 will staff members here today to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and members of the public are able to participate in the meeting at the appropriate times. If you're here today and would like to speak about a case please provide your name clearly into the microphone and please be sure to sign in either at the back of the room or at the podium for documentation purposes. If you're here to speak about a case you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Causey, Mr. Cohn, Mr. Cook, Mr. Harp, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Tupper here. We have quorum. I'll get a brief overview of the meeting format. Applicants with requests before the planning commissioner allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicants such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. The time limit does not include any questions asked by the planning commission or staff regarding request. During the public comment period members of the general public are given an opportunity to address their concerns and intervals of two minutes. After the public comment period, applicants have five minutes to respond. The administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. The planning commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. Are there any changes to the agenda? So far there has been one change to the agenda since publication. Case number five, which is on the zoning map amendment, case ZMA-2022-0012, which is 951 and 919 True Street, has been deferred. Other than that, the agenda still stands. The planning commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by single motion and vote. Examples of such items include approval of site plans, annexations, and street names. If a member of the planning commission or the general public would like to discuss an item on the consent agenda, you must speak up after the consent agenda is read. Then that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The planning commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. And I'll just read through the consent agenda. The first item is the approval of the August 11, 2022 minutes. The next item is under future land use amendment and zoning map amendment for pending annexation. We have case annex-2022-0020. This is a lot of addresses on Atlantic Drive and Balsam Road. This is a request recommendation to assign land use classification of Urban Edge Residential Large Lot, UER-2, and assigned zoning of Residential Singh Little Family Medium Lot District RSF-2 at the time of annexation. The property is currently classified as Neighborhood Mixed Residential High Density and Zoned RSMD by Richland County. Case number three, annex-2022-0021, 79.05 acres on the north side of Percival Road, 4407 Percival Road, and 0.775 acres on the east side of Newland Road. Request recommendation to assign land use classifications of Urban Edge Residential Small Lot, UER-1, Urban Edge Multi-Family, pardon me, UEMF, and Urban Edge Community Activity Center, UEAC-1, and Zoned the property Residential Mixed District RM-1, Residential Mixed District 2, and Light Industrial District at the time of annexation. The property is currently classified as Neighborhood Medium Density and Zoned M1 by Richland County. Case four, under the Zoning Map Amendment, is ZMA-2022-0012, 2470 Millwood Avenue, 2514 Cherry Street, 2520 Cherry Street, and 0.05 acres on the west side of Cherry Street. Request to rezone the property for Mixed Use District MU-1 and Residential Mixed District RM-1, a portion within the old Shannon-Lower Waverly Historic Preservation Overlay to Mixed Use District MU-1. And that concludes the consent agenda. There are these slides real quick. Is there anyone from the Planning Commission or public that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Ma'am, would you? I'm sorry. Would you mind giving your name and let us know which one? I was issue four, number four. My name is Vivian Clark Armstead. I'm president of the MLK Lower Waverly Neighborhood Association. And we're here to protest the changing of the zoning of our community from a residential to residential mix to commercial based on the neighborhood and the historic preservation of our neighborhood and the zoning of having commercial properties and businesses come into a neighborhood that is a residential historical neighborhood MLK Lower Waverly. Is there anyone on the commission has any questions? I guess if we can just get a motion to remove that from the consent agenda. Sure. I'll entertain a motion. Can I get a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Signify by aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. We'll remove four for the regular agenda. Thank you. Thank you. We'll just need a um an a motion to we'll need to just approve the consent agenda minus that item and then we can move on to that case. Could I have a motion for the consent agenda? I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda Mr. Chair. Second. All those in favor? Do we need to clarify that being off? Yeah it'd be a good idea to just clarify minus item number four. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda minus items four ZMA 2020 0012. Second. I have a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. I'll just click back to it so we're gonna okay I'll just do a quick presentation of the um the item in question here. It's a zoning map amendment request and it's a request to rezone the property from mixed use district MU1 and residential mixed district RM1 and a portion within the old Shandon lower Waverly Historic Preservation overlay to mixed use district MU1 and so you could see on the map here those are the parcels in question and the the parcel fronting on Millwood that lot is actually already MU1 so it would be the remaining three that would be that are being requested to go to MU1 from RM1. The applicant has these lots were combined they have been combined um into one lot previously before the zoning request came in but the GIS does not is not showing that yet so that's why the TMS numbers were listed separately. So just moving on to the the staff recommendation. Staff finds that the proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use classifications in the Columbia Compass plan because all parcels included in the rezoning request are to the rear of the lots facing Green Street within the old Shandon lower Waverly Historic neighborhood and are adjacent to commercial properties on Millwood on the Millwood corridor. The requested zoning change will not have a negative impact on the residential neighborhood so staff finds that a recommendation to approve is appropriate here. Thank you. You'll have time to speak. I have any questions for staff? I do. So you're saying that there are other properties in the same area that are already zoned or currently I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt but if you look at the map there the the properties in purple are MU1 currently and so you can see that the parcel that fronts Millwood like I said that one is currently already MU1 and the lots the four lots that are highlighted there actually have been combined it's not reflected on the map because it hasn't been updated by GIS but the the owner did combine those those parcels are combined. There is the applicant here? Yes. Is there a current use for what's there right now I guess? So on the parcel that's on the the already MU1 the purple there there's an old I believe like a warehouse building there to the the other like coming down towards Green Street those parcels I believe are currently well it's all the same parcel actually now but there's nothing no buildings on those parcels. But that that building's vacant? For what we know. I believe there may be one or two tenants in there currently. Yes ma'am. I'm not sure of the status of that. Okay yes ma'am thank you. Yeah I know it's kind of been off and on within the applicant might be able to shed more light on that. Okay. Thank you. I think I have one more question. How long has it been combined as one parcel? I would say several months. So it's recent. I'm not sure in the delay the mapping delay why that is because it's been recorded the plat has been recorded I don't have the exact date but I would say in the last several months. Does anyone have any additional questions? The applicants here would like to speak on behalf of this. You can come to the podium. My name is Jason Corsi. I'm the owner of that 2470 Millwood parcel that we're speaking about. Yes that has been combined you know within the last six months it's it's been I guess the GIS has not updated. The big and I've talked to a couple different people that live around the neighborhood. One is Thomas Allen at 2480 Millwood Ave. Another was of Alvina Harrison at 2513 Green Street which butts up to the southeast corner of the property. Joe Green over 928 Short Street which butts up to the left western part of the property and sorry Thomas Allen was to the right right on Millwood. As was mentioned it's the MU zoning and this is really the interior portion this does not butt up on Green Street that we're trying to just make it one can take this parcel which it is but really there's no as far as plans I know there's been two issues there's been some tractor trailers there unfortunately had some bad tenants and they parked those there I went by today they're still there unfortunately they're either going to move those this weekend I know that's been issue these three people that I spoke with did not have an issue with the rezoning I asked they just as a you know respecting courtesy to y'all can I you know we get your feedback and they didn't have any issues with it but the big thing was those tractor trailers I actually talked to my neighbor who's got a CDL license and he's willing to come at no charge with myself to move those trailers the reason they didn't move the tractor trailers they said is they didn't have a guy that was a CDL approved driver so they didn't want to do it but they do have a yard off of 20 I would 20 to the flying J that they want to move those trailers the other question was what are the plans for the property and you and you one zoning as of now my my goal is just get rid of the bad tenants get rid of the tractor trailers leave it open cup cut the lawn and do nothing with it if and when in the future I know if you know if we sold the property it would carry to the next person the only thing I could think of was was the warehouse there it's got an angle to it might could potentially build off the side there's really no plans there's no budget for it right now what that would be just put a couple offices or whatever abides by the MU one zoning and of course go through you know civil engineer and go through the process site plan review that's like that type of thing so that's really the goal but of course didn't want to you know make anybody mad or offend anybody we just wanted to basically clean