All right.

Ladies and gentlemen ready.

Good evening and welcome to the January 21st, 2026 meeting of the City of Tuscans Planning and Zoning Commission.

Any written comments have been sent to the staff and were forwarded to the commission directly.

At this time, I would like to introduce staff, Jim Boodson, Deputy City Attorney, Michael Garner, City Engineer, Zach Pons, Director of Planning, Leota Coyne, Principal Planner.

There are nine members of the Planning Commission, all who were appointed by the mayor for staggered terms with the exception of the City Council representative who is appointed by the City Council.

I ask the commissioners to introduce themselves and state the occupation beginning with Ms.

Hornsby.

Anne Hornsby, attorney.

And real quick, everybody, make sure your microphones are on, and we've been asked by staff to be sure we speak into the microphones.

Okay.

Okay.

Yep, we're good.

Councilwoman Raven Howard, District 2.

Vince Dooley, UA Capital's Planning.

NPU retired.

Stephen Rumsey, Business Owner.

Dina Prince, attorney.

Portia Clark, 311 manager.

Tim Harrison, General County Direct.

Bill Wright, Business Owner.

There were signup sheets located outside for public comment.

Four speakers are allowed to speak in favor of a petition and four speakers are allowed to speak in opposition of a petition.

All speakers will have a maximum of five minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time.

Tonight's procedures, the commission will take up items in order of our final agenda.

The commission will initially receive a presentation from the staff as to the details of the agenda item.

We add additionally, we may hear certain matters involving the same property, such as an annexation and a rezoning matter concurrently, although we will take separate votes on each matter involving that same property.

After the staff presentation, we'll call upon the petitioner to present their case.

The petitioner will have a maximum of 10 minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time.

At the conclusion of the petitioner's remarks, we'll then call on any part of an order of sign-up who desires to support the petition, thereafter will call upon any order who signed up who opposes the petition.

When it's your turn for comment, please introduce yourself, stating your name and address to the commission to provide your remarks.

Again, any written comments have been included into the record.

After receiving the remarks of those who oppose the petition, the petitioner will have the opportunity to respond to those objections.

Any rebuttal will be limited to two minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time.

If the petitioner presents any information in response to the objections, the commission will allow those who oppose the petition the opportunity to respond to the new information only.

Any response any response will be limited to two minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time.

During the course of the presentation, you may be interrupted by any member of the commission for clarification or additional information.

Such interruptions will not reduce your time.

Once the commission members are satisfied that we have received all relevant information, we'll then close for further discussion by the public, at which time the commission members will discuss the matter and then vote.

After the vote, you are free to leave.

These proceedings are video recorded and broadcast live.

All in-person and public comments should be made at the podium into the microphone.

Jurisdiction.

Subdivisions located within the city limits.

Subdivisions located outside the city limits, but within the city's planning jurisdictions.

Developments with a special district and approval letters for developments in historic buffer zones.

As to all remaining agenda matters, including annexations, rezonings, planned developments, and street vacations.

This commission serves as a recommending body to the city council.

In that regard, our decisions are in the form of a recommendation presented to the city council, and the city council will make the final decision on those matters.

Subdivision approval requires the affirmative vote of six members of the planning commission.

All matters which are recommendations to the city council require majority vote for an affirmative recommendation.

At this time, I would ask do any members of the commission have any conflicts of interest as to any agenda matters before us tonight?

If so, please state for the record.

Having heard none, I would ask the staff to confirm on the record that proper notices have been given to all parties and interest as required by law as to all matters before the commission tonight.

It has.

Okay.

All right.

The following agenda, there's been some changes.

The following agenda items have been modified.

Uh S0526 Baker's Court, consisting of two lots on the one on point seven acres located 1104 16th Avenue, Council District 4.

Do I hear a motion a second to move this items on the agenda to the cases requesting to withdraw?

All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

Uh we have S0426, resurvey lot one, nutters run, consisting of three lots on 7.4 acres located at 17719 Highway 43 North, not in the city limits.

Do I hear a motion a second to move this item on the agenda to the request for continuance?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

Any comments from the commission?

With that, we will begin with approval of the minutes as the planning and zoning commissioners received the synopsis for the December 2025 meeting.

I move that we dispense with the reading of the minutes of the same unless there are any deletions, additions, or corrections.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

Staff will begin.

Good evening, Commission.

Starting off tonight with the consent agenda.

We have two items.

We did not receive any public comment, and we did not have anyone sign up out front.

Last chance for anyone have any here to speak for or against the consent agenda items of S0226 and S0326.

Having heard none, commission forwards we have consent agenda items.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

All right, moving into our cases requesting to withdraw.

Uh first up, we have three here.

If you could vote on each individually, that'd be preferred by staff.

We received one public comment.

Uh these were a companion case, and the applicant is here to request that withdrawal.

Okay.

Applicant, our petitioner.

Price begord on behalf of Half Price.

We're going to review title issues.

I would like to request to withdraw.

Any questions from Mr.

McGib?

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner we have a three companion cases that we need to take individual votes on for withdrawal.

First, we have Z 2725.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

S 10125, all those are say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Ayes have it.

Finally, SD 0625.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

Ayes have it.

All right, Commission.

One additional case requesting to withdraw.

Um and the applicant is here to request that.

Kevin Hinkle, Montgomery Ninkel Inc.

203 Harbor Road East, representing the Baker's Court and withdraw it.

May try to come up with something at a later date, but not pursuing it at this time.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Forrest have an additional withdrawal request of S0526, Baker's Court.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Ayes have it.

All right.

Next up, we have a few cases requesting to continue.

First is S 10625.

This is continued prior to notice, so no vote is needed.

Um and then we have SO426 also requesting to continue, and the applicant is here to request that continuance.

Petitioner.

Kevin Hinkle of Montgomery and Hinkle Inc.

203 Harbor Road East, Tuscaloosa.

Representing Nunter's run as to continue it, working out some issues with the county.

All right.

Commissioner Forward S0426 requesting continuance.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

All right, Commission.

Moving into our cases to be heard tonight.

First up, we have a rezoning petition.

That is Z0126.

The City of Tuscaloosa petitions to rezone approximately 11 acres located at 914 through 920, 14th Avenue East and 2 through 37 Beverly Heights from SFR4 to SFR 1.

This is Council District 5.

You can see we are just uh east of the Highlands here, um, near the University Boulevard, McFarland Boulevard interchange.

You can see that subdivision today.

Um and just to clarify, when mailers were sent, we had originally included this parcel.

Um after looking at it further, it falls more.

I'm in the adjacent subdivision, so it has been removed from this request.

Um you can see that zoning today is SFR4.

Uh the petition, the city is requesting to rezone from SFR4 to SFR1 at the request of Councilman Tyner.

