Thank you. all right good morning and welcome to our first subdivision committee meeting of 2026 and i said 2026 not 2025 so maybe this will continue through the rest of the year and i won't keep reverting back to 2025 after this but um okay we have kind of a light agenda today but we'll go ahead and get started the first plan uh pln mj suv 25 5 suburban point subdivision expansion this is located at 421 price road the purpose of the plan is to create 57 single family lots two open space parcels one detention base and common area and streets. On the plan, Price Road is to the plan right. This is the existing Suburban Point Mobile Home Park. Thank you very much, Daniel. So it's depicting a street layout. Let's see. Sorry, let me turn that off for a second and reorient myself. So here's Price Road. I believe this is Tibbs that stubs in from the property to Plan North and then connects to Price. This is Dominican, and it stubs in from the property to the Plan Left and then connects to Tibbs. And we've got, I believe it's St. Martin's that also stubs in at this point, and they're showing it come around and connect to Dominican. There's a detention area. It's labeled Lake Detention Area in this area with a wetland. And then there's open space HOA here and open space HOA in this area as well. So getting into the staff report under the requirements not met, number one, denote, this is the building inspection note, all building paving signs, fences, walls, and retaining walls that are depicted, described, are required on this development plan. She'll require a separate review and building permit from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. number two denote location of the fire hydrants fire department or fire service features if required shall be approved by the division of fire water control office number three denote storm water management sanitary sewers and public street improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the lfucg engineering manuals and number four denote no land disturbance construction clearing of native vegetation or mowing shall occur in the vegetative buffer zone invasive species may be removed by handheld equipment or forestry grinder number five provide traffic calming elements within the new streets primarily a traffic circle at the new intersection of dominican drive and st martin avenue and that would be this location here number six proposed street cross section must have restricted parking on one side of street the hydrant side number seven denote tree canopy and street tree requirements and provide tree mitigation proposal number eight provide open space exhibit include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage number nine label the intermittent stream number 10 depict vegetative buffer number 11 combine all information onto one page except the tree inventory and add vicinity sketch the original submittal was multiple pages we like all that information on one page for number 12 correct title block to match the staff report uh number 13 denote street addresses and name and address of owner developer number 14 denote all adjacent property owner information number 15 depict proposed cross sections and all section lines on plan face number 16 denote front yard and street side yard building lines on plan face 17 denote construction access 18 correct zoning notation and site statistics number 19 denote improvements to price road those aren't shown in the cross sections under waivers necessary for the proposed street cross sections where they stub in the existing streets to the the proposed streets they'll need a waiver for the for the cross sections under design consideration see all acela comments provided by the division of engineering number two proposed street cross section must have restricted parking on one side of street the hydrant side number three design does not protect preserve greatest number of trees reasonably practically evaluate preserving healthy and significant trees on the property number four describe how detention areas in the development area are usable and accessible for common space under planned questions and concerns or concerns number one discuss the need for waiver proposed street cross sections number two discuss accessibility for residential service trucks on proposed streets number three discuss improvements for price road frontage number four discuss impact to spring point near lot 39 and that is i believe i believe it's in this area it's hard to read on this plan let's see if the if you can see it on that yeah there's a spring right there um let's see number five discuss need for additional stormwater or drainage easements number six discuss detention area outfall and if this detention is sufficient for the development number seven discuss stormwater management proposal and number eight discuss encroachment of structures from the adjacent property on the aerial it appears that um some of the structures on the uh in the mobile home park potentially um encroach over the property boundary as it's as it's depicted it's just not clear so we want some clarity on that and then to ensure that we don't have encroachments um staff recommends approval with following conditions the standard sign-offs engineering traffic engineering landscaping addressing urban forester environmental quality bike ped open space division water quality the cap approval number 10 provided the planning commission grants the waiver for the proposed street cross-section and number 11 correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein and with that i'll turn it over to you all for discussion we have any questions for staff I spoke with the applicant or the engineer last week or earlier this week. They understand what improvements they're required to make on Price Road. Then we discussed some alternative traffic calming strategies within the neighborhood. I haven't seen any changes yet. So once we see what changes they make, then I believe I'll be satisfied, but just time will tell because they haven't made any updates yet. Is somebody, is the applicant here? I'm sorry. We'll ask for a public comment after we hear from the applicant. Okay. Hi, I'm Chris Sabata with Vioxx and Vioxx. We're the engineer representing this project. So I have started to make revisions to the plan. I actually uploaded and sent Chris the PDF, but have not yet turned in the paper copies. So you should have that paper copies today, and that plan should be distributed for review. Part of that, revisions. We added all necessary notes, consolidated it down to one plan, including the separate tree inventory and open space exhibits. We have revised the street sections to compliant street sections per subdivision regulations to avoid having to submit for a waiver. We have shown improvements to Price Road, as David discussed. We have added a traffic calming at the St. Martins and Dominican intersection. We're proposing curb neck down bump outs to narrow those from 30 to 24 feet to make it a little bit easier for pedestrians to cross the street and to visually show a slower area. and then for the open space on this plan we were proposing a designed common area on that detention area lot but after some further investigation the two parks nearby are within half a mile of all the lots and meet the open space regulations to take credit for public parks instead of a designed common area that common area will still be open green space but won't meet every regulated regulation I think I've over the past few weeks since technical review of had discussions with at every relevant department regarding their comments and I think we've made progress us on those. I guess if you have any specific questions, I'm happy to answer. I'm looking at the comment about accessibility for residential service trucks on proposed streets, but we don't have waste represented in here. Any issues about fire and emergency services? Did you say you submitted this plan here? I have not. This plan, this old plan was submitted. What you're discussing right now, have I had a chance to review that? I don't believe so, no. Okay, I'll need to review that before I can answer that appropriately. Right. Okay. I will note that all street design meets current regulations. Obviously, you still need to review that, but it meets all subdivision standards. the other question i have and i'm i'm not sure what i'm reading here because the print is really really small on this copy but the percentage of trees to remain are you all proposing to clear cut this yes we are um due to our landscape architect is not available today he's actually out the flue so i can only give a brief overview of it but from what he's explained to me based off the tree protection requirements. To even get a road through, just a single road through, would severely impact saving any trees. So our plan was to clear the site, grade it to be able to build these lots, and then mitigate that with street trees, plantings in open space. So this is a statement for me as a member of this commission. we used to hear that from everybody all the time that's kind of not the approach we've taken here and replacing existing trees that have some growth on them and that are actually offering protections in terms of water quality