it up move the trailers I can see how residents would not want to track your trailers I didn't want to track your trailers I've been fighting with these gentlemen to get rid of them for months unfortunately I don't have a CDL I can't move it but again my neighbor does I'm happy to provide proof of that you know and take pictures or whatever is requested so questions or discussion so those are those trailers are those prior from former tenants yeah okay yeah yes sir so to be clear you are trying to change it to MU one to clear those tenants those tenants that excuse me they had a lease that expired August 31st it's now when we passed it they know they're they're aware of that I've been in communication with the Columbia about that I'm doing the best I can to get rid of them they know there's no release I've actually provided a letter that's to them that said we will not renew your lease that's that's the goal is to get them out of there to remove and if I could just clarify that's part of an enforcement action that zoning is is taking place within the zoning department with the applicant here so that's a separate process but that is being handled okay thanks my goal is to comply 100% anyone have any other further questions for the applicant thank you is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this and is there one round in that every concern in the track and trailer I never spoke to anyone right now in my house of that 2505 green street so that's not true I hadn't even received a letter and I definitely want my truck and trailer outside my house ma'am would you mind stating your name Mrs. Lysa from Roseanne Lysa LEY SATH and are you neighboring the property 2505 green thank you yes ma'am my name is Dr. Bambi Gaddis I live at 904 Oak Street in a lower Waverly MLK area I'm not here representing just my husband and I but I'm here representing my neighbors I have visuals of what we're discussing here several months ago we spoke with police chief because we were concerned about what we could see was happening there there were tankers there are trucks there's less here yesterday than there are on previous occasions but on previous days there have been a full compartment of total trucks so what I'd like you to visualize is the Baptist church where that lies directly behind it you will see it in the visuals there are homes of my neighbors who that where they have set up fences where they have a total obstruction to to family and community activities if you see other pictures you'll see that it runs there is a small section that one a few individuals may be able to walk through because it's the house and it's the fencing that has been set up it is a complete visual obstruction imagine if that was behind your home do I live directly there no but I it's only a matter of time that if we say nothing about what's impacting our community that it's going to end up being another slot and another lot I'm unclear why what's quite interesting and I'll end on this is that the sign that's on the fencing that discusses the public meeting on the 20th is totally opposite of this meeting that's occurring right now so my final request is the following four concerns one marking on the zoning committee meeting announcement sign is incorrect and no steps were taken to correct the meeting date number two staff found that zoning changes will not have a negative impact on residential neighborhoods what studies did staff conduct to make this determination who was consulted about the change and what's the neighborhood consulted number three is the proposed rezoning if it's approved will that facilitate the rezoning subsequent removal or continue gerrymandering of current historic preservation districts that run from millwood to harden and green to jervay and finally what are the plans for the rezoning portion of the land will it impact the quality of life for families that live nearby and the two churches that are located nearby it's our proposition and supposition that that's exactly what's going to occur and we're asking that you strongly consider not approving the current proposal thank you yes ma'am my name is francis parker my family owns the properties at 924 and 928 short street which directly about the rear well the rear of their property about the land that you all want to rezone so that is there's a residence located there and putting that commercial business there when we don't even know what type of commercial business it may become in the future will be destructive to their quality of life it serves to further marginalize those of us from a marginalized community and we see that just by the very fact that we have to come and stand before a group of men none of whom look like us for a man who does not look like us who wants to change the quality of life in a neighborhood that has been part of my life for almost 65 years now we're opposed to that we're opposed to you all approving any action that will destroy the quality of life of my family on short street thank you Barbara Whaley and I'm a resident at Old Shandon and Waverly and Martin Luther King and my question is the applicant said that he's going to clear the area but why do he have to rezoning if you're going to clear it and the other question is that we can't go in another neighborhood take if I wanted a business can I go to Devereux, Canterbury and put a chain entrance across a public street and put a business there I can't do that so I don't think it's fair is there anyone else