TRIPLE S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 17, 2000
MINUTES
Members Present: Chairman George Best, Jake Smith, Billie Smith, Bob
Chapman, Gil Tucker, Ed Rudolph, Frank Hargadon
and Joanne Bemiss, Administrator.
Advisors Present: Vic Brizendine, Attorney
Plomer Wilson, County Road Engineer
The October 17, 2000 meeting of the Triple S Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Best.
Best: You have had a chance to review the minutes of the meetings for September 19, 2000 and September 20, 2000. Are there any corrections or additions? Is there any discussion on the minutes. If there is no discussion, a motion is in order regarding the minutes of September 19, and 20, 2000.
Mr. Hargadon made the motion to approve the minutes of September 19 and 20, 2000 as written.
Mrs. Smith seconded the motion.
Findings of Facts and Transcript for the Knapp Zone Change
Best: You were given a copy of the Findings of Facts and the transcript of the Knapp Property zone change from the September 19, 2000 meeting. Is there any discussion on the Knapp Property zone change? If there is no discussion, a motion is in order.
Triple S Zoning Commission
October 17, 2000
Page 2
Mr. Tucker made the motion to approve the Findings of Facts and the Transcript for the Knapp Property zone change of September 19, 2000.
Mr. Chapman seconded the motion.
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Findings of Facts and Transcript for Long Property zone change.
Best: You have had a chance to review the Findings of Facts and Transcript for the Long Property zone change of the September 19, 2000 meeting. Is there any discussion on either of these? A motion is in order.
Mr. Tucker made the motion to approve the Findings of Facts and the Transcript for the Long Property zone change of September 19, 2000.
Mr. Chapman seconded the motion.
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Financial Statement – August
Best: You have had a chance to review the Financial Statement for August. Is there any discussion on the Financial Statement? A motion is in order.
Mr. Rudolph made the motion to approve the Financial Statement for August.
Mr. Hargadon seconded the motion.
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Triple S Zoning Commission
October 17, 2000
Page 3
Newcomb Oil Company Zone Change R to C-4 Henry Greenwell
Docket #Z-249-00
Lewis Mathis, representing Newcomb Oil along with Bill Newcomb and Henry Greenwell: This is a request for a zone change from R to C-4 on the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Highway 60. This request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of Highway Commercial (C-4). There have been major changes in the area. There are many commercial uses in the area. The Traffic Study shows this to be class C at the present and this use will not change that classification.
Best: Anyone on the Board have any questions? Anyone in the audience wish to comment?
Tucker: What are you going to do about the creek that runs through the property?
Bill Newcomb: The creek will not be disturbed. It will be to the east side of the street.
Tucker: Are you going to have an entrance from 55 and from 60?
Newcomb: Yes, the State Highway Department has agreed to those two entrances.
Rudolph: The entrance off Highway 55, will serve just this convenience store or will it serve Roll Forming as well?
Newcomb: Roll Forming will have an access for emergency use only.
Best: Any further questions from the Board? If there is no further discussion, a motion is in order for the zone change from R to C-4 for Newcomb Oil Company.
Mr. Smith made the motion to approve the zone change for Newcomb Oil Company from R to C-4 as it meets the requirements.
Mrs. Smith seconded the motion.
Best: Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Chapman – in favor
Mr. Rudolph – in favor
Mr. Tucker – opposed
Triple S Zoning Commission
October 17, 2000
Page 4
Mr. Hargadon – in favor
Best: The vote is 5 to 1 in favor and this zone change will be recommended to Fiscal Court.
Marshall Commercial Center Section 1 Preliminary Plat Larry Tingle
Docket #S-580-00
Larry Tingle, representing Marshall Realty Company, the owners of the property: This is for 32.62 acres, which is a portion of the property that we did a zone change on previously. The zone change from Interchange to X-1 has been completed by the City of Shelbyville. This is a proposal for a commercial development with 13 lots. We meet all the criteria for that zone and we have all the appropriate signatures and we ask for approval. I will answer any questions you might have.