air quality temperature mitigation putting new trees in doesn't begin to mitigate what we're losing when we take those out so we have been asking folks to make extra efforts to preserve those big significant existing trees if at all possible and to do the development in a way that protects them. Anybody want to say anything about that? I know you're not from Lexington so that's the reason I'm making my little speech here. Our landscape architect has been in communication, the urban forester, to try and work through that but over the Christmas holiday communication is minimal. I would just add it definitely helps us to be more confident in these things, to see things on the front end as opposed to the back end. So I'd say continue working, but there may be other comments. Okay. Yeah, I don't have any additional questions, but I do echo what Commissioner Worth said with regard to trying to see what can be saved as opposed to just taking them out. Other than that, do you have any other questions? Yeah, I do have one other. The possible encroachment as to the mobile home park and so forth, do you have any discussion about that? So I guess parallel to this major subdivision plan, our survey department has submitted a minor subdivision to separate this undeveloped part from what is – it's all currently one parcel. So they are in the process of parceling that off. And that new property line will ensure that none of the existing structures encroach onto this new lot. and the developer and owner of the park has expressed that if they are in the way that they're open to moving them and we'll make sure everything is within their property meets all setbacks and zoning requirements. And just to be clear, okay, so the streets do not connect into St. Martin's Village area. They do. They do. But not into that. They do connect to St. Martin's Village, but they do not connect to the mobile home park. Okay. I was thinking we had overruled on that. Oh, yes. Yeah, because I was thinking we had. This land was part of a proposed zone change to expand the mobile home park, and that went to the council, and the council disapproved the zone change. Okay, but now that it's single family. It's always been the single family zone. Right. So the property owner had that alternative, right, to develop it under the existing zoning category. Okay. And that's what they're proposing to do now. Okay. And so these will be fully built homes. These are not, because previously wasn't it? They were mobile homes. They were manufactured homes. They were manufactured homes. I don't know if these are the modular. Yeah, I don't think we can speak on the exact product. I don't think they've determined that. but they will be fully compliant single-family homes per building code. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm a little bit taken aback by that because I remember this was a very huge discussion. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll hear from the public in a minute. Any other questions for the applicant? Actually, we have one other thing that came up after tech, the block length. So not necessarily on the property, but connecting through to the St. Martin's Village, we think that the street exceeds the block length that's allowed as that. That's what I was going to ask you. In the subdivision regulation, it mentions not creating block lengths greater than 1,000 feet. And if you go back into the existing road network, it'll be about a 1,200-foot block length, basically between intersecting streets. So that would – it's something – it's not obvious looking at this plan just because you're not looking at the existing network. But when you kind of pan out, you see where it expands, and you end up with a very long block length, which is discouraged just largely because it creates opportunity for speeding and difficulty getting – you know, if you're on the north side of this page north and you want to get to the south, and there's a huge block length, now you're walking a half mile to get to another block. So that was something I didn't notice until a couple weeks later. And I did mention, I guess we mentioned that, so it might be something we have to solve as well. Anything else? Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Now we can hear comments from the public. If we have comments from the public, we'd like you to come forward, state your name and address. Okay. My concern... Could you state your name? My name is Tammy Bright, and I'm from St. Martin's Village. Okay. My concern is the opening up of our streets in St. Martin's Village. My address is 960 DePores Avenue. and we have had an increase in traffic already from the manufactured home area. Because they're trying to take a shortcut due to the traffic on Georgetown Street, they come zooming. We have two, three, four speed tables on DePores Avenue. They still come zooming through there, flying over the speed humps, and it becomes dangerous for our little kids just playing, for our animals, you know. So I just wanted to ask. Also, he said that an improvement was done to Price Road. I'd like to know what improvements there are. They are planned improvements. Okay. So they would do a half-section improvement from the center line of the road in the direction of their development, and they would install curbs and gutters and sidewalks. Okay. And then I would like to ask the developers, what is the significance that our roads in St. Martin's Village are to be open to the other subdivision? Because, like I said, we already have existing traffic. There's a lot of other new developments that's going on on the Georgetown Street area. I wanted to ask, have you done like a research study on how many cars come through DePores Avenue? DePores is the first street. So any traffic from Dominican is going to come on our streets. And TIPS will come on our street because both of them go right through our artery and out. And so my question is, before you try to open, has anyone done any research study on the traffic in our neighborhood? And that question is for the builders or the group, the development group. Okay, we'll just let that hang and then when they come back. Okay. Also, let's see. Okay, when the manufactured homes community takes shortcuts through St. Martin's Village, well, through DePores Avenue, my street, a lot of people are throwing trash out the windows. We've never had that before because it's been a really nice community, and they throw fast food stuff out the windows, cans. My mom is 94 years old and lives on DePores Avenue. She loves sitting on her porch when it's warm. That's her lifestyle, has always been, and her mother. So it's sad when you're sitting on your porch and enjoying your home at that age without a lot of busyness going on, you know, with the traffic and everything going through. She's just like, oh, my gosh. I mean, you know, because we've never had all of this. And I just feel like it's unsafe. It's just, you know, it's just, it's not appropriate. We've had some people to also be in such a hurry that if it can be two-way if cars are not parked on the side. But the thing is, we've seen people drive through, and if somebody slows down to go into their driveway or whatever, they ignore it like okay if i'm coming from don anna i'm gonna make a left turn into my driveway well sometimes there's people behind us and they're not paying attention to the the blinker and they will pass on that on the left side try to pass on the left side and it's just you know it's dangerous. It's very dangerous. And I know I can't blame it all on the manufactured homes community over there, not where they build in the new houses, but the community that they own on the other side. But it just adds to our dilemma. So that's some questions that I wanted to ask. they're not able to answer right now. So I hope at some point in this meeting that they'll be able to answer some of the questions not answered on my paper. Thank you. All right, thank you. Okay, do we have anything from the builder? Oh, excuse me. I didn't lean forward to see how many people were over there. Okay, all right, thank you. My name is Michelle Davis. I live at 940 DePores Avenue. I have some questions, and the first question I have is, how can we discuss the changes without the revision of the map? That's the first thing. I can't see those changes because I don't have a map in front of me, so it's hard for me to visualize. I'm a visual person. do we know when that's going to be presented and will we have an opportunity at that time to come back and voice our concerns yes we will have the planning commission as a whole meeting is it next week for the subdivision items so it will come back so what is the date for that so that I make sure that I'm here Yes, Thursday, January 15th at 1.30 p.m., and we meet in the council chambers. Okay. And from my understanding, the applicant submitted a digital version of their revised plan, so that is available to the public in our online portal. And if you need assistance navigating that, we can head upstairs to the seventh floor and be happy to help. Okay, that would be perfect. Okay. I had some questions from the first meeting we had, and I would like to get some more clarification, and you may have answered some of