Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-1998 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS May 19, 1998 The Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:20 p.m., Tuesday, May 19, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Powell, Shepard and Todd, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Willie Mays, member of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Randy Oliver, Administrator; and James Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND MYLES. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have a request as per our addendum agenda: 1. Motion to approve an ordinance amending the 1945 Richmond County Employees' Pension Fund Act to provide for an additional payment of $100.00 per month to certain participants. 2. Accept grant in the amount of $48,750.00 to seal cracks in Runway 11-29 with local match of $16,250.00 to be taken from Daniel Field Reserves. 3. Appoint two (2) members to Economic Opportunity Authority. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, you don't have unanimous consent to Item Number 3. MAYOR SCONYERS: How about Item 1 and 2? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Item 1 and 2 is fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we just say Item 1 and 2 then. All in favor, cast your vote accordingly. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have a Mr. Randy Clemmons here from the GMA Municipal Association, here to present the city with a check. So if you would, please, Mr. Clemmons? MR. CLEMMONS: We'd like to thank you on behalf of the GMA equipment lease pool. The pool was started in 1990 and has been so successful that the equipment casualty reserve repair fund has been eliminated. I'd like to present the city a check for $55,113.38. MAYOR SCONYERS: Don't let Mr. Brigham know that, he'll find a project for it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I was just trying to think where we could put that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much on behalf of our city. CLERK: Under Delegation, Mr. John L. Padgett. MR. PADGETT: Mr. Mayor and members of the Augusta Commission-Council, I come before you today to ask you to assist me in resolving a situation that occurred in 1995 with the former City of Augusta. In 1995, myself and six other former Augusta police officers filed civil suits against the City of Augusta based on the policy and procedure manual that the city had, specifically Sections 7.02 regarding overtime and Section 7.03 on-call stand- by status. In January of 1992 I was promoted to Violent Crimes Detective at the Augusta Police Department specializing in child abuse investigations and sex crimes. Because of my unique position and specialty I was required to be on call seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. This was during holidays, scheduled off days, as well as my vacation. There were several other officers who were in the Violent Crimes unit who were also on call in the same similar situation, as well as SWAT team members. We filed our suits in 1995. As far as they got was to a deposition, at which time one of the attorneys representing us also had a similar compensation suit filed against the former City of Augusta. This suit was quickly paid, and at that point all forward motion of our suit stopped, and they haven't been addressed since. I come to you asking you to help me settle the situation. These suits range from in the four figures to upwards into six-figure range. The six figure range is the unique one. He has been there at the police department for over twenty-five years, on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. All we're asking for is to be heard and for the situation to be settled, whether it's settled through attorneys or whether it's settled out of court with the Commission- Council. I'm sure that all of us would be very willing. We never wanted to bring the suits to begin with. We tried every avenue that we had [inaudible] supervisors, meeting with city attorneys, and trying to meet with members of the Commission and the Council at that time, and they refused to hear us. The only thing that we were ever told that we would not demand--we would not delegate to them how or when they would settle the suit or even address the issue. I've supplied you with a copy of my suit personally and a copy of the codes which I've spoken to you about, 7.02 and 7.03. If you would look over them--all I'm asking is that you look at it and give us a call and see if we can take care of the situation. Like I said, I'm sure that all of us would be more than willing to withdraw the suits against the city. Unfortunately, with the abolishment of the city charter there is no way now to settle it by offering compensatory time to the employees who still work for the county. The only way is to do it financially through payment. I appreciate your time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we receive this from Mr. Padgett as information and refer it to the County Attorney. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? Thank you, Mr. Padgett. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, cast your vote accordingly. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: The Planning Commission offers as a consent agenda all items with the exception of Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 16. MR. TODD: Let's pull 14 also. [1. Deleted from consent agenda. 2. Deleted from consent agenda. 3. Z-98-54 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Reverend Tim LaFavor, on behalf of Crawford Avenue Baptist Church, requesting a special exception for the purpose of adding a day care center as provided for in Section 26- 1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County, on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Telfair Street and Crawford Avenue (501-507 Crawford Avenue). 4. Z-98-56 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Reverend J.S. Wright, on behalf of Macedonia Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Jordan Road (1822-24 Wrightsboro Road). 5. Deleted from consent agenda. 6. Z-98-59 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from C. Ralph Kitchens, Jr., on behalf of William H. Barrett, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the south right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 555 feet, more or less, west of the southwest corner of the intersection of the Central of Georgia Railroad and Tobacco Road. 7. Deleted from consent agenda. 