Uh you can see in framework, this is identified as traditional neighborhood edge.

Uh this request does conform to the plan as well as the use.

Um, and to clarify all SFR um zonings would conform to this uh future land use character.

You can see that uh identified here.

Here are permitted uses.

You can see SFR1 only permits single family detached.

Um and that was kind of the the purpose for this request.

We received one comment in support um and one comment in opposition to this request.

Um do you have any questions for staff?

So again, this was part of framework which we worked on for how many months?

A gazillion.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah, if you want exactly.

This body approved that framework.

So from April 22 to December 24.

And city council approved as well.

That's right.

I think we had 29 meeting, 29 or 26 meetings.

I think 31 actually, I just counted them.

So the course of two years.

Yes, sir.

And now I guess my question is the why why the request in the city.

So Mr.

Towner reached out after some opposition from the neighbors uh within this area.

He had requested to rezone this to SFR1.

To just allow single family detached homes.

That's that's his.

I mean, that's the reason he's requesting it tonight, yes, sir.

Is that his rationale?

I'd really like to understand his rationale.

Yeah, that's my understanding of why he wants us up here is tonight is to is because essentially SFR four, which it is today, allows for duplexes as well as town homes.

Um, in addition to single family detached homes.

A duplex is currently being built uh by right.

Um no variances or anything like that on two Beverly Heights.

I believe the developer is at this meeting tonight and can speak more on that.

Um the area, the neighboring area ended up starting to reach out to Mr.

Tyner with concerns about that duplex being built there with the under with the um thinking that they only allowed single family detached homes on these properties.

That obviously triggered the neighborhood to respond to Mr.

Time, Councilman.

Right, yes, sir.

Because it was a duplex, nothing but the duplex being constructed there, yes, sir.

Not because of the height.

I think they're concerned about the height, but it's the same height if it's SFR1 or SFR4.

So SFR1, you could if height was a concern, then that concern is invalid because SFR1 they could still do the height.

Okay.

Zach, do you know if any parcels have changed hands during the time that we that we I do not know that I think maybe the one that's being constructed on is changes hand changed hands from January when we've implemented this new code to now?

They could speak more on that, but I'm not sure of any others that have.

How many of the owner what's the ownership makeup of Beverly Heights as far as investor related to as opposed to right?

So we have like the homestead exemption.

Um we have looked at that map, and I think there are maybe four or five uh owners who live in this in this area versus renters, I believe, or investors.

Yumbo, let me ask you a legal question from the from a city standpoint.

If we we did the rezoning, obviously during during um during framework.

And if we now go back and just flip it back to where it was, is there any legal report that anybody having there against the city or us because the damages?

Not really.

Why isn't it?

Is it not?

I mean, I guess down zoning.

I'm we're not up zone in this case.

I mean, one could argue the other way, couldn't it?

Well, it's making the property more restrictive, let's put it that way.

And they still have viable economic use of the property.

That's why it's not taking.

It appears that there's a free-standing home on every one of these lines as well already.

Correct.

So yeah.

Uh is that as if preventing the development of the property altogether?

Right.

I think the one that's being developed currently, there was a fire, and then they demolished it and rebuilt.

So you're telling me that if you had a you had a property that was zoned for a hundred apartment units, and and you could still build a single family home, that would not be a taking because you could still develop a single family home.

I know that's not the case here.

I'm just yeah, let's not get stick with apples and apples.

But completely do two units over one unit is still 100%.

Um there is a case which goes through an analysis, it's but it's very difficult to have a taking when you have a viable economic use because you have a less profitable one.

And I know we I do not like this commission being put in this position we're in here.

Um especially with the with the current neighborhood, obviously thinking that they had a SFR one adjacent to them, and year year pass, they didn't.

Now we've got a home being built by Wright in there.

Um I just really think it puts this commission in a bad position, to be honest with you.

So normally we we ask for the petitioner come forward and state their case.

Um, assuming you stated your case.

I yeah, I mean, I guess I'm just giving you the what I understand from why Mr.

Tiny.

We don't have we don't have any representation to argue, truly argue.

You're the you're the you're the staff that has to negotiate this, but there's no petitioners gonna stand up here and give us their case.

Now we'll have some people that will speak for or against, but I I feel like there should be a representative that's driving this to state, you know, give us a case.

I I agree with Bill.

I I I you know it's one thing for us to argue for the city's right, but if we've got the right information and the right ammunition, if we don't understand what the rationale is from the petitioner, you being a petitioner who can't explain it.

I got a problem trying to make a decision.

Okay.

I think that's on the record.

So I guess any other comments before we call up.

Do we have a list of anybody who cares to speak?

We didn't have anyone sign up.

No one signed up.

Okay, we're still gonna open it up though.

Right.

I you know, Zach, I I really would have felt better about some sort of decision on this.

Oh no, that didn't.

I I really would have felt better about some sort of decision this had there been some conversations between the two sides with the city and the complaints, I guess, and the current current turn on of that.

And apparently there wasn't, is that correct?

I'm not sure.

I know that the person who is constructing it today is here constructing the duplex today, is here in person, so they could answer if they had talked to Mr.

Tyner.

But I know that a lot of the neighbors in the area that have reached out to staff have talked to Mr.

Tyner.

Okay.

Well, we don't have anyone has signed up.

I think there are representatives from both sides.

I think be worth hearing, at least let's just body hear it.

It might not I still think there needs to be a representative of the city here.

So again, we do have the ability to have someone, let's go anybody who's who's in favor of this.

I'm gonna allow four people, and you're limited.

So would anyone care to speak for the for their calls?

Please come forward, state your name and address for the record.

I'm sorry.

I'm hard of hearing, so I don't know exactly what's being said.

I I do know that there's a sign-up somewhere that I missed.

Okay.

Give us your name.

Her name and address for the record, and you've got a couple of minutes to have your Richard Evans, 25 Beverly Heights.

We've been at 25 Beverly Heights for 30 years.

My wife and I.

We have raised all of our children there.

And we are represent I am unfortunately apparently the only representative from our neighborhood tonight.

Can I ask you a question on the map?

Where's 25?

Just out of curiosity.

Can y'all point it out?

I'm not 100% sure.

Directly behind the Holy Cross Lutheran Church.

Oh.

Which is diagonally across from number two Beverly Heights.

Is it that one that I circled on the screen there?

Correct.

Okay.

Yep.

Go ahead.

Okay.

So we've we've been there for 30 years.

We've raised our children there.

We've survived a tornado, a devastating fire, and the loss of a child in this house.

We have a vested interest in this neighborhood and our neighbors.