Best: Anyone on the Board have any questions? Anyone in the audience wish to comment? Anyone on the Board have any questions? If there is no further discussion, a motion is in order.
Mr. Hargadon made the motion to approve the Marshall Commercial Center Section I, Preliminary plat.
Mr. Rudolph seconded the motion.
Best: Is there any discussion on the motion?
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Triple S Zoning Commission
September 17, 2000
Page 5
Simpsonville Business Center Lot 7 Development Plan Mark Patterson
Docket #S-580-00
Mark Patterson, representing Todds Point Properties: This is a development plan for lot 7 of the Simpsonville Business Center. This meets all requirements. We are requesting a waiver on the parking spaces from 104 to 31 spaces.
Best: Why do you need that waiver?
Patterson: This is a commercial/warehouse type building. The commercial space will be 3,000 square feet and the remaining 7,400 square feet will be for warehouse use. This is based on one space per 100 square feet of commercial space.
Best: Anyone on the Board have any questions? Anyone in the audience wish to comment? Any discussion from the Board? A motion is in order for the Development Plan for Simpsonville Business Center Lot 7.
Mr. Rudolph made the motion to approve the development plan for Simpsonville Business Center Lot 7 with the waiver from 104 parking spaces to 31 spaces with the understanding that if the commercial area of the building increases that the necessary parking spaces will be added.
Mr. Chapman seconded the motion.
Best: Is there any discussion on the motion?
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Breitenstein Farm Divided Agricultural Division Larry Tingle
Docket #S-587-00
Larry Tingle, representing the Breitenstein Estate: This is an agricultural division of 93.28 acres. The smallest tract is 5 acres with the largest being 17.99 acres and a total of
13 tracts. This property is zoned Agricultural. We have obtained the appropriate signatures and we ask for your approval. I will be glad to answer any questions.
Triple S Zoning Commission
October 17, 2000
Page 6
Best: Anyone on the Board have any questions? Anyone in the audience wish to comment? Anyone on the Board have any further questions?
Tucker: Will tracts 1 and 2 have joint entrances?
Tingle: Yes, they will.
Best: Anyone else on the Board have any questions? If there is no further discussion, a motion is in order for the Agricultural Division of the Breitenstein Farm.
Mr. Tucker made the motion to approve the Agricultural Division of the Breitenstein Farm.
Mr. Hargadon seconded the motion.
Best: Is there any discussion on the motion?
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Rothenburger Farm Divided Minor Subdivision Larry Tingle
Docket #588-00
Larry Tingle, representing the owner, Lucille Rothenburger: We are requesting a minor subdivision for one (1) tract of two (2) acres located on the northwest corner of the farm. This is the second cut off. A five (5) acre tract was cut off for her son. We have all the appropriate signatures.
Best: Anyone on the Board have any questions?
Tucker: Has two (2) acres been taken off before?
Tingle: No, just a five (5) acre tract and that is shown on the plat.
Best: Any other questions from the Board? Anyone in the audience wish to comment?
Triple S Zoning Commission
October 17, 2000
Page 7
Best cont’d: Anyone else on the Board have any questions? If there are no further questions, a motion is in order for the Minor Subdivision of the Rothenburger Farm Divided.
Mr. Chapman made the motion to approve the Minor Subdivision of the Rothenburger Farm as it meets the requirements.
Mr. Rudolph seconded the motion.
Best: Is there any discussion on the motion?
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Tract “A” Old Booker Pike Farm Revocation of Recorded Plan Larry Tingle
Docket #S-589-00
Best: I’d like to ask a question. It is our policy not to hear anything that is in litigation. It is, also, our understanding that if we hear this tonight and it is approved, the litigation will be dropped.
Richard Head, representing the respondents: This is my understanding as well. Barry Smith, the realtor that handled the sale of the property is here as well as Mr. Lewis and Mr. Ellis. Mr. Lewis has agreed to purchase the property in question once the plat is revoked. We have agreed to take the steps for the Board to revoke the plat and have tendered a copy of the agreement by the entities.