those through that. I don't have it in front of me. The paper that was distributed out to us, but he was talking so fast I wasn't sure if my questions were answered. Okay. Currently we have a, yes, that's what I'm talking about. Yeah. No, I have one. But I'm just saying he went through it so fast that I wasn't sure if the questions that I have written down align with what he was saying. So I'm going to ask them again, and he can say, you know, they can answer him at that point. Will there be a, right now we have a fence on Waverly that backs up to this property. Is that fence going to be removed, or will it stay in place? Because the neighbors right now with the development, they will be looking out from their backyard and they will see those houses right there at that property line. Can't really answer. Okay. Okay. They'll note it. Okay. Are there going to be any barriers put along that fence line? Don't know that either, do we? Probably none of these. Okay. Are the houses that they're building, are they going to be for purchase? Are they going to be for lease? Is it going to be landlocked? Well, it won't be landlocked because it will be able to be connected to the existing streets. So anybody can purchase a house. I don't know if they're selling the houses or renting them. That'll be up to them. But when you say landlocked, in my mind, I guess that term means it's not accessible from another property. Like it's a piece of land with no streets. Well, I think maybe I may have the wrong term. Land lease, that's it. Yes, land lease, that's the word I wanted. So they'll have to address that. Typically, the Planning Commission does not ask questions about the ownership and leasing because of fair housing laws. We, as the government, cannot dictate to the developer whether they sell the properties for ownership or maintain them and rent them out. So that's not something we typically discuss, but you're welcome to have that conversation with them and find out that information. Okay. Are they going to address that now? Okay. When will that be addressed? I think we'll ask them to come to the microphone once the book is finished. Oh, once I finish. Okay. Okay. And we need to kind of keep everybody to our standard three minutes. I didn't realize that. Oh, okay. I didn't realize that either, and I didn't see anything up here. Okay. So they were talking about putting a circle in, I think, in the plans back there at Dominican. I think that was part of it. We discussed some alternatives because in the subdivision regulations, it doesn't dictate what I propose to traffic circles just because they're effective at slowing speeds. But there are other alternatives, and what we discussed was like bulb outs, basically narrowing the street at the intersection to encourage people to slow down because you generally slow down when there's less space because you're more uncomfortable. So they're looking at other alternatives. So the subdivision just mentions implementing traffic calming, but it doesn't dictate specifically what they have to do. Okay. Yeah, because we already have some of those narrowing strips, and that does not slow the traffic down. And we have speed tables, and that's not slowing the traffic down, as it was mentioned by one of my neighbors. And with the increase of traffic, it's just going to make that even worse. There's not going to be a connection to Child's Avenue, will there, that was brought up at one time. Child's Avenue was one of the streets off of Price Road. Like I said, I can't. Child's Avenue is on the opposite side of Price Road? Price Road. And where – I'm going to go to the map. That's going to create a lot of problems for the people that live off Child's Avenue trying to get out. With Price Road not being extended, it's going to make it really back up. right in there. It's going to be difficult. Price Road can't be extended. It's already a... Right. Right. But they're going to put sidewalks and all that down there, aren't they? On their portion, yes. On their portion. Yes. Okay. They don't have to do it for the entire length of Price Road, only on their property. Okay. Okay. Okay. And will there be any kind of new traffic lights installed on Price Road? Does anybody know that? No, it's unlikely it will generate enough traffic to dictate a traffic light. Stop signs. Generally, this would be a two-way stop. Price Road has, I mean, once this gets developed, there's some indication that there's a relatively equal amount of traffic on both approaches, like all four approaches potentially. But typically with Price Road being a collector, you don't generally see stop signs on a collector unless it's just that, you know, a larger road generally doesn't have a stop sign unless it's intersecting another road of similar size. Okay. Well, thank you, and I'll see you all back. All right, thank you. Next. Rolanda Wolfhard, Chas Avenue. Right there where the existing road is on the front side, each street on Price Road is adjacent to each exit already. This one coming towards Childs Avenue will be the first one connecting. All the other streets are adjacent to each other. On Childs Avenue, there are four houses that sit right there on the corner. whose driveways are right there. Everybody else's driveways are on the back side of the street, and they don't connect. So it's going to be an issue for them when they're trying to get out of their driveway and you've got people coming off out of that subdivision to come. Because the... Right here is the house. The house used to have, the driveway used to be on Child's Avenue. And when Habitat built it, they put it on Price Road. So you have four houses are coming off of Price Road with driveways. And then we have 18 wheelers that come and deliver all the time down Price Road to the warehouse that's down the street. But if you look at all our streets, every street is adjacent from a driveway. So where the lot is, Child's Avenue is. If you go down where the main entrance used to be for where they have it right here, it's adjacent to Breathitt Avenue. So it's not connecting where it's anybody having a hard time getting out. On down, right next to the end of that main street is where the sidewalk that already exists. When you get to their lot, that's when the sidewalk stops. and the road is narrow. We also have a tree that's there that is a memorial tree from one of the families that had an accident there. And we really would like to keep that tree there. And then we have the house on Bradford on the corner. If they keep the road going straight like it already is existing, it wouldn't be any congestion because it's not going anywhere towards another street. They're adjacent to each other. And in the house, each corner of Brethet, their driveway is on the backside, so it wouldn't affect them. Okay, thank you. Next. I'm Amy Clark, and I live on Castle Road, but I have a good many friends in this area. I would ask that you at least recommend postponement, And in light of the information you have, I would think a recommendation of denial to the full commission is more appropriate because you really don't have enough information to consider this plan approvable with the patches you may receive and may or may not have an opportunity to review in the time between. And in fact, you've seen that it's very hard to do anything with three minutes. There are so many issues that need resolution and a lot of discussion. it's already been mentioned that the tree preservation plan is wanting, and there's not even any mitigation. They plan to clear cut and grade the entirety of the lot. The street cross section, we don't know if they're choking down along the long streets where St. Martin's Village meets the newly developing lot, or since that's straight, it's not an intersection. Maybe the choke points are only at intersections. That leaves those long runs. And that long block, which was mentioned, which would need some kind of a, would it need a variance? A waiver? Okay. And Price Road, it was suggested in the staff notes that they match the cross section from the center line to their side of the road of the Grotte property at the far end of the road. That's got four-foot sidewalks. That's not even current standard. They're proposing a sidewalk, but in light of the population that lives in that area, It's people who don't have money for a lot of cars. Mobility is important. Safety is important. I think a shared use path would be more to the point there. It would give more safety for pedestrians. Stormwater management, it's not clear that there's any proposal yet. I would like to hear what's going on with the intermittent stream. Does it need buffering the way a perpetual stream needs buffering? There's a spring mentioned. There's a swale currently so that from the pond, all that water kind of drains on through into the next property. It's not clear what kind of outlet, where it's going, whether it can go further. All of this is unresolved, and there's no information. I don't know whether there's information on the new plan because it wasn't available at the close of business yesterday. I looked. Sewers. There were going to be gravity sewers to replace a problematic pump station. And I don't know if that's been built already or they're waiting