So we were disturbed to find that this neighborhood had been, after 70 something years as a single family neighborhood, been rezoned without any notice to any of the neighbors of our neighborhood or the neighbors in the in the highlands who are also affected.

It had been rezoned from single family to SFR 4.

The only reason I found that out was I walked in one day and saw two permits tacked to a tree and called the city and was told that it is now as of last year, first of last year, SFR4.

The way this was done was disturbing enough, but then when this project was uh was begun, we realized what an enormous project it is.

It it's uh three bedrooms and three baths, one on top of the other.

So a six-bedroom, six-bath construction in what had previously been on a lot that had previously been a three-bedroom, two-bath house.

Our concern is with increased traffic that that this is obviously going to uh involve increased traffic and noise and congestion.

Um it's going to impact adversely impact our enjoyment of our homes.

Um the parking, I'm told is designated as behind the building.

Um I can assure you, having lived in this neighborhood as long as I have that people will be parking on the street.

They're not going to navigate this little narrow driveway around to the back of the building, not the six residents, minimum six residents and their friends.

They're not going to navigate around to the back of the building, they're going to park on the street or in the par church parking lot across the street.

So we're we are looking at a considerable amount of additional traffic noise and congestion.

The the larger concern, and this is where uh the highlands are involved, although the highlands are affected to this by this anyway, even uh aside from anything else that happens.

Uh with this current zoning, if there were another calamity that took out another house, or if another property owner sold to a developer, we can assume that there would be no further uh consideration of the neighbors in any other uh development than there was for this one.

And you really honestly have to see this thing to believe how big it is.

It's all out of proportion to the neighborhood.

It's technically, I guess, two floors, but it looks like three floors, and the neighbors behind this house can't can no longer see the sky from their backyard from their the windows in the back of their houses of their house.

So we're we're concerned with the way this is done, has been done with no notice to anyone for any input, and we're concerned about what any further development might look like in the in the event of another house fire or or any other calamity that would take out another property, or someone is persuaded to sell to a developer.

Mr.

Evans, you're you're you're one of the handful of owners that live in the neighborhood, correct?

That's correct.

Um I wrote through there just to kind of get a lay of the land.

It looks like there's currently a lot of, I guess the remainder of the houses are investment properties and probably being rented out to the there are a lot of rentals.

When we moved in 30 years ago, there were uh an awful lot of elderly people as we are now.

When we moved in 30 years ago there were uh an awful lot of elderly people as we are now and those folks have died out or been moved to um assisted living or whatever and and their families have either sold out or rented the properties to a great extent we are not the only owner occupants in this neighborhood.

Unfortunately Dr.

McClendon who owned the the uh veterinarian clinic um that is currently behind his house uh was not able to be here tonight I'm here are you here we're here okay well I I didn't realize that Dr.

McClendon lives in our neighborhood and his sister she's lived here Susan if I may say for 72 years we we've been here a while Dr.

McClendon and his sister have been here uh twice as long at least um there are other owner occupants but those of us most directly affected by this have been here for quite a while did we see hands of people who are here in support of this yeah can anybody raise your hand who's here I guess to support this is being requested who's here to support this okay 10 12 okay I got the blocks okay these folks obviously these are folks from the Highlands who are directly affected and concerned about their property values and Dr.

McClendon and and his family we are concerned about our quality of life.

Okay Mr Evans you you you you mentioned that if there was a another house fire or a catastrophe that that that yeah the the house that's currently being built the I guess you call it a house the city calls it a duplex we call it the lodge but anyway it was there was a three bedroom two bath house there uh just uh but in the a year or so ago how old is the how old is the Highlands 20s so the so the houses in the highlands are built materially in the 20s I suppose and I'm sorry I'm guessing that the houses in the Highlands were probably not large houses at the time I mean back in the 20s I don't think they were no there houses that were built in the 20s are still there like my house was 259.

Dina let's be sure in top of the I'm sorry sorry so do you know how tall your house is I have no idea how tall my house is well I'm just saying that so if somebody if one of the houses was torn down for a fire right I'm assuming they wouldn't necessarily be held to that one level right I mean is that they can build two stories in a SFR one what is the height that they allow that's a 35 feet 35 feet in SFR4 SFR4 feet and then SFR1.

I guess one of the points I'm making is I know some I know some people in the house that have six bedroom houses and I know that some of those houses are built on several lots I don't know how big the lots are I guess like like some of these so some of these at the entrance of the Highlands that might be a single lot but like a lot of my friends have a lot of houses in the islands are built on several lots but either way I'm not sure that you can be protected from the height at least the way it is right now.

I don't think that is councilman Tyler asking for a height restriction we don't know what he's asking for.

My my understanding in conversations with councilman Tyner is he's simply asked there's nothing apparently that can be done about this he's asking though that the the neighborhood be rezoned to SFR1 single family residence.

That's my understanding in conversations with him that's that's correct.

So this house would remain zoned for this I mean he's building by rights they'll be completed but then it would be reclassified as SFR1 which I think opens up a whole different can of worms for for that gentleman because then he's got financing and insurance issues and lots of issues so be nonconforming Mr.

Evans you said that you did not know that this rezoning had occurred in your neighborhood there was no notice.

And was told there would be a duplex built there.

And I asked at the time if this was not a single family residence neighborhood or we went not zoned for single family residents.

I didn't know the term SFR1 but I knew as single family and I was told that it is now SFR4.

She said, since when was her question?

I called back and was told as of last year, this had been rezoned.

No notice to anyone.

I have a part of the framework.

Yes, and that was my question.

So this was part of framework, so the notices for this rezoning would have come during framework when we were going through all of that.

Is that correct, Mr.

Pines?

Right.

So the 31, the two-year 31 meeting.

All of those notices was about that.

Was how to get that was that was the process.

So once it was any notices to residents of Beverly Heights or a residents of affected properties adjacent.

I understand.

Your web page, that that information was freely available, to which I responded, who monitors the city's web pages?

No, no offense, but it's not what I typically do.

There's no unless I unless I have some reason to believe that I need to do that, I don't go to the city's web pages to see what you're doing.

Yeah, I just wanted to clear that up.

That this rezoning came about during framework.

So after framework, and it was suggested by all of the community engagement meetings that this be rezoned.

Then now that the development that you're talking about, the duplex or the apartment complex, it was already in the specific zoning, so there was no need for the notices, correct?

Correct.

At that point, okay.

Done by right.

Yes, it was done by right.

Let's let's I'm sure there are we got three more that can speak, and then we'll hear from some of those opposed, and then we're gonna kind of figure out how we're gonna play this.

So anyone care to speak against this request.

So anybody wants to speak against, I want I want that side to come first.

So wait, no, again, wait, or four.

I'm sorry, four.

Like Mr.

anybody's in Mr.