8. Z-98-61 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve petition from Ayercorp, on behalf of James E. and Lillian E. Oellerich, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) on property located on the east right-of-way line of Bertram Road, 820 feet, more or less, north of a point where the centerline of Center West Parkway extended intersects the east right-of-way line of Bertram Road. 9. Z-98-62 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Joyce Lassiter requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family residence) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighbor-hood Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Lovett Drive, 600.0 feet west of the southwest corner of the intersection of Peach Orchard Road and Lovett Drive (2112 Lovett Drive). 10. Z-98-63 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Frank Wilson requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Camilla Road, 549 feet, more or less, northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Davis Road and Camilla Road. 11. Deleted from consent agenda. 12. Deleted from consent agenda. 13. Deleted from consent agenda. 14. Deleted from consent agenda. 15. S- 207-IIC-III - Woodlake Subdivision - Section IIC -Phase III - Final Plat - A petition from James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Herbert Homes, Inc., requesting final plat approval of Woodlake Subdivision, Section IIC, Phase III. This phase is an extension of Cranbrook Drive and Bennington Drive adjacent to Woodlake, Phase II, and Section IIC, and contains 45 lots. 16. Deleted from consent agenda.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So actually what we're voting on then is Items 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 15. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my only question would be to Mr. Patty, that we don't have any storm water problems as far as the final plat on Item 15? MR. PATTY: No, sir, it's been approved by all agencies, including Public Works. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by casting your ballots. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 1: Z-98-40 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Mark C. Barinowsky, on behalf of R.A. and Martha P. McElmurray, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower as provided for in Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road (US #1), 2,767 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Highway 88 inter-sects with the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Patty, the denial on this particular issue, is that from the Commission? What was the recommendation from the staff? MR. PATTY: The staff recommended it be approved. MR. KUHLKE: Well, what--why-- MR. PATTY: Well, first of all, it's a 450-foot tower. This is not one of these typical monopole, 175-foot towers, this is a massive tower. And there's another similar size tower within about a mile and a half or two miles of it that Jefferson Electric is building, and I think some of our people felt that if this tower didn't get built, that everybody would be served anyway. Under the Agriculture zoning, any tower requires a special exception. We've got some criteria to consider, and one of those criteria is height, and I think that they felt that the height was excessive. We didn't have any objectors. MR. KUHLKE: Then I move approval of this item. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I think all the correspondence that's taken place out there, people are under the impression that it's going to be another monopole type deal. I don't think they're under the understanding that it's going to be a 450-foot tower. And, you know, I'm certainly not opposed to it. I'm like you, I have had no complaints about it, but all indications are the public is under the impression that that's to be a monopole. MR. TODD: Mr. Patty, I understand this is going to be 450 feet. Is this going to be a break-away when it fall or are we talking about falling intact or what? MR. PATTY: It would be a guided tower. You might want to speak to the petitioner about the structural integrity and that sort of thing. There's nothing within the fall zone of this tower. There's no structure within the fall zone of the tower. MR. TODD: What's the other zoning around it and what's the potential of residential or church or industry, etc.? MR. PATTY: Well, everything around it is agricultural, but there are scattered residences in the area and the area is slowing developing. I'm sure some day, you know, out on Highway 1--this is a flagpole lot off of Highway 1. I'm sure some day there will be development around this. MR. TODD: Can we put stipulations on it where it would have to be designed where if it breaks [inaudible]? MR. BARINOWSKY: I'm Clarence Barinowsky, part of the petition. This is a 450-foot structure. It is not really a massive tower, but it is about twice the size of the normal monopole structures. Typically towers do not fall out to the length. If it was cut down for any reason, it would not fall the 450- foot length. What it would typically do, Mr. Todd, is collapse and then fall. We are purchasing enough acreage in this to protect any such because of potential liability that we might have anyway. MR. TODD: So if it come down, would it come down on the property [inaudible]? MR. BARINOWSKY: Yes, sir. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just make a motion that we postpone it until the next meeting and then bring it back up at the next Commission meeting, just to make sure that there's an understanding from everybody out there that this is a 450-foot tower. I just want to be clear about that because I don't think the people understand it's going to be that tall, and I make that in the form of a motion. MR. BARINOWSKY: Mr. Chairman, may I comment? In the two appearances before the Planning Commission there have been no objections to the tower. In addition to that, the closest neighbor has requested that the tower be constructed on his property for revenue purposes. And we would plead the Commission to proceed with this. We've already been delayed two months. We have the commitment. And the purpose of this tower, there were two cellular telephone companies who were trying to obtain permits in the area of the tower. We're in the tower business; we construct towers and own towers. We contacted two of the prominent cellular carriers in the area and have commitments. We have a letter from one of them that we could present to you now that this was their original site, and they are signing the rights to the property to us in order that we would construct a tower. And the reason for the height of the tower is so that we can put multiple users on it. We have a verbal commitment from Alltel that they will locate on this tower; we have a written commitment from Cellular One that they will locate on this tower; we are working on two other cellular companies, BellSouth and Powertel. And real purpose of this is to keep from having numerous tower in the area. There was on the drawing board two separate towers within a couple of miles of each other on Highway 1. Cellular systems don't want--this other tower that was mentioned is a mile and a half/two miles off Highway 1. They want to get on that area. Digital telephone does not have the reach analog telephone signal does and, therefore, we are trying to accommodate more than one user and at the same time really accommodate the county by not having so many structures. Mr. Powell, if you would, I would beg you to withdraw the delay if possible. MAYOR SCONYERS: We didn't have a second to Mr. Powell's motion. MR. BEARD: I'll second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on Mr. Powell's motion, gentlemen? Ms. Bonner, read the substitute motion first, please. CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Powell was to postpone for two weeks. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to postpone, cast your vote accordingly, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, HANDY, KUHLKE & TODD VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 5-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion. CLERK: The original motion was to approve, by Mr. Kuhlke. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, cast your vote accordingly, please. MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, POWELL & SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. CLERK: Item 2: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission requesting to rezone all properties that are currently zoned Agriculture (A) to a residential zoning classification (R-1) except for those properties that are zoned agricultural and (1) are currently in a conservation tax status; (2) are in inactive agricultural use; (3) residential zoning is not proposed by the Comprehensive Plan; or (4) a plan has been submitted and development is proceeding according to that plan, within the area described as follows: Beginning where Horsepen Branch enters Spirit Creek, then east along Spirit Creek to where it crosses Willis Foreman Road, then east along Willis Foreman Road to Windsor Spring Road, then north on Windsor Spring Road to Tobacco Road, then northwest along Tobacco Road to Crest Drive, then generally south to the point of beginning. MR. PATTY: The Comprehensive Plan that we completed in 1995 identified three pretty good sized areas in South Richmond County where a major portion of the growth that this county is going to experience in the next twenty years is going to have to occur because there is very little develop-able land left on the West Side. There is some in Belair, but generally this is where it's going to be if it happens. And the plan coordinated the extension of infrastructure of roads and other public improve- ments, or suggested the coordination of those things in these areas, and also suggested that the agricultural zoning in these areas be changed to R-1 to prevent the hodge- podge that we've got in some areas today. If this change is made, it'll have two impacts. One, it will not permit mobile homes or manufactured homes within these areas and, two, it will limit the types of new agricultural activities that can be conducted in these areas. Existing agricultural activities can continue. MR. BRIDGES: Motion to approve. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: I guess my question to Planning and Zoning, Mr. Mayor, would be, you know, if we're taking large tracts of agricultural zoning to one- family residential, do that rule out all other land use? I mean, if an individual come back and want to do multiple-family or want to do commercial, where are we going to be? And did we give the property owners adequate time to comment on a land use plan to go from agricultural to that land use plan? MR. PATTY: Okay. The properties we're zoning from agricultural to R-1 are properties the plan suggests be residential and not commercial or multi- family, so, you know, everything that you do today is going to conform to the plan. We held a public hearing, I believe it was in February, March, something of that nature, and this has been on the Planning Commission's agenda twice. I think there's been adequate time. To answer your last question, the people that were actively developing according to the plan, they're being protected. Their vested rights are being protected. But to encourage anyone else to come in with a plan [inaudible] under the wire without a plan I think would be a mistake. Anybody that's actively developing their land and has expended money for that purpose, I think they've got a right to what they've got, but I think that the only way that we'll ever get the land use pattern in these areas that we want is to at some point draw a line, and that's what this does. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Patty, is there any other zoning proposed in this area in the Comprehensive Plan? MR. PATTY: Yeah. The intersection of the arterials and, to some extent, the strips along the arterials were already primarily commercial. You know, those areas are not going to be residential, and that's what we left out. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Do you think maybe we ought to go on and change those to commercial? MR. PATTY: Well, I don't think so. Number one, we didn't advertise it and, number two, I think that the people that own that property would rather leave it agricultural for potential tax reasons. You know, we could come back and zone it, but I don't think those areas are ever going to be mobile home or agricultural, so I don't think there's really any protection issue there. MR. H. BRIGHAM: One other question. We always have folks coming here for a special exception, so they still can come back, if they have a project, come back to you for a special exception if this board decided [inaudible]. MR. PATTY: Absolutely. This doesn't limit anybody's ability to ask for zoning changes or special exceptions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to approve, let it be known by casting your ballot accordingly. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 5: Z-98-57 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition: 'That a six (6) foot privacy fence be erected to buffer the adjacent home from the vehicle parking area before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for this proposed use', a petition from Lisa Perkins, on behalf of Lisa Perkins and Steve Bennett, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Eastside Court, 160 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Peach Orchard Road and Eastside Court (2101 Eastside Court). MR. PATTY: I put this up because we had one objector to this. It's 160 feet from Peach Orchard Road. It's across from the phone company, which is zoned Light Industry. The frontage property is commercial, and the plan says anything within 400 feet of an arterial like this should be considered for commercial. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, do we have any objectors here? MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors? [None noted] MR. TODD: Would you say the objector was a strong objector? MR. PATTY: No, I don't believe he was a strong objector. We put the fence buffer in as a condition and I think that satisfied him. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Patty, I understand this is a beauty shop that she's putting in there? MR. PATTY: Actually, when I talked to her originally she mentioned several uses. A beauty shop was one potential use, but she stated at the meeting that she didn't want to be limited to that. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your vote accordingly, gentlemen. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 7: Z-98-60 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Maria Radford, on behalf of Broad Oaks Land & Investment Co., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 275 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Hephzibah-McBean Road and Mike Padgett Highway. MS. WILLIAMS: I'd like to speak on this. I'm Avalori Williams. We also have me, Mr. Guy, and Reverend Smith. We would like for this to remain agricultural because they do not state exactly what they want to do with this property and it's right at our recreational area, which is the hub of our community. And we realize we have one B-2 situation there right now that does not have allow liquor. It's close to our church, it's within looking distance, it's too close to our church, and we already have traffic problems out there. The main concern is that we would rather have houses, trailers, rather than the businesses here in this particular area. We would like for our area to grow and have businesses, but we do not want anything that is dangerous for our children, our seniors, or the endanger of our church. MR. GUY: Rodney Guy, I live on Horseshoe Road off of 56. There is always the talk of widening the highway out there, which would bring the street even closer to the front door of our church, and what would concern us is if someone would place a liquor store out there. And maybe the better person that would be up here to speak to y'all would be an alcoholic that couldn't refuse to go get that drink on a Wednesday while we had church going on. And our children would be out in the front playing, and as that street gets closer to our front door--we'd just much rather have it the way it is right now: a quiet, peaceful community. MS. WILLIAMS: As y'all are aware, maybe some of y'all that know me, right there at the church some of my family did get run over and killed going for a ball, and the road is going right there. This business, he has not told us what it's going to be, and we would just like this to remain neighborhood. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a representative from Broad Oaks Land & Investment? MR. DUSENBERRY: I've Ben Dusenberry from Broad Oaks Land Company. This ten-acre tract of land is already zoned B-2. What we're doing is adding a strip on the back of the ten-acre piece that was created by a surveying error. The strip of land that we're adding--we're asking to be joined to the commercial piece is about--it's a 56-foot wide, 900-foot long strip of land that sits behind this original ten-acre piece off the road some 382 feet. It's just a housekeeping thing we're doing to add this 1.23 to the originally zoned B-2, which is the highway frontage. The highway frontage is 852 feet now already zoned B-2. The remainder, 7.93 acres, is already zoned B-2. MS. WILLIAMS: That's the hardware store. MR. DUSENBERRY: So what we're asking is to add--the hardware store is on part--one corner of the property is Mr. Benny Broom's hardware store. We have 7.93 acres there already zoned B-2. This is an additional 1.23 acres to be added to the back of this 7.93 acres. MR. BEARD: I would just like to know what you intend to put out there. I think that was the question. MR. DUSENBERRY: We don't have any plans to put anything there [inaudible] mini warehouses right now. But we don't have any type of [inaudible]. The land is for sale. MS. WILLIAMS: But if you zone it B-2, then we have no control of what you put there. We've got a fire department out there, we've got our recreation, we have our children, we have our seniors. That is the hub of our community, and then our church is right there, and we do not care for any more of our children to be run over. With Mr. Benny there with the hardware store, there is no chance that that will become something that sells alcohol and beer, and it's just too close to--we would prefer to have residences and leave it agricultural. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is, and I under-stand what we're saying as far as [inaudible]. But my concern is that with your road frontage, basically whether you get this zoning or not you still can do anything that you would normally do in a B-2. And, Mr. Mayor, it's also my understanding that where we can't consider the possibility of alcohol sales in a rezoning issue, that's a separate issue and would come before this board and we would have to decide how close it is to the church, etc., and we would have discretion there that we --basically as far as land use for a zoning issue, we would not decide that here. And, you know, I can support the rezoning of the small tract for housekeeping purposes, keeping in mind that I may not be here when someone come back and want to put a liquor store, but I think that the Commission, whomever is here, is certainly going to consider your concern at that time and use their discretion on whether they allow a liquor store in or other activity that would have a negative impact on the church. MS. WILLIAMS: It will be negative. B-2 would be negative. We would like to leave it agricultural. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion that we upgrade the zoning to B-2. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: To concur with the Planning Commission? MR. TODD: Planning and Zoning Commission, yes, sir. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask Planning and Zoning and the Attorney, the B-2 zoning on the frontage part of the tract, was that intended to reach all the way back to the property line? MR. PATTY: Well, you know, there's no way to say. Like he said, it's probably an error on the plat. It has that appearance, because you've got a subdivision with lots cut out behind it and then you've got this frontage tract that's commercial with it, so it's really, you know, a no-man's land. If you don't zone it, it would have no value. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my concern with it, after I look at the plat, George, is that we're running back into the same situation we've been hitting along the Tobacco Road corridor: these subdivisions are behind it, then they're coming in and wanting to zone the front commercial, and we don't have any buffer zone in there between the residential and the commercial properties. And that's my concern, that these residents are possibly going to get something built right up to their back fences. And I think we've been putting some stipulations along the Tobacco Road corridor of some buffer zone in there. Do we have that factored in here? MR. PATTY: Yeah. The Tree Ordinance requires a twenty-foot buffer that you basically can't see through when you're standing on the residential side of it anywhere single-family and commercial collide. No question fifty-foot undisturbed would better serve, but there is some protection. MR. BRIDGES: George, is that what this 1.23 acres is going to be used for is a buffer zone? MR. PATTY: No. His proposal was to incorporate that with the other tract, get B-2 zoning on the whole thing and then market the property. MR. DUSENBERRY: It would be part of the buffer zone obviously. If a commercial was put there, that would be part of the buffer zone, whatever the Planning and Zoning would require at the back of the commercial property, so that would be--if you approve the 1.23, then it becomes part of the commercial and, therefore, it would become part of the buffer zone. MR. BRIDGES: If you're going to put storage units there, the eight acres there is not enough? Do you need this additional acreage? MR. DUSENBERRY: Well, when we found the error in the plat, Mr. Patty said we had to come along and get it taken care of as to that incorporation, and that's what we're doing now. Because there was an error there, and it cannot be zoned agricultural and sold [inaudible], and so the proper thing was to come back and have it put together with the commercial piece. That's why I'm here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve, let it be known by casting your ballot accordingly. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. CLERK: Item 11: Z-98-64 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, 'That the developer shall construct a permanent six (6) foot wooden privacy fence along the south property line', a petition from David L. Morris, on behalf of Kenneth K. Badke, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Goshen Lake Drive North, 207 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Goshen Road and Goshen Lake Drive North. MR. PATTY: This is a tract that was passed over when this area was originally developed. And some of it is floodplain, and the developer/owner wanted to change the zoning to allow a smaller lot size using the higher part of this property, which is actually behind the tracts that front Goshen Road [inaudible]. And because he'd have to build a road in there, which would be a single road with lots on one side, you know, the numbers didn't work with the R-1 size lots, which are 100 feet wide, because he's only got a limited area he can build in. And he's met with the homeowners association, which not everybody in that area is a member of, and had struck a deal with them that he's free to-- I've got a letter in the file--that he's free to do two things in addition to whatever the ordinances require. One of those is that the minimum square footage of the nineteen new homes would be 1,750 feet, plus an attached single-car garage, and that it be mandatory that the new residents join the Goshen residents' association. So he's agreed to do those two things, which we didn't feel were things that we normally include as conditions in the zoning, but he has agreed in writing and actually has agreed to put that on the subdivision development plat if the zoning is approved. There are objectors that are not members of the association, and they're probably here today. SPEAKER: My name is [inaudible] I live at 4004 Goshen Lake Drive North. There are twenty-one residents adjoining or directly affected by the proposed change. All of us object to it. All of the homes in this area are anywhere from a half acre to nine acres. The developer wants to put a strip of twenty 60-by-100-foot lots right in the middle of this. We feel like it would greatly devalue our property, the traffic. Goshen Lake Drive North is a short street, dead-end street, 200 feet long. There are already five driveways coming off onto Goshen Lake Drive North. This street would empty onto Goshen Lake Drive North and the people coming out of that street would only have one way to turn, that would be right, when they come out. Twenty houses represents forty to fifty cars. Drainage: We already have a drainage problem when it rains. This land was clear-cut several years ago and not replanted, and the proposed street will take down most of the trees that are left in that area. We have a pond at the end of the street. The county came out a couple of years ago and helped us sort of route the water into a drain ditch that's nearby, but it needs constant attention because it fills up with leaves and debris and so forth. The floodplain was drawn in 1987. The water from Spirit Creek was well outside this floodplain in 1990 and in 1993. The fence that the builder is proposing to build is a wooden fence that's defined as permanent. My question is who is going to keep that fence up? It'll be one long expanse of painted wall that'll just be an open invitation to a spray can, and all this is going to be right there by the street. Under ideal circum-stances, this land should be left R-1 and these people should have driveways that come onto Goshen Lake Drive North and not another street. Please leave this R-1. Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I got the United States Department of Agriculture soil study on Richmond County, and I looked up that area for what kind of soil it had there, and it had what it calls oyster soils, whatever that means. Maybe somebody else could define that better. But the description it gives of that soil here is that it's a poorly-draining soil on the floodplains of major streams in the southern coastal area and it's frequently flooded for brief periods usually in winter or early spring. So my concern with this, and some of these residents have told me this, that when it flooded in '90 the water came up over this property where the homes are going to be built. In other words, if those homes had have been there, they would've been flooded. And, you know, we're spending millions of dollars on Rae's Creek, and we're going to--if we approve this, we're going to allow development along another creek [inaudible] spend millions of more dollars so these people won't get flooded. So I'd make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we concur with the recommendation of the staff and deny the motion before us. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding that the motion is made to deny based on the fact that we're in a floodplain? MR. BRIDGES: That's correct, that's my motion. I mean, I think there are other reasons that could be-- MR. TODD: Yes, I've heard the other reasons from the objector. MR. BRIDGES: And I've probably got some additional reasons as well. I guess, Mr. Todd, we could incorporate the traffic, the present drainage problem, maybe incompatibility of the lots with the surrounding neighborhood-- incorporate the reasons that were mentioned by the lady. MR. MORRIS: David Morris, I'm working with Mr. Badke. I reside in Richmond County at 508 Pleasant Home Road. Back in 1997 Mr. Badke approached me and asked me to work with him to see what the best use for this piece of property was. He's had it on the market for some time and has sold off portions of it, one tract in particular that fronts on Old Waynesboro Road, so the only access he has to this site is off of Goshen Lake Drive North. You know, please stop me if I try to fill you in on too much of the history here, but what we tried to do is to maximize the usage of the property in the upland areas and minimize the impact that we would have on the flood-plain. And the flood-plain, we looked at it based upon two observations, one being the FEMA maps that are on file here with Richmond County Planning and Zoning and the other is from national elevations that we run on the site out there, and have determined that out of this twelve-acre parcel of property he has about five acres that are developable up above the floodplain. And in reference to the county soil survey, those type soils are in the floodplain areas themselves, and that's another reason for us to try to develop the property and get public sewer extended to it so we won't have to service the lots with septic tanks because there's marginal areas for that also, those being in the upland areas. And so in order to get the best usage and the maximum amount of use above the floodplains would be in a single-sided road in there. We wanted to decrease the lot size and try to pick up on the amount of lots we could get. We've provided a plan to Planning and Zoning that indicated twenty-one lots, and that would be under the most ideal conditions, and we don't have ideal conditions out here, so we're going to probably get less than that. And we've roughed out a preliminary plan since that time and we're looking at probably between the neighborhood of thirteen and fourteen lots. And I've looked at the adjoining properties here, and we have fourteen parcels that adjoin this piece of property here. So it may be twenty-one residents out there, but we're affecting fourteen parcels here basically, and so we're actually adding about the same number that are adjoining this tract. The other thing that we looked at was the square footage. When we first requested this rezoning back in the January meeting, we met with objections then. And wanting to be good neighbors and everything, we met with the Goshen residential association in April. We finally got everything around to where we could get everybody together to meet in April. We met the middle part of April and felt like we worked out--we weren't trying to make any deals, but we felt like we worked out something that was a compromise with the people that were involved. And the people with the residential association weren't so much concerned about the lot size as they were the size of the house, and so we agreed to provide a 1,750 square-foot house with an attached garage, which pretty much models the existing covenants for the golf course frontage lots in the original section of Goshen. And in doing so, we're looking at about 1,950 square feet that we would be required to build including a 10-by-20 garage. And if we go with R- 1C, you're allowed thirty percent maximum coverage on the lot for the residence, and so that works out to be about 6,500 square feet that we would have to have in the lots, and so that comes under the R-1C zoning. And the other consideration was that we wanted to have the entire lot up out of the floodplain, and that would be for mortgage purposes for us. And so when we do build a house in there, we can have the finished floor elevated and we can also have everything outside the floodplain where we wouldn't be required to have flood insurance, which is a good selling point. These are not all of the circumstances of the conditions that we looked at. There are several others, too, but--you know, my apologies for not--we did meet with this group also to try to address their concerns, and we felt like, you know, maybe this may be the best forum for them to voice their concerns because we didn't satisfactorily answer the objections of the adjoining property owners. But we did make attempts, even after the Planning Commission meeting. We were approached again and asked if we would meet again to find out what exactly what we were going to do there. And this project is marginal as far as a profit goes, and so what we were trying to do was to get the largest number of lots that we could get to make it profitable for us and to have a good looking project also. But it would be an extension of the public system, and so everything would be done in accordance with the Department of Public Works require-ment and basically turned over to the county at that point. We wouldn't have all the driveways coming out at the end of Goshen Lake Drive North, we would be designing an extension of that road which would be about 800 feet. I just wanted to fill you in on the amount of work that's gone into looking at this project and the impact that it would have on the property itself and on the adjoining property owners there. We feel like if we build a 1,950 square foot house in there at today's market prices, between $55 and $60 a foot, you're looking at a $100,000 plus house. And so, you know, I don't think we'd be downgrading the neighborhood if we built in that price range. The other thing, right now we could be an R-1. It would just not be economically feasible for us to extend the road in there and do the work required for four or five lots, and so that's the reason why we're requesting the zoning to a smaller lot. They may be smaller lots, but there'll be a lot of areas out there--the actual floodplain itself will be--remain the property of one lot, and it'll be brought under a conservation easement where it will not be developed. It won't be able to be built upon. And so these are some of the considerations we've looked at. We just haven't gone out and tried to squeeze as many lots out of this piece of property. We're looking at it to see where we can make a successful project and provide an extension of the community that will best fit the