that would like to speak for against this members of the board I'm Jim Daniel I'm a commercial real estate broker and I've done some work in that area and trying to continue to do some a couple questions here first of all this building was used for years by Puglia Morris as their storage facility for their business uh if you look at the map uh at the end of Cherry Street for what takes a left to green that property is owned by the city of Columbia if you go down Green Street uh at that corner it's own another property is owned by the Columbia Housing Development Corporation so the city also has some involvement in this area typically when one of the issues that I know the neighborhoods have been fighting for years is the intrusion of commercial in the neighborhoods typically it only goes one block deep what we're looking at here of course is more than one block deep so I think this would go against what I'm used to seeing the city normally approve is a commercial intrusion would only go a block in and and finally you've got the historic uh Taylor Street Baptist Church Taylor Morrow Baptist Church uh just to the left and uh you know as the ladies have spoken this is all part of the lower O'Shand and lower Waverley Historic District and I think uh at this point in time unless there's a designated use for this property I think rezoning is really premature thank you a couple questions it sounds like a lot of what we're hearing is zoning enforcement yes this issue could potentially exist independent of the zoning that's correct so the zoning enforcement issues are completely separate from the rezoning request itself so the rezoning request would would alter the zoning of the property um but the zoning enforcement issues are currently being dealt with would I guess my question is um under the current zoning on the front parcel are those semi trucks actually allowed there on the MU one the one that's already MU one so there has been a violation issued for that already and that's that's addressing that situation but the but currently that's I believe the trucks at least some of the trucks were sitting I have my inspector went out there so I'm not sure but we're on the residential portion which is not allowed there you know you can't have trucks on the residential portion obviously um the commercial portion it gets a little you know sticky depends on the business if there's a business there that has a commercial vehicle um potentially but not as it stands no they are not allowed to be where they are okay and then I guess building on that I'm just wondering if if we did approve this rezoning then they could conceivably move further back allowably I mean if it would depend on what businesses were approved to go into the building or any potential future buildings that were built there um so it would have to be part of a business I'm not sure any business allowed in MU one you know would be would be fair game there and if any trucks were associated with that business they would be allowed to be there potentially but not just random you know 18 wheelers right and I think the applicant state of these aren't his trucks this is his truck yeah it's your tent but the tenant is no longer a tenant this lease is about my understanding no that the the lease is ended at the end of august okay thank you I believe um in speaking with him earlier the trucks were removed at some point and then were brought back you can confirm with him but I believe that was the case um that they were all gone at one point and then recently they have come back so that that will be you know again that's part of the enforcement process that our office is dealing with as well I've had that problem before that's why I'm asking anyone have any questions of staff further questions for the applicant um there are there currently any homes or structures on those three parcels that are being rezoned or has to be rezoned on the ones requested to be rezoned correct any homes correct um not to mine is there one yes okay I'll let them I'll let them speak to that would you mind coming up thank you number one you saw the sign that said flex services they're renting that space as well they're subleasing with the individuals so they can park their vehicles on that lot number two one of the complaints of residents is when they do park they come in at two one two and three in the morning so when they bring those big diesel trucks through that small avenue they're waking they're waking up everybody so again I would submit that if I place myself in the position of these folks who I'm not sure maybe the district guard is coming from the fact that some are not homeowners I'm not sure but whatever the bias is that potentially is there they're totally disrupting the the the the comfort the peace that everybody would like to have in their community with those diesel trucks ma'am ma'am do you mind sharing which lot that is being proposed for rezoning as a homeowner so looking at the as it's outlined on the map and the the parcels on the tax map there there are three lots so so let me let me let me proclaim my ignorance so I'm speaking to a body of of leaders who are making zoning decisions that's not what I do what I am is a homeowner who partners works with and supports members of my community I drive by there through there every single day so when the so when it's being said that these trucks are gone they've never been gone they've never been gone since the day they moved in they're still there