on the new development to see how they can work in with it. But there are sewer problems there, and it's not clear that they have a plan for that. They have not, as of what I'd seen, they didn't indicate any connection to sanitary sewers. There aren't. So all these questions, big question, who will own the land? And I understand that as a matter of law, you can't ask questions about who owns. But there was mention of building pads in the staff notes, and I gather they came from the applicant. they only could have. A building pad is what you put a manufactured home on a chassis on. It's a mobile home. You take off the wheels, you put it on a building pad. Okay. So there was a recent KRS 348, 100-348 was passed last year. And it says you can put a manufactured home, which is essentially mobile, and then you take the wheels off and fix it permanently to the ground. or fix it at least indefinitely to the ground. You can put such a home on any single family lot. So our R1 lots. And that's fine, and that's the law. But what we have in this situation is that if the land is leased to the party and he buys the home as a personal loan, like a car loan, at a significant rate, he doesn't have any assurance that he can keep that house on that land indefinitely it would depend on whatever lease contract pause us yeah i don't think the staff mentions anywhere in our report anything about pads i have not and i don't our staff will chirp in if they have haven't had any conversations with the applicant about pads they haven't indicated they're using manufactured homes, so I don't feel like we're going down a path that is inappropriate, right? Because that's perhaps what they were proposing last time, which was disapproved. No, no. This is mentioned in the... And this time, it's not in the staff's report. It says nothing about any development pads. It's not clear to me that there was a staff report. There's a staff report to the TRC, I guess, that's reproduced on the agenda. That's it. Okay. You got it. So that's also the staff report to subdivision committee on the amended version? They haven't amended it. Uh-huh. They've submitted something in a CELA. That you haven't had opportunity to review and comment. Right, which we're going to help Ms. Davis access. But, right, they didn't submit paper copies. So part of the application process is always to, yes, upload it into our online system for the record, but then also they have to deliver paper copies to our office so that we have the opportunity to review that. And there's a deadline of Tuesday at 8.30 a.m. for this meeting. It's a 48-hour deadline, so that was not met. So we have not reviewed their revisions. Happy for them to explain those to the commission if they want to, but we aren't saying that we support what they've revised because we haven't had time to review it. But I want to stop us on the manufactured housing aspect because I feel like we're going down a path that's not appropriate. To clarify, your recommendation of approval is for the prior plan with all the conditions and completions and terms that went with it, with your report. Okay. And those conditions and things have largely not been met. and yet the staff recommendation of approval goes forward to subdivision. Because of the character of these conditions of requirements not met, they have to meet it. They have to label the intermittent street. It's required. They have to provide an open space exhibit to document their open space. It's required. We won't certify the plan until all of these requirements are met. So there's one thing that we identified that needed a waiver, which was the cross sections and now block length. So they will have to address that on a revised plan. But if they meet all of the land subdivision requirements, the Planning Commission will approve it. As discussion items, there are things like the tree preservation plan, the tree mitigation. And that would be a discussion item because it would be for the subdivision committee to decide whether they're about satisfied for a recommendation of approval or whatever, right? Well, not necessarily. It's really the urban forester signs off. So they've given the urban forester the authority to sign off on that. So the applicant works with the urban forester to identify the significant trees. if they're being removed, if they cannot be saved, then developing a mitigation plan that provides new canopy other places. But I want to be respectful of the commission's time, too, and not necessarily get into things that aren't relevant here. Okay. And I don't want to belabor it. I will say that I saw the words building pad in the Excella notes from the staff. in the progress notes or whatever. And the other thing to know is after five years, they can't move a new modular home to a different R1 location. That's KRS 348. Yeah, there's no modular home being discussed. Okay, we're not discussing that. So the width of the street is not clear. The safety and speed going through is problematic. Price road needs improvements. It's just a much more heavily traveled road. It needs improvements all along. I'm not at all confident that what Grott has done on his end of it, which was required, what, decades ago, a couple decades ago, a decade anyway, it was with four-foot sidewalks. That really won't cut it. There are just so many things. So I would urge that you not. Okay. Engineering. I only mentioned CRO as an example since they haven't worked in Lexington before. That was an example of having to make improvements per the regulations to Price Road. I see. And again, that was older. They have since forfeited that surety. So when we're ready to build that sidewalk, LFUCG has some funds, but I don't know if it's enough to do it all right now. Which is completely not relevant to their proposal. They are proposing to improve price road with a six-foot sidewalk, which meets the requirements. Okay, six-foot. Okay, and that's in the new plan, the old plan? Yeah, the only one that's been reviewed. Okay, all right. So they have a sidewalk but no bike facilities. Okay, well, I appreciate the time. Thank you. Any other public? Okay. My name's Tavall Headley. I am a native Lexingtonian, and I live down in Pearltown. I would tend to agree with her comment there about denial and postponement. I think she raises some good points, but I'd like to raise some other points. From what I understand, that connection does not exist to St. Martin's, correct? That would have to be opened up and made a road. That's part of what disapproval is about? Yes or no? Yes. Okay. That right there should immediately say denial and disapproval because nobody seems to be working with the neighborhood and their concerns, which have been voiced today, and clearly you're going to prove something. And I'm just saying this because I've seen this dog and pony show year after year in this town, and it pisses me off. Where they'll propose something, they'll kind of skim something in again, they'll skim something in again, and before you know it, what finally gets built and approved is never what was on the original documents. And I've seen that. I can point out projects all over this town. I represent today not only my neighborhood, their neighborhood, and other people. I really represent the taxpayers and the voters because that's where all this buck stops in the end. They can push stuff through for somebody to make money. I understand that. But in the end, if we vote and we pay taxes, then by God, we should have something to say about it instead of this stuff just getting pushed through. Basically, I would like to see, first of all, this shows a very small map. When they come to any of these things, I'd like to have a small site, which you can easily see, but a more generalized site and in print, not just in digital, because there's a lot of people that have to deal with stuff that have no computer access in this town. They don't have the technology that allows them to be well-informed because they just don't have the money to have it. That's just the way it is. again and this clear cutting the land yeah I've seen that all over this town I know this being a native we have some of the best soils on earth in this morey silt loam every time I don't know where the land goes but they scrape it off they bring this crappy sorry I don't mean to because uh sod in with that plastic stuff that never goes away to mesh it underneath and all that good soils God really like to know where it goes because if nothing else the city should be trying to reclaim that using it somewhere else in town uh and definitely you're taking out trees especially old historic trees yeah that's kind of important to some people that actually vote and pay taxes because that's what they came here for that's why they live here these people over in saint martin village they live in that community for a reason you know if they could live somewhere else they choose to live there to have somebody that doesn't live in the area come back in and say hey we're going to do this because i'm going make a buck on it. I get it. But, you know, is that right long term for the future of this town and this community? I'm not sure it is. Anyway, I would really like if the attorney and really what I'd like to see developers themselves meet with the St. Martin village people before we ever get to this point. And I have people sit down, make a talk and see what can be worked out because I feel like there's probably solutions. I don't like the bullying that really pisses me off. And as a taxpayer and a voter, we pay for it 10 years from now. We pay for it 20 years from now. We should have a right to speak, and that's what I'm hoping more people in this town. I represent not necessarily people in that district in the second. I represent people from all the districts in this city who have had this same comment to me in the last two or three years, and they're getting upset, and I think you're going to start hearing more from them because of what's happening, and if you ignore it that's on you thank you thank you we have any yes come on real quick I like what Mr. Scott said if there would be a way that we could meet with the developers because we feel that we have not been included thank you All right, we'll hear from the applicant. Good morning. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the property owner. This is not a developer. This is not the mobile home park, and you are seeing why we filed this plan. So we tried to work with the neighborhood. We gave them everything that they wanted with regards to cutting off access to St. Martin's Village, and we did that in good faith, and the city said no. We're fine with that. We now inherited this land when we bought the mobile home park. It is 34 acres of vacant land not a mile and a half away from here. Lexington needs this property to be developed. It is zoned at the same era as a St. Martin's Village. It is zoned as much of the same as St. Martin's Village. We brought a plan in in hopes that somebody one day will be able to develop this property, but you're seeing why we are here today because if we tried to market this land and someone google searched what has gone on here they're not going to touch this property so we took a step to go ahead and say let's get this property as entitled as possible with regards to what is zoned and what lexington requires and that is it we haven't made any decisions about who's going to buy the land who's going to kind of develop the individual lots, if that person's going to end up selling individual lots. They just know we wanted to extend what our business was, which is the Suburban Point. Lexington said you cannot extend Suburban Point. And so we said, okay. So we're trying to find a way to get this property off of our books and get it basically able to build single-family houses of the same size as the surrounding neighborhoods. We did ask for a waiver last time with regards to the street access, and that was because the traffic from the mobile home park was going to be going through this property. We thought that was a good-faith reason that the Planning Commission should close those roads and allow the waiver to go forward. We don't have that argument anymore. This is just single family on single family. The city council can close those roads, and I've told the neighborhood they should talk to the city council if they are concerned about these roads being extended. As the property owner under the rules of how the waivers work here, we have no argument whatsoever that we could put before the planning commission that gives you the authority to grant a waiver for what is the biggest I would say talking point that Lexington has right now and that's connectivity we have no problems whatsoever if the council closes these roads it doesn't need it for this property it meets fire code it has the access that it requires it's not connected to the mobile home park at all nowhere are we talking about pads or anything like that this isn't the modular housing that we were previously proposing. This is no type of housing. It is just single family lots. So the only changes that were made with the submission, wrong button, are to the cross sections. That's it. It is just making sure that these cross sections now match what city requires. On this road, what we are showing is the continuation of Dominican and that no longer meets Lexington's sub-regulations and so we changed it to the one that meets Lexington subregs this was basically shown as well as a continuation this is now deemed a local road and so we had to shrink the size of that road again the only changes are right there they are proposing bulb outs right there but that's the only actual kind of change on the face of the plan all the lot schemes are the exact same the road schemes are the exact same and that is it as far as the improvements to price road we are showing six feet of sidewalk because that is what's required in the sub-rex like everything about this plan meets the sub-regs to the t we found out about the block length today we're going to have to resolve the block length it's like every other single family plan that you have seen and approved we meet all the regs all of the sign offs will have to happen with the urban forester we're going to have to have that conversation we submitted with this last revised kind of copy showing exactly where every tree is located and what that tree protection area basically does and where they are located you are not able to get a single road on this property that doesn't mean that he's not going to want a certain tree basically preserved and we'll have to change the plan accordingly. It is, that's in the certification process. This is a plan that meets every single rule that Lexington has. And if we need to go above and beyond any of those to make sure that the urban forests are satisfied, we will. This is just, this is how kind of development works. This isn't anything to do with the mobile home park. This is going to get transferred. it is just a single family development I highly encourage the neighborhood to talk to their council members and you know try to resolve these like off property traffic issues we have no problems if they close the roads truly do not I just can't get up in front of you all and make an argument that you all have to close these roads because it meets the definition of what we can ask a waiver for but with that i'm happy to answer kind of any questions any questions are they owner okay thank you all right did we want to hear from the developer that was you well so that's why i said the property owner because there isn't a developer Okay, I hear you. I hear you. Okay. Okay, so with that, what does the committee want to do? We have another hand. Oh. She won't tell you where she's at. Maybe she's talking to me. Can I ask her a question? Why was she there? Well, come on. Come on. We'll go on. Thank you. Okay. Tammy Bright, 960 DePores Avenue. So in the plan, okay, I know you said you don't have to go through Dominican, right? But on here, that's an issue. That's a question on here. There's something on there that's talking about opening Dominican. Dominican. Is that, am I not correct? Right. It's a proposed, whatever. Okay. So the city is saying that it goes through. The land subdivision regulations require the continuation of streets. Well, let me, let me share this. That's why they're doing that. has any of you been on dominican avenue any of you you have you because do you agree that that street is very very narrow well it met the regulations at the time and what at what time 1950s. Okay, this is 2026. Traffic is much more than it was in the 50s. The government's stance is local streets should connect to each other in order for subdivisions to grow and continue to be connected. I understand that piece, but we still have to understand that that is not even a two-way road. Okay, my street, DePores Avenue, is wide enough for two-sided traffic, okay? Dominican, you have to move over for somebody else to come through. You just do, okay? Which is still a two-way road. That just means that on-street parking is slowing people down, which in the government's opinion, that's a positive. When people park on the street, it slows the traffic down. Okay, so you're saying 100% that they're going to open Dominican? That's what I'm hearing. The regulation requires that. The regulation requires it. But as Mr. Knickson had mentioned, having the neighborhood talk to their council person may keep that blocked. Right now, all they can do is abide by the regulations. It would take the city council to say, yes, you can keep those roads blocked off. Okay, so then I'm going to go back to the Chow's. The Chow's. If Chow's connects to somehow end up over to Dominican or what have you, that's going to be a huge issue. I don't know if you looked at the crime on that side of the road on Florence and all of that. That's going to be the getaway place. So you know what? They're going to take. Okay. There's drug activity on Florence Avenue. Okay. I just want to be clear that the planning process doesn't support crime, right? We're not in. So to me, that means nobody cares about the residents in St. Martin's Village. But connecting streets doesn't generate crime. No, honey, the crime is already there. It's just that it will be another avenue for these cars to go flying through. And this is with respect. I'm telling you what we see on DePores Avenue. The correct place to have this discussion is