Evans's camp, come forward.

I would like to speak for the rezoning back to you're in the right spot.

Give us your name and address for the record, please.

All right, thank you.

Um may you please the commission.

Um, my name is Herschel Hamner.

My wife Beth and I live in 104 of the Highlands, so we're a resident of the Highlands.

But the uh the backyard of the uh the we're on the easternmost part of the highlands.

Uh our backyards um touch the backyards of Beverly Heights.

And we're really close to this.

I'm gonna use the term loosely, duplex.

Um the back corner of our backyard is just a several feet away from the back corner of the duplex.

So when the when the rezoning was done, I guess uh last year, or whenever the I think it was a citywide uh rezoning package.

Um, and I know you were mentioning the notice there, the lack of notice, but I won't go into that.

Um the the problem with the structure is you anticipate that a duplex, I mean we didn't know anything about it, we didn't know anything about what was being built there.

It was just a fire that occurred and and the the property was dozed.

But when you think of a duplex, it's generally side by side, but this one is one floor above another floor, three bedrooms and three baths on each floor, and the top, I know you were mentioning the height a few minutes ago, but the it's gigantic.

I mean, I'm not exaggerating.

It's gigantic.

It is um it's bigger than far bigger than anything in it in Beverly Heights, and probably um larger than most of the houses in the Highlands.

But the houses that are directly affected in the Highlands are the ones on our street, the easternmost street, and the property values will definitely go down.

Um, and if there are other structures built like this, which would be authorized, and I think it's this one is a quote duplex.

I don't even know how tall a townhouse can be, but it would completely change the character of the neighborhood as far as the houses and the single family residence of all of Beverly Heights, and it would have an effect on all of the houses in the same row on the same street uh in the highlands.

Uh it it it would just be a game changer.

And the surprise was the size.

Nobody had any any you know knowledge that it would be something like this.

So it was a shock.

All we're all we're asking is um respectfully to please rezone this back to single family one, so that it will not affect all the residents of Beverly Heights, and it will not affect the residents of the Highlands, and particularly the residents on the eastern side that abut Beverly Heights.

And it will not affect the residents of the Highlands, and particularly the residents on the eastern side that abut Beverly Heights.

We're just asking for your consideration and respectfully requesting that you do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else in support of two more spots, and then we're gonna go to those who are in favor or opposed to this.

Unveil Barksdale, 920, 14th Avenue East.

Um my family's own that property for 50 years.

I currently live there for about 15.

This was my parents' home before I took it over.

Which one are you, sir?

Which house?

Uh if you turn in on the main street, I'm thinking fourth house on the right.

Okay.

Y'all circle that staff.

Uh back up to the highlands.

Okay.

This uh monstrosities about two houses down from where I live.

My issue is not really so much that big structure is that uh none of us had any knowledge that our neighborhood was being rezoned to this status.

And if this doesn't change, there's no doubt in my mind that some of these rental homes are gonna sell and we'll start seeing a whole lot more of these big old duplex monsters, and it's just gonna turn our neighborhood into a uh a mixed use ghetto.

Parking is terrible there now, and I guarantee you the parking on this duplex uh is gonna be all out in the street.

I can't imagine that many people in that one house and what the parking situation is gonna be.

And this is gonna be right in the mouth of that neighborhood.

But my my issue is the rezoning.

It's not so much this duplex is that our neighborhood got rezoned without our knowledge under some program y'all keep talking about when y'all's ordinance says that if we're in 300 foot of rezoning, we're supposed to get a letter being being notified.

But I don't know what happened in this process.

But I think it's only fair y'all put us back to SF SFR one and stop this cancer on our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

All right, one more from the in favor of camp.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Last call.

All right, let's hear all right.

Last last person for name and address for the record, please.

Um Mitchell Loper in 100 of the Highlands live next door to Herschel, so we back up right to Beverly Heights.

I'm an investment advisor with Warrior Investment Group.

We manage half a billion dollars, a lot of local money here.

So we focus on our clients daily, and that's the only issue I had is that we just weren't notified.

I got a letter for this meeting, and I understand and respect what y'all do, but we weren't notified.

We would have been here to have more questions earlier, but I'm sitting there watching client money daily.

I'm not watching it like online.

And I'm a like respect, like I said, respectfully what this board does in committee, but I just wanted just would have liked a letter so we could have got not gotten to this point.

So that's our last statement.

But I'm fifth generation Tuscaloosa.

I just had Price McGifford fully redo my house.

I love Tuscaloosa.

There's UA parents that drive through the Highlands and say this place is beautiful.

I'll I'm out walking my dog, and they're like, this place is awesome.

It helps sell the university.

And I understand that most of the the city has moved north of the river.

My family's originally from downtown, my grandparents still live in Gillswood, but Highlands is one of the few neighborhoods that's like family-oriented left, and we're just trying to protect some of the character of the city, which is beneficial to UA and Tuscaloosa.

So appreciate what y'all do, and we'd like to go back to SR1 is my comment.

Thank you.

Just so we're clear, you understand that the the developments happen there right now is by right.

He didn't have to come for anybody, or didn't have to, he's building it by the right of the current zoning.

That's correct.

I'm not talking to moving forward.

The current current builder is doing it by law.

I just wish I would have been notified in 2024.

Not that I don't respect that y'all had was it 31 meetings.

I respect what y'all do, but I was working for my clients.

I need a letter in the mail like I got for this one.

That's all I asked.

If I had had that, we would have been here, which is been impossible to do.

We had to do that citywide, probably.

Let me let me let me let me say something.

You know, we're sitting up here, y'all are telling us you weren't notified.

No letters were sent.

This was a citywide program.

It went over for on for over two years.

We sent we had it was in the paper, it was all over the internet, it was all over the website that this was going on.

I'm I'm sorry that you y'all somebody had your head a hole and you didn't see this happen, but it's happened, okay?

So we're trying to we're trying to deal with it right now.

We're being we're being this commission has been put in a position by a city councilman that did not come up here and make his recommendations so we can understand his reasonings.

And potentially you had a town hall meetings or participated in town hall meetings prior to this.

We wouldn't be in this position.

But we are in this position.

Right.

So I I'm sorry you weren't notified.

I'm sorry you didn't get the paper, I'm sorry you didn't read, I'm sorry you didn't hear about it.

But everybody, most of the majority of Tusk closed the heart.

So that's not an excuse to meet.

Well okay.

I I respectfully understand and but just wanted to make my point, but not everybody is in the real estate business.

I understand.

I'm in the construction business, I take care of my clients just like you take care of your billion dollar.

We respect you.

I was just saying that it is the highlands does matter to the city, and I just think keeping preserving that area for the university matters.

So thanks for y'all's time.

