking trail to defy some of the requirements and things of that nature.

These are hard regulations right now.

And when I say art, I mean you must do them.

Uh if they're not on my development plan or subdivision plots, comments go out.

We had started a discussion of maybe trying to figure out because um uh we had some maintenance issues out at um the western part of the city.

Yep, and that you know the cities had to step in and and take care of some of those things, which should that's not the city's job.

Correct.

So um I went to work on trying to figure out how we could redo a few things, and you know, we sort of didn't conclude that.

Um, but if you would like, I can send all of you on email of the list of changes or things that I have to address, and you're very welcome to pick and choose.

I'll take the majority rule and bring the one that gets the most votes to to be looked at.

Um you can assess the homeowners in a certain area if they don't, if they have an HOA that's not man maintained.

Yeah, but you're assessing the people that shouldn't be maintaining.

That's no, you are entirely assessing the people.

No, no, no, no.

So the HOA is supposed to take care of the people's like if it walk control comes through this person's property, then the HOA is supposed to take and maintain that.

That's their job.

They're being paid to maintain it.

You can't assess the homeowner because they're paying their dues.

The problem is the dues people are the ones that you have to get on top of to fix the property.

And the problem is they're not doing it.

That's what he's talking about.

Am I correct?

Yeah, the the code enforcement can can go after the HOA and and to some extent of however how effective that may be, depending on how well the HOA is is effective.

Um I think the last thing I had proposed was actually take out those recreation requirements from residential subdivisions and R2, but leave it within the R3.

I think some of the discussion was the R3 folks don't really have a yard, they don't really have a place.

So that if you have an R3 development, you should require some type of recreation aspect to that development plan.

If a developer in a residential subdivision wants to do recreation, then we could retain our regulations but have them as options.

Um I know what you know uh Mr.

Chairman is talking about, you know, some of these things.

We get complaints that uh there's people out there saying it's because they both well heaven forbid, that's what it's for, but they don't want that in their backyard.

But they want it, but they don't want it in their backyard.

They don't want a trail splitting their property lines.

They don't want yada yada traveling back and forth at the rear of their property walking a trail.

Well I get tons of those.

Um so that sort of spurred that thinking on, but we I think we some things happening and we moved on and kind of forgot about that.

But again, I'll send all this stuff out to you.

You can pick and choose uh what is the most important to you.

I'll take the mean of the group and uh we'll bring the next item in front of you.

I I don't want to flood you.

I've got a bunch, but uh well if he's got one at a time.

He's got a subdivision now that's not complying.

If he tells you that DUIC comes, it I the legal answer is it depends.

Uh if if it rises to uh you know a code enforcement violation or something like that where we need to have code enforcement go out there and do an abatement, then we can obviously assess a lien for that.

You don't cut your graph.

Uh yeah.

Um but I can tell you that oftentimes with HOAs and and we see this to where you know they're they're not set up properly or for whatever reason they're just not run properly.

Really and candidly, if if a if a property owner has an issue with how the HOA is being run, they would have a cause of action against the HOA.

I mean, you're just gonna evolve civil court because they're they're involved in a you know they're they're a member of an organization or they're a member of an HOA that is not fulfilling their duties under whatever agreement they have, that's a strict contract situation, and there would be civil litigation with that.

What the city has to be mindful of is if we step into the role of that HOA or if we start performing those roles, well then quickly we could run into situation is this really a public purpose.

You know, we can't we can't go out and you know pave people's driveways or as much as we may want to put down gravel down at the church, that's not a public purpose.

So we need to be mindful of that.

But obviously, if it's if it's a situation where it's overgrown or there or there are issues like that, that would be something code enforcement could respond to.

And as Kevin mentioned earlier, I think that you know the lean in that situation could be assessed through the HOA.

I mean, like like some of these long trails, you got a house here and and the path is going right down, like going down the driveway.

Yeah.

And it's about as far from here up at the Christian church.

And Chairman, I mean if we if uh it sounds like you've already shared that information with Kevin, but I mean we could get we can get our code enforcement guys to go out there and take a look at it.

Absolutely.

We'd be happy to do that.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes, sir.

But if it was, they're not taking care of anything.

Yeah, and the only authority you know my department will have will be its creation and the holding of the letter of credit.

And up until they ask for the release of that letter of credit will be the only time I have authority over it.

So we'll do a final inspection, you know.

Unfortunately, it's always just built.

It's beautiful.

Nobody's kind of out there, it's a little bit vacant, everything's nice and pretty mode.

We release the letter of credit.

Yeah, it's a year or two, father time steps in, neighbors change, then we're where we're talking.

So um anything else is this for adjournment?

I'll make a motion.

We adjourn.

Two seconds.

Miller?

Commissioner De Grant.

Yes.

Commissioner Short?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Perkins?

Commissioner Miles?

Yes.

Commissioner South.

Yes.

What?