with your council person. We cannot do anything. we care but we cannot do anything from our from where we're sitting about what you are concerned about your concern has to be taken up with your council first so i feel like this meeting is like we are only we are only planning subdivision planning what you see on the screen not what happens behind the scenes we can't we can't unilaterally ignore a regulation that was that was legislated by our council members in previous star. It's our if it's in the if it's in the regulations are our responsibility to say, hey, you need to follow this regulation. If the regulation is needs to be changed, that is a policy decision by the policymakers, which in our case is the council members. And we can't you can't change it for one one person in a given instance and not unless you know, and they can request a waiver with the justification, but we can't enforce them to do that either. So they follow the regulations. If they do that, then that's all we can enforce. So does this kind of thing go on with the other side of town, the south side of town? Yeah, subdivision regulations are applied across. Because this is just, you know. So I think if you came at the end of next month, there's a development on Clay's Mill Road, and there are going to be neighbors that say, we do not want this to connect. Okay. But it's in the subdivision regulations. is there for a reason, and it's applied across the city. Again, unless the developer has a specific reason that they would request a waiver, and then that's case by case, and then these folks over here get to determine if that's appropriate, if they grant the waiver or not. But if they follow the regulation, there's nothing we can do. As much as we would like to address some of the concerns you're talking about, this group does not have the authority to do that. We're not trying to shuffle you off to the council. We're telling you legally they're the ones that have to make that decision. We don't have the authority to do it. Okay. Okay. One more. I'm sorry. And I wanted to ask you guys, the panel, because I'm sure he's been on Price Road off of Georgetown, off of Georgetown on to Price Road, and then trying to get around to go downtown? Have you been there? Not in the past year or two, but you should come look at it, really. Mainly just for planning, you know what I'm saying, really. Because when people are taking a shortcut and going through there, and by the time you round, you know, where the Lillard Lofts and go around and you're trying to either get on, go like towards Leastown Road or East Main, that traffic is backed up, and it's really scary right there. So if something can be done about that while they're planning, that will be a blessing. I see people walking. The cars are on Price Road. They've slowed down because of the, I forget what that light, I mean, that camera's called, flop camera. but there's no sidewalks you know if all of that can be addressed then that would be wonderful as well because that will help the community I think we're aware that the Price Road intersection with Main Street and Leastown is difficult and that was something that was created not by the local government but by the state when they improved and did the cross built the overpass over the railroad. So it would be a significant project to change those things. But I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it would have to be not just through this process. Again, I'm not trying to say we don't, we're not concerned because we're aware that that intersection is problematic and does back up from time to time, especially during heavy peak periods. Yeah. Well, anybody that's interested, I would suggest to check that whole piece out because during rush-out traffic, Georgetown Street is at a deadlock. People are crossing through our street to try to take a shortcut, so they're angry. We see them angry. They fly in and whoop, whoop, whoop, whoop over the humps, and then they run in the stop signs. You know, it's really a bad thing. So, you know, just please check out our area and have the best intentions for it. Thank you. Okay, this is the last one. Okay. I still would like to suggest denial and post-thing, but if I understand this correctly, this is counsel for the owner, not the owner, and the other guy is the representative of the owner, not the owner. But what Nick said is get it off the books, which means they want to sell it. What about perhaps if somebody told us what that offer might be and see if there's a different solution? Thank you. We thought that this would be a good thing. This locks in this property as single-family, period. To bring in some type of R4 development in here with them already broken up into single-family lots, connecting to a single-family neighborhood, I know exactly what the Planning Commission would do in that situation. This ensures, moving forward, whatever happens, it's going to be single-family on single-family. As far as what an offer would be, we have no idea, because we don't know what we're allowed to do on this property. We just know what we're not allowed to do. And so it's impossible to market something when you do not know what you can do. You only know all the things you cannot do. And so we are just asking, can we develop single-family land as single-family development so we can then start making decisions? That's kind of all I have to say. As far as the lineup on childs, subregs require us to line up we couldn't put it in the middle because we couldn't meet that block length kind of requirements on major collectors like the the two roads that you see on the left don't meet the standards today we have to line up with that road that's I think pretty much it thank you okay now we're back to committee And I think that's a good point of keeping this as single family, even though there's no clear path of exactly how everything's going to end up working out. This is preliminary. but it would solidify the fact that this area would be single family only going forward. I'm going to make a request to Ms. Wade, because we have a lot of people in here who have not been through the development process before. could you do just do a little mini explanation of a preliminary development plan versus a final development plan and what happens to that preliminary development plan in the process, how much it has to say the same, how much variation might take place legally, so to address some of the concerns we've heard here. So I want to clarify, we're talking about a subdivision plan at this point, not a development plan. So this is a preliminary subdivision plan, which lays out the infrastructure for a subdivision, whether that's a single-family neighborhood, mixed developments, mixed density development, or even a shopping center. It says these are the proposed public roadways. Here's where our sewer is going to go, the sanitary and the storm sewer, where our detention basin might be located. but it doesn't get into this very specific details of the construction of those that is a later phase so they're identifying on a site plan here's where we're expecting these things to happen then they move into their next phase of development once this is approved and certified and they work with the Division of Engineering to create the construction documents from time to time there is there are identified changes between when this gets approved and the the final phase um the roads can shift slightly they cannot move significantly we're talking like 25 feet which is not even the width of a lot um the sidewalks have to be five feet that cannot be smaller um the lot frontage has to meet all of the regulations the number of lots may vary one or two but generally we would not see 10 new lots because the infrastructure is being planned for the number of lots that are there. The utility companies are planning based on 57 lots. Our sewer system is planning based on 57 lots. So they're sizing everything based on those land uses. Other changes we might see, sometimes the detention basin might get smaller or slightly larger. the sidewalk around it might move the outfall which is the pipe where something feeds into a basin might move slightly but generally these are where we expect the infrastructure to be if there's a change the engineer should be identifying that to the Planning Commission on what we call a 50% report before we get to a final record plat so again generally these this is what we expect to see to mr. Healy's point about things change all the time yes this is what's approved so if we say that's what's going to get approved there are some changes that happen to plans whether it's a development plan or a subdivision plan to meet the regulations most often so we saw something and the spacing didn't quite line up they had to make that change in order to get the plan certified. That's what happens a lot of times. The dumpster moved, the parking shifted, the building maybe even moved a bit, but they shouldn't be significant changes. What also happens, he's got his hand raised back there, sometimes there are minor amendments that do not require the Planning Commission to review them. And those are, if the Planning Commission approves a 20,000 square foot building, a developer has