Mr.

Loker, guess what?

I attended majority of those 24 meetings, too.

Yeah.

I understand, sir.

Thank you.

Okay.

I respect what y'all do too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that concludes those who have the ability to speak in favor of this request.

Now, anyone care to speak in opposition of this request by the city of Tuscalo, send the city council person.

Again, name and address the record, please.

Uh David Furman, 6.0 Vista, I live across the street.

Um I just want to point out, I feel like I've done nothing wrong here.

I'm only building under what current code allows.

Um I know this was changed after framework, and I bought it after it was rezoned to SFR4.

But I'm investing over a half a million dollars in this project.

I've already borrowed the money.

Construction is underway, and I know I'll be granted a non-conforming use if it goes to SFR1, but I have some concerns.

If this thing blows away in an EF4 tornado, you know, I'm gonna be stuck building back a single family home.

Um, you know, and houses in that neighborhood are roughly selling for about 250,000, and I'm probably gonna spend 650,000 in here.

So I know you'll say, well, you have insurance, but you and I both know after the tornado, if you had lost a house, we lost 16.

That insurance doesn't come in here and just pay you replacement cost value.

They're gonna pay you actual cost value, and then they're gonna make you rebuild back to get the remainder portion of your insurance.

And it that's I just kind of stand to potentially suffer a financial loss should something happen to this duplex.

Um I don't sell a lot of real estate, we buy and hold.

Uh another issue with the non-conforming use I kind of have is what if I ever did have to sell this?

You know, a lot of lenders made red flag this financing on it to a buyer because of the nonconforming use.

So there's just some potential for risk here if you're me and my little family.

So but um even if it did just get destroyed, and I had to rebuild back in SFR one.

My lot is 7,800 square feet and 80 feet of width.

It's my understanding, unless Zach, you can tell me different.

I don't even meet the minimum criteria to build a single family home back in SFR one.

Because I think you need 12,000 square feet and 85 feet of width.

So what do you do then if you're me if you got to build back a home?

Do you have to have to come back up here and seek a variance to pull a building permit?

Can I stop you there, Mr.

Furman?

Is that accurate?

Can you so one of the reasons that this board and the commit and the council had voted to do this as SFR four?

And why we brought this forward as SFR4 is the lot sizes.

Because the lot sizes for SFR one are 12,000 square feet.

I don't think any of these lot sizes are 12,000 square feet.

And so that's what we took as one of our criteria through the framework process is the lot sizes in relation to what we were going to rezone it as.

So uh to Mr.

Furman's point, if he were to want to build a house back, he could build a house back, but he would be very heavily restricted.

It's gonna be a lot smaller of a house than what you could do for an SFR1 home.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Zach.

Um, and look, I got a lot of friends in Highlands and neighbors, and I want my dog in there two to three days a week in Beverly Heights and the Highlands, and I've been a landlord in this town for 20 years, and it's my reputation, and I don't take it lightly.

So if you ever have a problem with anybody at any of my duplexes, houses that we either own or manage, you can always call me and I'll take care of it.

But I guess what I'm asking is, you know, maybe a compromise here to leave my property alone to SFR4 and maybe even the guy that fronts University Boulevard and use it as a buffer and maybe have 30 days to talk to the neighbors of the Highlands and Beverly Heights to see if that would be something they'd be okay with.

Were you contacted or have you contacted the city councilman?

No.

I have not.

He hasn't reached out to you either.

No.

Okay.

Why couldn't why couldn't we just give them a continuance and let them have a conversation?

We we usually ask petition.

Pardon me?

Nobody's requested a continuance.

I know.

I'm I know.

I was gonna ask if we can do that.

I'm just saying, I'm just offering up a suggestion.

We usually if when someone comes up with the neighborhood, we usually ask them to speak to the adjoining neighborhood.

Right.

Right?

Right.

So why couldn't we kind of through through Mr.

Pond asked Mr.

Tyner to reach out to the neighborhood and come up with some potential solutions because I I don't think that sounds that unreasonable because he's already built the building.

Right.

Right.

I mean and it doesn't sound like he cares that the rest of the neighborhood is owned SFR1.

He just don't want to lose his can we do it?

I can't speak for the rest of Beverly Heights.

I can only speak for the one property and the only property I own in here.

I'm assuming everybody in Beverly Heights know.

I mean, I'm assuming it wouldn't have been zoned SFR4 unless somebody in Beverly Heights had wanted it.

Now you said it might have been because of the size of the lot, lot size.

So that's interesting.

Uh I don't think we've ever had this.

This is a new one.

Can we do that?

Can we do that?

Sorry, can we do what?

Can we ask for a continuance to for them to talk y'all are able to continue?

Ultimately, the councilman Tiner is gonna vote on this.

We're a recommending body, right?

Yeah, yeah.

So they're gonna vote on this with his input to the council.

So all we're asking him is to contact his own constituents and go through it for maybe with a with a meeting, right?

He would do that anyway, I'm sure.

Legally, can this we can't ask for a continuous?

I mean, it's it'd be it's ideal, but that's what I'm asking.

Can we legally do that?

I I mean you're as far as the petitioner, Zach.

You're the petitioner.

Ask for it.

I would say you know, it might be beneficial to have a vote at this meeting tonight, you know, and y'all can continue if you chose to do that as your decision, but um, but then Mr.

Tiner could reach out in the interim between planning commission and council to Mr.

Furman.

Well, I I while I appreciate what you say, I I think Mr.

Rumsey's correct.

I don't I'm not sure we've had one this in depth in this situation, and I fear that there may be some others down the road that didn't get right, didn't didn't know about this, and they they're their subdivision, albeit this is a special case.

I think this being a special case, in my opinion, I think it's a good place to hit the pause button and let these groups have conversations with the guy that brought it before this to see if hey, we want to vote and then it go to the city council, right?

And then we all know what's gonna happen there, and or we make put a pause, let these two groups try to come up with some sort of compromise and see if it works out in itself.

I mean because I I think to that point, I think that's gonna give us more of a comfort level to vote with a clear conscience to do the do it that way.

That's that's why I asked that question.

So I agree with I don't like kicking the can down the road anymore, but I think this is the thing that needs to be kicked.

Because we may like like uh Tim said, we may have somebody that's does that wants to have a voice and they won't get it, you know, without that meeting together.

So I mean there may be five people that are planning on duplexes that are about to correct that they may be about to lose that right.

Furman may be the only one and if he is, then at least Councilman Tyner could discern that and cut it off right there.

That's correct.

Well said Mr.

Furman continue if you like.

I hope that's not an unreasonable request.

Um also I understand the concerns of the neighbors.