the pictures I showed you were yesterday there have been other moments when there have been three four five trucks even larger than the one that you saw including tankers in that small lot how they get in there I have no idea but the disruption is of great magnitude and that is what this community is addressing um to your question about how much of it it's the whole thing all it takes is just drive by once and you'll see the invasion of on your own and that speaks to what I'm saying I can't speak to you in your terminology but I can tell you from the moment I turned down stark and go through the back way to get to millwood all I see is fencing and green covering trying to give a camouflage view that it's not there but you can't get past it because it's everywhere from the front to the back of lander miss green's house all the way through the neighborhood and I traveled all the way around to millwood and I drove up in the front lot of that building and that's where I found the sign that said they're renting that space so there's clearly some storage on one side of this particular building and on the other side is the driveway I think that these big tankers drive into and park but I'm what this gentleman knows far more than I about the size I guess to change the terminology you all emphatically said that yes there was a house on a lot that he's proposing the house that you saw in my pictures is the house that the chain link fits imagine it sits here the house is right here so they built that fence right alongside and so for the record my neighbor who lives in that house and they give their birthday parties for their children they have to contend with that fence thank you I could just clarify really quick about the fence so there is a fence that is located it's on along green street so I guess you all can't see that on your iPads but there are parcels fronting green street here those are not part of the request the rezoning request so I believe the fence that she's referring to is along green street it's a fence with the green material in within the slats and that is also being handled as part of an enforcement action but that those lots are along green street here again the lots have all been combined they are all owned by the applicant but those two lots are not included in the rezoning request and they are where my pointer is right now but that fence also blocks off the continuation of cherry street which blocks off a city street that runs behind the houses on short street but the bigger issue is not just the opposition to this particular issue of the tankers in the truck it's the opposition to the whole rezoning of our community which has had been a historically residential community and so we're really opposed to it becoming a commercial area and removing our historical overlay and restore and also removing some of our residential properties which could now be destroyed and that the historical significance of an african-american community that has been around since the beginning of of the city that we are opposed to not just this particular company or this particular issue of the tanker trucks it is the issue of the total rezoning of this particular part of our community that i am opposed to and that i am here representing as president of the mlk law waverly neighborhood association we are opposed to having our community rezoned period thank you hold on please um i've got two questions no sorry first that thank you um so when it looks like cherry street comes down past what looks paved so it's my understanding that cherry street has been absorbed in during the lot combination process when all of those lots were combined um i at least where those parcels are that part of cherry street has been absorbed into those parcels i'm not sure what the legal process you know what occurred with that part of okay but then the city's piece next to that is that zoned uh r m which it looks like coming down that road there's another piece yep hold on just a second sir thank you looks like the pointer's not working anymore but i was so which where are you referring to where where cherry comes down and eventually turns to become green if there's a curve there yeah we're uh that that piece do you know the zoning on the city piece so that's r m one that is our okay yes so the brown there um on the screen that's the currently r m one zoning okay um if you've already spoken i appreciate it if you haven't will entertain it and then leave the apple pen a chance to rebut i haven't seen it yet sir thank you my point is is that i don't know how chair she doesn't go running the green chair goes behind green how in the world do they take city property and change it actually i've been there 73 years i've been in that neighborhood chair street goes all the way down and when it gets to green it goes behind behind that building i don't even know how they put a building on that that's to say the property how do you mind stating your name my name is chesley price i apologize i'm chesley price i've never lived in that community for 73 years that's a street that runs behind cherry street does not run and uh into uh green street chair street runs behind green street it stops at green street so i don't know how that company got that property because that property city that's a city street it runs where that company is but i we never knew how but they got that company how they blocked it off it's a street yeah and i'm i'm opposed to it i'm opposed to anything in