the opportunity to come in and say, hey, I have 20,000 square feet, but I want to move my building instead of it being this way, I want to make it this way. If that still meets the regulations, then the staff can approve it without it going to the planning commission and having a public hearing because the square footage has already been approved. I hope that makes a little bit of sense. if it meets the regulations and I'll talk I can talk after if it meets the regulations there are usually minor tweaks between when the planning commission sees it and when a lot of times when it's built I wouldn't say they're significant cross-section changes all have to come back to the planning commission again one more lot or three less lots is not something the planning Commission makes a decision on because it's within that realm of the infrastructure is being built for that general size of a neighborhood. Does that help? I'll go see what Mr. Healy has. I'm ready. If you are. Okay. Okay. Right for that. Right for that. Here. Here. Right there. Okay, 30 seconds. To counteract what the nice lady has just said, right across from where my house is is a development that was approved through zoning, went through council, went through everything. In that deal were two warehouses that were torn down that the city sold to the developer for I think $10 or $20 a lot, and these were big lots, and it wound up, they were worth about a half million a lot to a million and a half a lot. That's taxpayer money that was sort of given to the developers with the intent of using that land after we went through council, after we went through zoning, after we went through everything to make parking for that development. They put two more buildings on it, which you can see that are right next to the old Bootsy Bar on the other side of the thing. Those two buildings were never in any plan, in anything that ever went through anything. It came after the fact. And to note, they were not supposed to ever invade Prawl Town. They put the parking lot in Prawl Town and put the cross bridge over there, which was never in any of the original plans anywhere. It came after the fact. So I'm a little bit concerned when, again, I've seen this before, when you say, oh, well, this doesn't happen. No, it happens. I live through it. That's a totally different thing. No, no, I'm saying you try to catch this stuff early and make it more. New Town Crossing. Yes. They had three zone changes. What I'm saying is they kept redoing the redevelopments after they kept getting more. When they got the land that was supposed to be for parking, it's like, oh, we're going to put two more big buildings. There's two, what, three-story buildings over there. And that all went through a public process, though. It kind of did and it kind of didn't. But anyway, we can debate that. I'm just saying, catch it now. And like I said, he says they don't know what the price is. I was a real estate broker. I guarantee everybody has a price. Nick, get your people to make us a price. Well, you make a price when you know what you can do with the land as a real estate broker. Oh, no, as a realtor, I know exactly. Me too. No, no, I'm saying you can sell that land at any time for any price. But if I know what it's for, then I can take the prize. What I'm saying is, Madam Chair, we need to move on. Realtor to realtor. Realtor to realtor. All right, let's go. All right. You have a real 36. Okay. Thank you. That's fine. You are. All right. All right. Oh, wait a minute. I appreciate your indulgence. And all I want to say is this is a preliminary subdivision plan. your responsibility as i understand it the commission responsibility is to see is the plan in large about right headed in the right direction for roads for sewers tree protection sanitary and stormwater management i don't think this plan is there yet i ask your staff Is it at the stage where next step is detailed engineering just for fine-tuning? Thank you. All right, thank you. Especially if it's a rental property. These other matters matter. That doesn't matter to us at this point. If it should be. All right, thank you. There is a capital project to improve the sewers in this area that's already planned and proposed. So it's already. Through the Division of Water Quality, capital improvements. Sanitary sewers. Yes. And the stormwater management? They will have to work it out like every other development has to. But it's not yet on the plan represented. We're not in the development phase at this point. Okay. All right. Okay, now we're back to the committee only. Okay. Madam Chair, are you ready for motion? Yes, I am. Recommendation? I'm going to try and keep this short and sweet. We've been here for an hour and a half on one plan right now. First and foremost, after the first question that my colleague asked almost well over an hour ago, I was ready to make a recommendation of postponement on this. I just don't think that this is ready. It's close, but it's not ready. Let me say this as well. I appreciate the neighbors being here over the past year. I've advocated for public comment in these meetings and hearings, and I'm not going to deny that opportunity. With that said, I do remember this before us last year, and I do remember what the Planning Commission recommended as well and what the applicant was recommending and offering in terms of connectivity and so forth. This is a different plan, and I think Mr. Nicholson put it as well as anybody. It's probably the best that we can have other than the land never being developed, and that's not going to happen. This land is going to be developed at some point in time. So with that said, my recommendation right now is going to be for postponement of Plan MJSUB 25-5 Suburban Point because of waivers. And in the new information, we do have a revision that hasn't been seen and reviewed, and I think that needs to be reviewed before we move forward. I'll second. All right. Motion has been made and properly seconded. Is there a question to that motion? All those in favor of postponement? Aye. All right. We're unanimous. Thank you. all right moving along the next item on the agenda is PLN WAV 25 9 East High Multi-use Project waiver this plan this is an amendment to an older plan This is just down the street here off East High. East High is the bottom of the plan, and East Vine is the top. The intersection with Water Street is roughly in this area, and this is the YMCA site. There's an existing structure on the property. The applicant's proposing a new three-story residence on the Vine Street side, which would be the back of the property from its access on High Street. The need for the waiver, I'm not going to go through the whole. The plan's basically been approved subject to the condition of the waiver being approved. Because there's an eight-foot wall along East Vine that will be reconstructed, which also kind of prompted the applicant to amend this plan from what he had originally submitted. Based on the design of the wall and the need for the wall to be reconstructed, they had to kind of reorient the structure. But because of the grade change in the wall itself, they can't make the required pedestrian connection to East Vine Street, so that requires a waiver for this to be approved as it's shown. so we we did the applicant had submitted in a cella uh some of the appropriate documentation but not everything uh we did just get the letter of justification yesterday um and so we haven't done a waiver report or anything like that but i just kind of wanted to give you what what we have um basically just the short of it um their justification uh for for the not having to to build the direct pedestrian connection to East Vine Street. Under Article 21-9 of the zoning ordinance, and this is the words of the applicant, regarding the requirement that issuance of a waiver not adversely impact public health, safety, and welfare, the above details show that not building the access to Vine Street will have no effect on the above concerns. Any concerns about the integrity of the wall itself will be addressed by the Public Works Department, which is actively engaged in the design and execution of the project at the time of the writing of this letter. The concerns are it's a gravity. He describes it as a gravity block wall, and it doesn't lend itself to a pedestrian opening, and the new wall will extend significantly into the property. And then the second point, clearly simply not building the pedestrian access is the minimum revision necessary to afford relief to the owners to accommodate the regulations. And then number three, the strict application of the regulation, namely having access to Vine Street, would create on us the applicants due to the impracticality of designing pedestrian access through a large gravity block retaining wall. I don't know if I read that exactly right. The grammar seems a little off. But basically their hardship is they have the wall would be difficult to provide a pedestrian connection through due to the grade change. So they're requesting a waiver and then we will have a waiver report for the full planning commission meeting I mean we haven't we haven't seen it so I'm right Yeah I'm sorry somebody say something We haven't seen what we're