I mean, I get what you're talking about the height, but I think the height in SFR 4 and SFR 1 are 35 feet, and the guy next door to me is probably as tall as the one I'm building right now.

Um and Zach, I sent you a rendering of what it would look like.

I'm happy to share that to kind of show the people of Beverly Heights and the Highlands what it's gonna look like.

I mean, it's not gonna be some cheap throw-together building.

I mean, uh I'm gonna spend considerable amount of money and take good care of it.

I'm a local landlord, so and I live across the street in Buena Vista.

If you got a problem, I'm happy to take care of it.

So and there's parking around back.

Yes, you go through the left side of the property, and there's enough cars to park six easily, and I think eight.

Okay.

I I don't I don't think I have any further comments, but if you got any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Let's let I think there might be some others that of interest on your behalf.

Would anyone care to support position Mr.

Furman?

Please come forward.

State your name and address for the record, please.

Also to clarify on the continuances while Mr.

Quarter's coming up.

The commission may on its own motion continue the hearing on any petition other than a subdivision plat.

To such future future date as it may determine.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, Blake Corter, 1306, Queen City, Tuscaloosa 35401.

We own one house in here, like Mr.

Furman, we're we're lot 15, we rebuilt after the tornado.

Main concerns are for framework.

Our our our construction company, our industry was involved in framework.

We were up here for a lot of those 31 meetings that you guys were.

And a lot of time and effort was put into that.

And I worry I I'm not a big arguer of the precedent, but I worry the precedent that this sets for other places in our city, you know, uh neighborhoods don't like what the what the adjoining property is owned, and now they can just come to a councilman and come back up here and and undo it.

Um I think that puts you guys and and ladies in an awkward position.

Uh primarily in Beverly Heights, I think SFR1, every house there would be uh um noncompliant with SFR one based on the minimum square footage size.

So if another tornado comes through, I don't know how you would rebuild any of those houses under SFR one.

Um I think Mr.

Pond said that that's why they went to SFR four.

Um but yeah, mainly those two points that the undoing of framework concerns me with the time and effort that was put in there from all the stakeholder groups in the city, and then also just from a personal standpoint of having a piece of property that I can't improve if something happens.

Are you are you willing to meet with the adjoining neighbors in conjunction with a yeah, I mean by by led by Mr.

Tiner then?

I don't come up here much.

My brother comes up here a lot more, but every time we come up here, y'all ask have you met with neighbors?

And if we haven't, y'all kick it back to us to meet with neighbors.

I think that's fair.

Mr.

Corter, let me let me say something about precedence, especially in this case.

We've got a sitting councilman that this body serves as a recommendation to the city council.

But this decision goes to the city council, the city councilman has influence over the city council.

I think at this case, this precedence needs to be set with ability for both sides to have a clear conversation and try to figure this out.

Agree.

Fair enough.

I agree with that 100%.

That's what you would ask of me if I were the petitioner to take a subdivision and and rezone the entire thing.

I think that's fair.

Thank you, Mr.

Gordon.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak against this request?

Okay.

All right, having heard none, we'll close and uh I think there's Mr.

Hanker has his hand up.

I'm sorry.

Mr.

Chairman, do I have the right 30 seconds?

Come back up.

New information.

About 60.

You know, I don't I don't want to get in the weeds on anything.

I don't get in the weeds on mediations.

We didn't in court, we tried not to do that.

But we we the notice provisions, I mean, I understand that this happened as a package, but also honestly, nobody goes to a the city's website to look at we didn't get notice individually.

I understand it may be impractical to do that for a citywide zoning, but it sounds like we're negligent because we didn't find out about it, but nobody notified us at all.

Homeowners associations builders, I mean Judge Hammer, you know I have a lot of respect for you, but I I don't buy that argument.

It went and it went on too long and it was too public, and there were uh there was every effort that could possibly be made to reach out to city residents to participate.

And so I just can't agree that that that it sneaked up on you somehow.

Um I don't know what else.

Oh, I can't imagine what else anybody here is.

If one person in the islands had known about it, we would have all known about it.

And um anyway, I won't get down the weeds, I'm sorry.

If there's some kind of um are we saying that could there be a mere moratorium until a final decision is reached for no no new permits to be issued?

Until it goes through and well, I don't know about the moratorium on new permits, to be honest with you.

It would push it, it would push it another 30 days.

Um I can't answer that, but what I can answer is that I I think that's the best option for this particular issue at this current junction.

Okay, and and we were we were we're here tonight just to ask for the rezoning back.

You know, that that's what we're asking.

But um, but you understand that you understand that sounds like Beverly Heights was very lucky in this tornado because I know a lot of the houses in Highlands were hurt.

I mean a lot of the Beverly Heights was injured.

So in other words, Beverly Heights was was was very fortunate because if if a lot of those houses had been completely blown away, I I mean they were they were I mean, because how did they build back if the lots are not of the size?

Did they have to ask for variance?

So they would just have to meet the setbacks.

So if you know the setback in SFR1 for a rear is going to be 35.

I think in the SFR4, it's 25.

So you have a smaller parameter that you can build in.

Is that the same under R1?

Yes.

Yeah, or we had R1 and R4.

Something was destroyed under the F under R1.

How were they able to build back then?

You're saying but just by setbacks?

So it was zoned RD2 or RD1 prior to framework.

So was that?

Uh because it was part of the tusk the Tuscaloosa forward plan with the mixed use districts.

What would what would be comparable to RD1 now?

Um, RD1 did only permit single family detached homes.

No, my quote, my question is we kind of went back to R1 became SFR1, right?

Right.

So what was RD1?

What did RD1 turn into in the SFR world?

So it'd probably be comparable to an SFR4 or something like that.

Is that is that from a lot size perspective.

Yeah, and SFR3 has a smaller lot size, and that would be only single family detached homes, so that's an option as well.

So in reality, then we'd not we're not really taking it from SFR four to SFR1 would not be comparable to saying that we're going to take it just 10 years ago to Right, because it was R1 prior to the tornado.

It was R1 prior to the tornado and then SF and then R D1 after the tornado.

Case in point.

Yeah.

These are the things that current owners need to understand.

And these are the things that need to be vetted out prior to prior to coming up here, all upset at us.

And I need to have these conversations.

We need to educate.

What does RD stand for?

What I mean.

Residential detached one.

And really, from where I'm coming from is Mr.

Tiner, although very he's very influential in this city and has been for years.

Just like we would Brock Quarter or quarter, the quarters.

If they were building a subdivision or commercial development adjoining, what's the one down in McFarland?

We asked them ad nauseum to communicate with the with the neighborhood.

I think Mr.

Tiner, if they can have a meeting, and they either come up with some solutions or they don't, and we don't find ourselves in any worse spot.