that community i've been there all my life right baby i'm opposed to it would the applicant like to speak on this anymore in regards to the property just the yeah the property was purchased with the 247 millwood as was mentioned there's five lots three of which are within that blue area which was to be rezoned there's no houses in any of those lots again to readdress the the tenant which i have not wanted there since months now the tankers they will be moved i'm happy to show that i'm happy to do it myself with my neighbor with the cdl to come and move the tankers i think we all agree that's a terrible we do not want those there at all in any way shape or form as for future use the only thing i can think about besides clearing that out and mowing the lawn is off the potential backside of that building if we could add on at some point and do some like light offices or so that's it so i'm not trying to redo anything with the neighborhood i'm trying to be you know respectful of the neighborhood the history there i you know i you know i also went to u.s.c in columbia and i'm you know that's that's the goal i'm not trying to change anything or redo anything that's really it get the tankers out their lease again has been terminated in august it has not been renewed the city inspector is part of the action i i gave him a certified letter that i sent to the tenants that said a 90 day notice and again i think it was 30 or 60 day notice that i said your lease will your lease will not be renewed so they're gone they're right the tankers there yesterday i was there an hour ago there's two red tractor trailer tankers there currently right now that's that's correct it's absolutely true again if i've got to come and move it with a neighbor mind it's got a cdl i'll do it and i'll show proof and i you know want to show full respect to everybody here and i respect everybody's opinion so that's the that's that's what i want to be known so how long have you owned this property i guess that was my question too and how long have the tankers and tractor trailers been there in your year of owning it those gentlemen had a one-year lease and i i was not aware that they to the extent that they were going to do that they've been a problem since they won't i've tried to have a legal responsibility can't just evict somebody they paid they paid every single month i tried i started eviction process one time after day five you know rents doing the first it's late on the fifth you can start you know i did a certified mail letter to try to get them out then they paid the rent so that stops the eviction process so i am working with the city with the infractions separate from this was um how do we get these these gentlemen gone and uh you legally can't do anything with it just throw them out they have rights right um but i've wanted them out for months and i've told them they've known about these infractions from the city for for months and um you know it's it's not as simple as just towing the car you know i mean they're they're big unfortunately they're big tractor trailers so but i'm again i'm happy to show everybody you know that we're gonna we're gonna move those and they've since moved out most of the other there's two tractor trailers there they've got one car hauler i talked to the gentleman an hour ago he was supposed to meet me there he didn't show up he says that's going to be gone tomorrow we'll see but the key is those big tractor trailers so again we're prepared at at my cost of my time to get rid of those things because that's never been wanted by anybody myself included um i had a question for staff it's mentioned that all the the previous um separate lots i think he said it was five of them are now combined was there any type of zoning uh analysis or determination made prior to them being combined or that was an administrative process just to combine the lots so and that was actually done in let's see five twenty four twenty two was the date the plot was recorded so that's but that's an administrative process um that was done prior to the submittal of the rezoning application so it says possible to combine parcels when they're when the zoning's known yes or different and again even though it is combined the two lots fronting green street that are not they're not highlighted in blue up there because they're not part of the request so there's two lots and so the zoning line will not extend if the rezoning were to be approved it would not extend down to green street the mu one it would stop where those blue lines are but those blue lines are in a neighborhood correct so part of the request is to remove the overlay from those lots as well so they are currently in the overlay yes if you see on the the map there it shows that on the I believe this the patch line is the the neighborhood overlay line okay the fact that they've gone across unopened cherry street and and changed the zoning seems to go against past practice by the city of not rezoning for commercial use property that is more than one block from a major street I represented the owner of a small lot at the corner of south walk amour and rosewood that was zoned years ago by the city as commercial it was only 40 feet wide we looked into trying to buy the house next door to get a decent commercial lot out of it and we got nowhere because that was residential this doesn't seem to be treating this the location the same way they treated the one that I was doing I mean I don't see how the city could