discussing here. We haven't. Oh, you haven't seen it? No. Oh. The waiver. Yeah, the plan was approved by the TRC with the condition of the waiver. I'm sorry. I apologize. Look, the plan had come through before with a slightly different iteration. Well, this is good enough. This building was rotated slightly, and I think it was a little bit closer to Vine Street, and so they've redesigned pulling it back from the wall. And it showed a connection at the time. On the previous development plan, they did get approved to have a connection to Vine Street, but then there's been some improvements that they're planning to do with the YMCA and stuff, and I think that's why at this time this is not a good connection, and that's why they're asking for this waiver. But the development plan was signed for them to put this structure on there with a connection to Vine Street. Now they're removing that connection to Vine Street. That's what this is about. Because this is not in the documents. We're referring to those documents, but we didn't see those in this context. You're saying we've already approved this with minor differences. With the connection to Vine Street, it came through a year, two years, a year and a half ago, I think. And they showed a connection. I was kind of surprised. I didn't know how they were going to do it, go through a stone wall. But they showed the connection going down to Vine Street. And I guess they've come back and said that it's just not going to be structurally sound. And they just don't want to make that connection now. But since we asked for connection to all public streets, you're talking a nine-foot. I'm going to say a nine-foot difference from there to here, and so they just can't do that now. So for the people who are going to be living in that residence, what's their egress out to someplace? They're going to come out to High Street. High Street? So they have no Vine Street connection, but they have High Street. They can walk down the street and go down where the Lex Tran bus has come up, and they can walk down the sidewalk that way to get onto Vine Street if they need to, or go down to Rose and get onto Vine Street. I don't know what they're going to do with the Y. My understanding is they're going to do a big project there, so they might wind up having a connection to Vine Street when it's all said and done. I don't know. Thank you. Thank you, Cheryl. Any questions for staff on this? All right. Do we have the applicant in the room, or do we need to hear from the applicant? No, I don't think he's here. All right. Okay, so any public comment? All right. Okay. Yeah. It's a waiver. Yes, correct. And we'll have a waiver report and the justification. the plan itself the previous plan that was proved in this and shows what the differences are well i get i'm not as familiar with the previous plan i it was before my time as well but it's going to be up there somewhere yeah but the the biggest difference i don't i don't think there are any changes to the existing structure on either plan the i do know that on the older plan this was rotated slightly it um so it was kind of it wasn't squared on the lot so that was that was kind of the but it i think they also moved it away from vine street because of the construction of the wall so it the built this building has shifted slightly but otherwise almost everything is the same they just had this connection that they don't have now Yeah. I would say, yeah, we can show them side by side. And a lot of that's probably related to the commissioners of the EQPW commissioner's office is handling the project. They're rebuilding the wall. It's been designed. It's being paid for by city funds because it's starting to bow, and they are not rebuilding it with. So what they effectively would have to do is the wall would need to be rebuilt, and then this person would have to come in and rebuild a portion of the wall as well to get there. So we're doing the rebuilding. We're not including that I'm aware of, at least. I'm not in on the project, the EQPW project. But we're doing the rebuilding of that wall. And so there's no – We the city. We the city, correct, yes. And so that's effectively why, is because they would have to come in, tear, part of it back down, and then rebuild it again. Yeah. From what I understand, the history of it is that the applicant got the previous plan approved and was ready to move forward. And then when the city, the public works was going to come in and do this wall project, that changed what the configuration without – I mean, it wasn't a choice they made it was kind of imposed upon them yeah as I said I just yeah I just like to see yeah yeah no and that's that's this and what they're asking for now yeah yeah we can do that so are you ready for a motion I'm gonna recommend I'm gonna move for approval with the understanding that we will see the previous version and a full explanation in the way and what yeah we'll have a a full waiver report and make sure you all have all the information. So, yeah. I can second that. All right. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. Any questions to the motion? All those in favor? Aye. All right. Unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. What do we still have going forward? I was just asking to sit around and enjoy the morning. We heard that. Yeah, I have. We're postponing all of our, all EA's plans on your agenda are not being paid. Okay. What do you got? Well, thank you. We should have had you go first. Save you the show. The Kamek property, nobody's here for that. It's my understanding that's getting postponed at this current time because of a new plan that they want to propose. EA Partners is postponed. Number four, under postponed continue items, that's MJDP 2565 Samuel H. Bryan, Track 8, Carnes Property, located at 2914 Clays Mill Road. There was some concerns and issues about a possible sinkhole. And at this current time, the applicant is here to give a little more information as to what they found out after doing a geotech study. So, Matt, did you want to come up and speak about this a little bit? So they just wanted to say something about what they've found and what they're doing. So they're going to get us a new plan before the meeting with this information. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Cheryl. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. So hopefully you all remember this plan from maybe two months ago. So there was a possible sinkhole on the property. It was identified on mapping. So we did a geotechnical investigation, and we've had our geologist and our geotech engineers out evaluated the site, and we determined that there is no sinkhole there. What we think it is is when Clay's Mill was originally built, There's a sag in the road in front of this property, and we think, based on what we found, that this just fill has blocked an area and closed a contour off. And Clay's Mill is a pretty old road. It was built probably before anybody here was alive. So anyway, that's what we think. We finished our report up yesterday. we'll be submitting it to engineering and copy to planning as well and we'll be available to talk about it at the hearing but I just wanted to update you on that thank you so man are you saying that Clay's Mill was built 30-40 years ago exactly just clarify okay thank you alright Okay. We have anything else? I think... Daniel Crum, planning staff. There was a request to bring you all an update on the EDZOTA as that moves forward. The applicant is still working on language, so they've asked for a month postponement. So that will still show up on the agenda, and we'll get you that information as that kind of comes through, but nothing new on that end. Thank you. Thank you. I've got one thing. You know, we all love the Matt and Rory and all those hanging around and staying around and being company with us, But really, you know, with Roy having three postponements, is there some way that we can take care of that at the beginning so that he doesn't have to spend two hours with us in these situations? Even though we do love them all. Yeah. He enjoys being here, I think is what he meant to say there. Okay. Yeah, that would be good. Okay, anything else? If nothing else, then meeting adjourned. I'm just a dreamer who dreams of better days. Okay. I'm just a dreamer who's searching for the way today. I'm just a dreamer dreaming my life away. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Oh, my God. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Thank you. They were young and they had each other. Who could ask for more at the Copa? Copa Cabana. The hottest spot north of Havana. At the Copa. Copa Cabana. Music and passion were always the fashion at the Copa. They fell in love. His name was Wiko. He wore a diamond. He was escorted to his chair. He saw Lola dancing there. And when she finished, he called her over. But Wiko went a bit too far. Tony sailed across the bar. And then the punches flew. And Chance was smashed in two. There was blood and a single gunshot. But just who shot who at the Copa, Copacabana. The hottest spot north of Havana. Here at the Copa, Copacabana. Music and passion were always the fashion at the Copa. She lost her love. Copacabana. Thank you. Thank you.