At least we get to vote with a little bit more information, right?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Hammond.

Thank you.

All right, we're going to close.

And I I think everybody's kind of stated the case.

I don't know if there's uh I know what the I think the desire is to have happen.

Question is, is anybody care to make a motion for a continuance?

I must second.

So I got a motion and a second for a continuance.

For 30 days, right?

I mean, we never it's usually 30 days, right?

Okay.

And I and before we do that, I think we ought to state that I think it's been stated very well why we want to do it, but I think we should really implore the councilman to really work with all parties here and and hopefully be able to come to a good understanding.

I'm not saying compromise, but an understanding that we we got to be careful precedent that we could be setting here.

I think we've seen it happen a couple of times in this last six months, and I've been here 17 years, and I've never seen it like this.

And I worry about these precedents and then you know, the power of certain individuals, you know, sometimes absolute power could corrupt absolutely.

So I worry about that.

This seems like a charming single family neighborhood.

Okay, it seems that way.

All right.

But it was rezoned.

I can I can walk in both sets of shoes.

If I if I if I inherited a lot or if I bought a lot and after following that rezoning, and then you just flippantly zoned it back, I'd I'd I'd probably have an attorney uh call you.

Okay.

Now that being said, you look at the neighborhood if they can stop it now.

But there may be 10 Mr.

Furman's lurking out there right now, watching this.

So I think that needs to be reconciled right now.

And and before before we get real legal, before we get knee deep in some lawsuits, because it could be considered flippant.

I mean, we we rezone it based on the size of the lots, which makes sense according to what Zach's saying that it didn't meet the requirements of SFR1.

We rezone it, and now he catches heat from a you know very nice neighborhood.

Both neighborhoods are nice.

I don't think we I mean both neighborhoods are nice, family neighborhoods.

And I and I understand that.

But Mr.

Furman really did nothing wrong.

He just was following the code and he was looking for an opportunity.

The question is, how many more Mr.

Furman's are there?

And I think if this were any other petitioner, we would ask him to communicate with the neighborhood.

He needs to communicate with his constituents anyway.

And so I think we can we can come back in a month from now, and I bet we have a clearer picture.

Hopefully, they'll they'll they'll come up with a solution.

Whether it's Mr.

Furman's or you know, Mr.

Quarter may he may be, you know, he may have a problem with that, but at least they can get a room together, and we don't have to find we don't have to be a part of that, right?

All right, so we had the motion.

We may be extra comments, like a voice vote on this.

All those in favor of continues for 30 days, say aye.

Those opposed, eyes have it.

Y'all are free to you're free to leave you like to.

There's a lot of people here that we'll take a give you a couple of minutes to exit if you'd like.

Okay, okay.

I don't want to.

Oh, it's one of the open.

Oh, really?

All right, everyone.

All parties, please exit the chamber, please.

Yeah, absolutely.

I didn't want to see that.

I was thinking that.

I was about to say that, but I just didn't want to get it.

Damn, how noisy aren't they?

All right, should we keep rolling?

Speaker allowed.

We have a companion case, Brixton, uh, three parts here.

We have an annexation, rezoning, and a subdivision.

This is 57 acres between Old Colony Road and Forest Oaks Lane, 144 single-family lots as a general plan development.

Uh getting into this, you can see that piece of property today.

We're just um adjacent to the towns near the dam.

See that lot today is vacant.

And you can see that area to be annexed in in the blue hatch.

Um, you might recognize this property as we looked at the the maps and the names.

So just a little history.

Uh, you saw this April 2024 as Lou's landing.

Uh, it was denied, came back January 2025, was continued to the February meeting, uh, where it was approved and recommended for the annexation rezoning in April 2025.

The rezoning was approved by council.

Um, since then the annexation has expired.

So they are back now with the same requests you saw in February.

Uh so getting back to the annexation petition, they're asking to annex for the residential subdivision.

This identified as a primary expansion area.

Here are our department comments on the annexation.

Moving into the rezoning, entering city limits as SFR1, they'd like to rezone to GPD, uh general plan development, 144 single family lots, seven open spaces.

You can see the surrounding zonings today.

Uh, they'd like to do this rezoning for that residential subdivision.

You can see that overall site plan here, uh, which we'll get into detail here.

But looking a little bit at the plan develop narrative, 57 acres, 144 lots, uh, four phases, single-family homes, uh, sixty uh foot width lots as well as the state lots.

They're looking at 2.5 dwelling units per acre.

Um, and they're looking to do the general plan development to protect uh the natural areas uh that would provide recreation.

They'll have architectural guidelines, and they're looking at a price between 500 and 850K.

Now, zooming in, uh looking at the plan more in detail, starting at the north end, this is off of Forest Oaks Lane.

Those 60 foot lots as we continue to move south, as well as the open space uh till we finally get down to the end near Old Colony Road.

Uh, here are the typical lots, though the 60-foot standard lot on the left and the state lot standard on the right.

You can see the setbacks proposed.

Uh here's a summary of all the lot sizes.

Um, so looking at 135, 60 foot wide standard lots, nine estate lots, overall 144 units at 2.5 units per acre.

Uh, this is just a sample of some of the floor plans and elevations that were in the packet.

Uh so just a couple different options here, uh, more detail in the packet.

And here's a sample of what a streetscape may look like.

Here's the entrance off of old colony, and some signage.

Lastly, looking at subdivision, so 144 lots, seven open spaces.

Here's that plat with contours without two variance requests we received four comments, three in opposition, one um kind of with some more questions and more neutral.

Do you have any questions for staff?

So this basically just expired.

That's correct.

And I'll ask this other petitioner as well.

Nothing has changed.

That's correct.

Just clock ran out.

Yep.

Okay.

Petitioner.

Um Bobby Isaacson, 60 Adventures.

Uh, a few familiar faces up here and uh a few new ones.

It's a unfortunate for us to have to come back in front of y'all.

Uh, this was a lapse administrative oversight, uh, I guess on our end and and and some others.

Uh we delayed the annexation process uh for the for the benefit of the uh land cellar as we were working through the civil plans.

Um we were unaware that that that step of annexation that was supposed to follow suit, I guess, uh, on the following agenda, did not take place.

Um we have proceeded, I guess, in good faith with the civil plans and have submitted them to the uh city engineering department, and they have uh reviewed them in good faith as well.

So um I think as the city clerk indicated, this project is the same form that you approved approximately 11 months ago, and we're asking for your consideration to approve it again tonight.

One of the things I think we were also we talked a lot about buffering from the towns and all those, I think we all got to a good spot there.

One of the other things we were really, I think, high on as well, and you kind of agreed to, I believe, originally, was the you know a lot of the building that was done in the towns and waterfall and high grove, all that area, some of those builders were talked about being part of this project.