Barry Smith: Everybody is in agreement.
Head: Mr. Lewis and Mr. Ellis are present and they are the ones that brought the lawsuit. If they are in agreement to drop the lawsuit, the closing will occur tomorrow and the litigation will be over.
Triple S Zoning Commission
October 17, 2000
Page 8
Best: Mr. Ellis, is that your understanding?
Ellis: That is my understanding in talking with my brothers who are the plaintiffs.
Best: Mr. Lewis, do you agree to purchase the property?
Mr. Lewis: Yes, I do.
Best: Mr. Head you may present the facts.
Head: The situation was that the plat was presented and signed off on the amended plat. Within 30 days thereafter, Mr. Lewis and the Ellises filed suit in Circuit Court seeking to declare the amended plat to be contrary to fault. We filed a response, Mr. Brizendine on behalf of Planning and Zoning filed a response. I do not believe any other entity filed a response to that. Shortly, thereafter, my client and his partners and Mr. Lewis and the Ellises as plaintiffs/appellants entered into negotiations. Subsequently they were able to reach an agreement regarding this. One of the conditions of that agreement, was that the plat be revoked. My clients, A & S Partners LLC, are the only entities adversely affected by the revocation of the plat. I do not believe there have been any transfers of the property.
The agreement is to benefit all parties concerned in that the plaintiffs/appellants are not desiring the property to be divided. They desire that it stay the same character that it now possesses. They own the adjoining property and this is a way for neighbors to resolve feuds over one party developing land. They should reach an agreement and purchase the property if they don’t like the way it is being divided. I do not see any adverse effect of this plat being revoked, so therefore I ask the Board to accept the agreement and sign the necessary documentation for the plat to be revoked and allow the closing to occur tomorrow. It is my understanding that if this is not revoked, the closing will not occur tomorrow. The only other alternative available would be to seek a judicial determination regarding the revocation, which would result in more cost to all parties. I will answer any questions you might have.
Best: Was the plat recorded?
Head: The plat was recorded. I do not believe Sue Carol Perry, the County Clerk filed an answer to the litigation and I do not believe she is taking an active interest in the litigation, due to the fact an answer was not received by her. I do not believe Shelby County ever filed an answer either. I don’t think anyone else filed an answer.
Best: How is a recorded plat revoked? It is recorded in the Clerk’s Office. If someone comes in and looks at that plat, how do they know that plat has been revoked?
Triple S Zoning Commission
October 17, 2000
Page 9
Head: It is recorded with a notation on the margin that the plat has been revoked. Plaintiffs had originally requested the plat be removed. With conversations with their attorneys, we decided it would be best to make a notation on the margin and leave the plat in the cabinet. In the event of removal of a plat, it would take an order from Circuit Court to remove the plat from the plat cabinet.
Bemiss: Who will make the notation?
Head: Sue Carol Perry as the County Clerk would put the notation on the margin and Mr. Best as Chairman of the Planning Commission would have to sign it.
Best: Anyone on the Board have any questions? Anyone in the audience wish to comment? Anyone on the Board have questions? If there is no further discussion, a motion is in order regarding the revocation of the recorded plat of Tract “A” Old Booker Pike Farm.
Mr. Rudolph made the motion to approve the revocation of the plat of Tract “A” Old Booker Pike Farm and gives Chairman Best the authority to sign the plat in the County Clerk’s office.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Best: Is there any discussion on the motion?
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
JTL Development Phase II Final Kerry Magan
Docket # S-PUD-590-00
Kerry Magan, representing JTL Properties, LLC and Bluegrass Properties, LLC: This was presented before as a preliminary plat and also tract 1 was presented as a Planned Unit Development at your last meeting. Our intention is to be able to identify the lots on the subdivision with the exception of lots 4 thru 9 and amend the driveway, which we are