rezone the property across the street of them then it's maybe continuous but you actually have a street there that's not open it seems like to me that rezoning of the property on the right side of that street was improper to begin with thank you I think at this point we've heard a lot of comments and are appreciative of everybody's concerns and is there any discussion amongst commissioners something that's on that regarding the cherry street I've got a copy from the county 2008 the plat was recorded with cherry street this is what I was told by the city plat was recorded cherry street the parcel that is recorded and is not a three-through street anymore um I'd like to you know I can submit this but this is on the city record so as of 2008 well before I owned the property the plat was recorded cherry street the parcel that is recorded is not a three-through street anymore so that is recorded as well thank you you all need to see that yeah I see that real quick please there's a lot of discussion about the um about that parcel the the old cherry street right of way and to clarify before he combined the parcels that that parcel was a separate parcel with its own separate tax map number so it was a parcel prior to him acquiring the property and combining it with the all his other properties thank you all right did anybody understand that any further discussion happy entertainment motion mr chair I'd like to make a motion to approve zma 2022-0012 got a motion in a second further discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye aye all those opposed no no do a roll call please mr. quasi mr. kohn no mr. kutt yes mr. hart no yes mr. thomas no and mr. tupper no the motion fails that's going to bring us to our next case which is a which is 14 14.4 acres the southwest corner broad river road and piney woods road and this is a request to this is this 74 lot attached single family subdivision was approved by the planning commission in october on october 4th 2021 the planning commission granted approval of the site plan subject to compliance with staff comments which included the construction of sidewalks along piney woods road and a side path along broad river road and the applicant is requesting that these two conditions be removed from the approval due to the request from the harbison group design development review commission in an effort to maintain the existing vegetated buffer along both roads the property is located in the harbison plan unit development and approval is required prior their approval is required prior to any land development activity and if the commission is so inclined to grant this request we would just ask that all of the conditions from the previous grant of approval remain except those two and i believe the applicant is um president so he can explain the case and mr. chairman commissioners i'm alan hutte with great southern homes we're the developer of this parcel as staff said this came before y'all back in april and was approved and we've got to go get approval from the harbison community association and they informed us that they did not like two things about it one was the sidewalk and side path requirement which would eat into that vegetative buffer and additionally there are no sidewalks with any mile of the property so it would literally be a sidewalk to nowhere so we agree with them about removing the requirement for the sidewalk and the side path additionally i don't think staff mentioned this but we're asking to remove the emergency entrance that was in the first site plan harbison community association had also requested we remove that and we actually did some research and that second entrance is not required so we would request that you approve the removal of that in the site plan as well thank you i think we also have a letter from um harbison county association specific to this everyone's had a chance to review it that's correct and they also there's also an email from them um in the in the packet one point of clarification um that's the emergency access that is provided um that on the previous comments the fire marshal recommended approval of the site plan the emergency access was shown on that site plan however they have also recommended approval without the emergency access being shown so it's it's removed from the site plan and it's really didn't need to be included as an as an amendment to the site plan since the fire marshal it's not required and the fire marshal has approved it just just for my purposes be clear it's the same packet we've prior approved we're just asking to take the correct exit in the sidewalks correct okay that's correct at the request of the um harbison group and you know they you know they the developer was willing to put in the sidewalks but however they ran into that with the harbison group so that's why they requested it anyone have any questions for staff or the applicant is there anyone here that would like to speak for against this not seeing any do we need to wait a little bit or okay to entertain a motion mr chairman i'd like to make a motion to approve a splat two zero two one dash zero zero eight eight there's a motion on the table can we get a second second is that with staff comments uh i'll amend my second with staff comments motion with a second all those in favor signify by saying aye aye all opposed motion approve as there is no other business do i have a motion to adjourn should i have a motion to adjourn second second all those in favor aye