Is that still the plan?

That is very much still the plan.

Okay.

Have you all gotten to?

I mean, I've had a year.

Have y'all worked on finalizing those arrangements?

We recently sent out a request for proposals from different builders.

Um, I think one of them was actually here earlier tonight.

And um we are waiting to choose on which builder we proceed forward with, but we have not chosen a builder as of today.

You know, one of the things that we've got comments, one of the things we always hear about every development, new development is adjoining neighbors are gonna talk about property values, uh traffic, schools, etc.

I've yet to hear ever of a neighborhood that was built next to a neighborhood that property values went down.

I'd love to have an example of that that's the case.

The reason I think I like that so much is because we know the quality of product that these local builders built in these neighborhoods we I just mentioned.

And that would be a from my perspective, a very comforting thing to know that those same type of builders would build a very good product in that area, and that protects those adjoining neighborhoods.

So that's why I asked that question.

Because again, we hear it every if we if we succumb to that argument that it's going to decrease my property facts, we would not have any neighborhoods anywhere because everybody would be saying no.

We would we wouldn't have the towns.

So those in opposition probably are built in the house that somebody was against.

Anyway, I I got a little soapbox here.

I apologize, but I just want to I just want to I want to re I want to know that what we talked about and we agreed to a year ago plus what we're gonna see here.

That still remains the same, and just as a as a quick reminder, I guess the to the to the body.

Um our C C N's we're fashioned off for the off the towns as well as well as our architectural restrictions, those remain in place in this development.

And uh I believe we have some 65 pages worth of uh CCNRs that cover our development restrictions, including the open space requirements, uh uh types of plantings.

It's uh the type of mailboxes, it's it's a very restrictive set.

And we and and just to also reiterate one other thing is uh we said publicly in this body form, I believe last time that DR Horton would not be a part of this project.

I just want to reiterate that that is we didn't say that.

Um I'm I'm I myself am reiterating that uh to the body public today.

So any other questions for the petitioner.

Mike, no, we we what did we do with the we're we're still opening up the road to the towns, right?

Yeah, yes, sir.

That that's gonna remain like it was.

We we agreed to that last time.

We did in the uh to his point.

We've we've gone through a plan review, issued the engineer some comments, and I actually received that revised set of plans today.

So we'll be making sure the comments were addressed and standing ready to approve the LDP once once all the approvals are done.

I I still would like to see some work on that Yorkshire Lane transition right there where it ties into it where it doesn't go to that abrupt change in pavement build up.

I'm sure that y'all can come up with something during the LDP phase that would complement that, correct?

Thank you.

Um the only change I saw was the fountain in the front.

Was that did I did was that there on the last at the signage at the front the front?

It was a picture of it.

It should be the same monumentation signage from uh from prior.

Yeah, so you're gonna have a uh up a fountain correct.

We will have fountain.

Okay.

I didn't I didn't remember seeing that.

A strong focus was put on the uh the front because any other questions for the petitioner.

Thank you, sir.

Uh we have any sign-up sheets for this.

We did have to all the sign-up sheets were blank, so no one signed up for any of the cases.

Out of courtesy, we'll ask anyone to care to speak against these requests.

Please come forward.

Anyone care to speak in favor of this, please come forward.

Okay.

Having heard none.

All right, commission before us, we have a companion case, the Brixton, which everybody's understanding is there's been no changes from what we previously approved over a year ago.

That being said, do we want to take the annexation first, or are we gonna do the okay?

All right, commission for us, we have annexation zero one twenty-six annexation of 57 acres.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, those opposed, please have it.

Commissioner Force, we have GPD 0126, the Brixton.

That was 57 acres.

Uh, from SFR1 to GPD.

Uh I have a motion and a second.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Commissioner we have before us PS0126, the bricks and the 144 single family lots.

Uh 57 acres.

It's been rezoned to GPD 0126 annexed on 0126.

Two variance requests, engineer.

I forgot to ask originally, is there any issues?

No issues.

No issues with the variance requests of cul-de-sac length and turnarounds and lot configuration.

Do we have motion and a second?

Motion.

Second.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

I apologize, but I'm going to have to leave early.

I think I think we're about to be almost done.

So grant granted.

I understand.

Thank you, Ms.

Horn.

Is that a gradual?

We're rescheduled meetings.

Double booked here.

That's all right.

All right, Commission.

We'll move into a preliminary plot next.

This is S0126, resurvey of lots 43A and 44A, the resurvey of lots 43 through 47 edgewater phase 1A.

This is a reconfiguration of two lots on approximately 6.8 acres located at 11949 and 1193 High Point Circle.

This is not in city limits.

You can see we're pretty far north on the lake on highway 43.

Um the lots today, there is an existing home, and there is an error in the tax maps.

It's it's two existing lots today.

As you can see here, they're just moving uh that lot line a little bit.

Uh you can see that with contours and without.

We have one variance request.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on Capsule or we're okay with that request.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

Mike Hicks.

We heard an exposure 2728 Larling Wallace Boulevard, Northport.

Originally, um Brian Heard owned lot 43 and 44.

And the owner of lot 45 wanted to purchase lot 44, all but a 10 foot strip.

Uh we did the subdivision 22, excuse me.

And unfortunately, the owner of lot 45 passed away before they were able to finish the deal.

And his widow is not able to uh follow through with the agreement.

So what they've done is agreed to split the original lot 43 in half, thus making 43b and 44b.

Y'all follow all that?

Not really.

Why would you why would you go to 43b and 44b?

Because uh they were already 44A and 43A.

So this will be the third subdivision.

This will be their third iteration here.

Okay, as long as they're mailed anyone care to speak for or against this petition request.

Having heard none, bring back up the one variance request, please.

Commissioner Forrest, we have S0126, the resurvey of lots 43A and 44A on the edgewater phase one A with one variance request of CapSUR.

Engineering has no issues with do I have a motion and a second?

Motion second.

Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Any other business?

A little bit of other business.

Um street vacation tonight.

That's V0126, vacating.02 acres, a part of the rightway known as 14th Street, abutting lot four of the FB Clements Resurvey, Council District 4.

So you can see we're right off of 359 here.

I can see that sliver in red to be vacated.

And just here's some detail on that right-of-way to be vacated.

And to remind you, you saw this townhome subdivision, I believe, in October or November.

This was part of that subdivision for those town homes.

Here are uh department comments.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

How much money we're gonna get for this little annexation or not anxiety, but we'll make them pay a good amount of money for it.

I think it's gonna be pretty pricey.

Okay, good.

I think they ought to feed the CD launch one of the exactly.

All right, anyone care to speak for or against?

All right, commission.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

Any other business or any other thing?

Then we are adjourned.