community. And so the house size is comparable with what's already there. The lot size may be smaller, but there'll still be a lot of area in reserve that will be green space. I can't think of anything else. If there are any questions, you know, we'll be glad to answer them. MR. TODD: Let's talk fees. Do you have any knowledge of a fee that the homeowners association charges? MR. MORRIS: This is not a homeowners association, Mr. Todd, it's a Goshen residential association. They're not a--I think they're just a meeting body to make sure that, you know, there's not anything out of line that's going on in the neighborhood. And we expect the residents of this extension of the subdivision to participate in that. MR. TODD: Is there any fee? MR. MORRIS: I think it's $25 a year. Now, the concern about the--I mean, when the Planning Commission recommended that we install the fence, we had no reservations about that because I know the road that we have designed is right at the rear of some existing lots, and just to afford privacy for those people and to give some definition between the two subdivisions, we would be more than willing to install a permanent fence. The only question I would have is we were abutting the right-of-way adjacent to these lots originally, but since we're so strained for space, I was wondering if there could be an easement within the right-of-way showing a fence easement that we could maintain this fence. Also, down this back property line there's sizeable trees that we would like to see protected also to help maintain that buffer. And I know these things may be worked out outside of this Commission meeting, but I felt like--you know, these are things that we have been working on and I wanted the Commissioners and Mayor to be aware of them. MR. TODD: Is it my understanding that the Goshen residential association is supporting your petition? MR. MORRIS: They had originally for the January meeting when we met, and the reason we withdrew without petition was that they had sent a letter at that time that said that they were against--they were opposed to the development, and that's why we withdrew without petition is we wanted to have an opportunity to meet with them. And when we did that and came to the additional terms and felt like we had a compromise, we came back in April and resubmitted, and at that point they sent a letter to Mr. Patty's office saying that they rescinded their opposition to the original petition. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my concern, I guess for the County Attorney, is someone is receiving more than $250 in this deal and should someone be making a disclosure. MR. WALL: Are you talking about the homeowners association as far as-- MR. TODD: Yes, if they are-- MR. WALL: I don't know that anyone from the homeowners association is here themselves. MR. SPIRES: I'm the president. My name is Mike Spires, I live at 4057 Burning Tree Lane. I am a member of the board for the association. When this rezoning first initially came up, the concern was they was trying to build 1,400 square foot homes of a lower price range is when the homeowners association--and we did have a petition against it. We did all have a meeting and decide to withdraw that petition because we met with the developer and we agreed to 1,750 square foot homes with a single-car garage, we agreed to the lot size, and we, you know, withdrew our petition at that time from the property. However, we did discuss in our meeting that we leave it upon Planning and Zoning to see if the land is fit for development of homes back there because of the development of land and the swamp, you know, the stream itself back there. But as far as the association, we have withdrawn our petition against it as long as 1,750 square foot homes, as long as they have a single-car attached garage, and the privacy fence goes over between the properties. MR. BRIDGES: So, Mr. Spires, the association is not in support--does not come out and support this? MR. SPIRES: No, we're not supporting it--we're not actually for it or supporting the thing. We just met with the developer, came up with these agreements, and we said as long as it meets these agreements we have no problem with it. I think the best thing is--it's already zoned R-1. There's twelve lots out there that, if they develop it, they could develop anything they want back there. I mean, they could put 1,000 square foot homes out there. There's no covenants for that land. I mean, that land could be built on tomorrow whether you put twenty-one lots back there or if you leave it as it presently is at eleven or twelve. It's R-1 as it is, so [inaudible]. We were just trying to control the price of the homes that was going in there according to what the property was attaching up to. I mean, you know, you put a $70,000 house in the back of a $100,000 home or more, then you're decreasing the value of the property, and that's what our intention was. MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, my question is does someone need to do a disclosure? MR. WALL: The disclosure form has been filed. Mr. Patty says the homeowners association did the disclosure form, which is--am I right? MR. PATTY: I'm sorry, no. They're required to file a disclosure form, and had they had this interest that they're required to disclose, I'm sure they would have. But, no, we don't have a form from them. MR. TODD: I make a motion that we postpone any action on this until we have a disclosure form if there is an agreement on this membership. MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, you know, although the disclosure form should be filed showing the interest of the homeowners association and the position that they are taking with regard to the rezoning, I think the disclosure is certainly apparent here and has been made so that we are aware of it. Now, I guess from the standpoint of knowing the members of the homeowners association and to the extent that that information might be disclosed in a homeowners association, there would be reason to postpone the meeting until that information could be forthcoming. And I don't know whether he has a list of the members of the homeowners association or not, but other than that, I mean, that's the only way I know to cure that problem at this point. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my only interest is following the statute in doing disclosure so everybody know what's involved. You know, my colleagues, the objectors, and everybody else. That's my interest. Ever how the County Attorney thinks that we need to handle that, then, you know, I guess I could go that route. But what I don't want happening is agreements put together where it's not understood there is money changing hands and not being disclosed, and I think that we kind of back-doored this, you know, on the fee that's charged. There is financial exchange here in this agreement to not oppose, you know, or not to support. MR. WALL: The member that was just present, does he have a listing of the members of the association with him perhaps? MR. SPIRES: Not with me. MR. WALL: I think until that information is forthcoming it would be appropriate to postpone it and let's get that information. MR. SHEPARD: I second the motion to postpone. MS. MILLER: I'm Carol Miller, at 4001 Goshen Lake Drive North. We are one of the five driveways and, also, we have an easement which affects part of where this road is going to go. I don't want to take up your time, you've been more than generous with listening to everybody. I do need to clarify something I think that's very important. When we were here in January in this room, the original zoning and planning objection when Mr. Morris withdrew it, everybody that was at that meeting and all the people whose land adjoins that signed a paper and were told by the Goshen homeowners association that we would be notified. Many of us are members of the Goshen homeowners association, so it is not actually true that the people who are opposing it are not members. The problem was we were never invited or told of the meeting. We were told after the Goshen homeowners associa-tion decided to agree to the square footage, etc. It was at that time that I wrote a letter to the Zoning Commission and to the homeowners association. Subsequently we did meet with Mr. Morris individually and went over our concerns to him, many of which he appreciated, but that didn't change anything because it had already come to pass. We then later met with the homeowners association, telling them of our frustration that they had met without notifying any of us, allowing us input, especially the people who are directly affected. Some of the members there were surprise we had not been, and that is why at that time they amended it, which is what he said, that they are neither approving it or disapproving it, they are leaving it up to you because they got in terms of the things they were concerned about. Our concern as an immediate neighbor whose property has flooded five times since we have lived here in less than six months is very real. Everybody here can tell you by any means you want about the concerns of flooding. Your point about the other Butler Creek and coming back and property values and people coming back to you and saying why are you allowing this when people said it I think are very, very real. We know that this is zoned for houses. We are not asking--although it would be ideal for there to be no houses here, we are not asking that. We are asking it not be changed because one time it's twenty-one houses, it's nineteen houses, maybe it's going to be fourteen. Again, once it's zoned it can be anything. And it is being done--and I appreciate the fact that it's being done because that can make the most money. That's a separate issue than land use, it's a separate issue than the impact to the neighborhood. And we all appreciate money. We all own property and care about that, but I feel that is an entirely separate issue to be asked to make land changed just because they can get so many houses and they have to be put in a certain position when they're already saying part of that land should go into a permanent conservancy. So I think that we have a lot of issues here and, as I said, I just felt it very important to clarify some of them because a lot of us are homeowners association members and there are many of us that are objecting to this. We know that it is R-1. We are not coming here asking never to have anything built there, we are saying please do not change and allow the potential of twenty-one homes to down to whatever they choose, because once it's zoned that we don't know. And also to protect yourselves because we strongly feel that this is an issue that will come back at you, and I believe the record shows that Mr. Patty's office did not recommend this to be done. So the Zoning Commission did pass it, but Mr. Patty's office did not, and there are many homeowners that will do anything at all to tell you why we feel this is not a good situation. We do appreciate Mr. Morris's upgrading, and that--I do commend you for that. I mean, that is good, but it doesn't solve the major issues. MR. MORRIS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to say one more thing. I want to make it expressly clear that our meetings with the residents and the homeowners association was in no way to solicit support, it was to just reveal our hand, so to speak, as to what we were trying to do out there. And I know that, you know, it has a heavy bearing when you have objectors that come down and show up at a meeting, but we will look at this thing very objectively and economically, and that's the way we have approached it on issues that--on argumentative issues. We looked at it on how the project will stand by itself and basically sized it up accordingly. And I understand, you know, we do have R-1 zoning at this point, but due to the land constraints we just can't get anything to work out based upon that and that's why we want R-1C. MR. WALL: I'm going to amend my opinion, if I may, or retract the opinion. I have read the statute, and based upon what I am reading here I don't think that they would have had to file that disclosure listing all the members, and so I'm okay with you taking action today if you choose to do so. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Wall. MS HARRIS: Mr. Mayor, may I speak? I'm Margaret Harris and I live at 1727 Goshen Road. I am a member of the homeowners association and I knew nothing of these meetings, so what she said is true. It's quite interesting to me, back twenty-five years ago when we first bought out there I asked Mr. Badke what they're going to do behind the house here. "Oh, that will never be developed, that's flood area. They let us build this Goshen Road as near to the creek as we could." And since then, talking with different ones, he's told them the same thing even as late as ten years ago and maybe later, I don't know. So it's quite interesting now that he wants to develop it. But I agree, it is a flood area, and that floodplain should be updated because we've seen it there. Living out there, the water does come up. And, also, I'm wondering where that road is really going to be built and who is going to maintain it. Is it going to be a county road or what? And there's a sewer line back behind the property line, so that's in question. And, also, can they really make it mandatory that they join the residential association out there? MR. WALL: Let me address two issues. Insofar as this Commission is concerned, the Commission does not have the authority, in my opinion, to require that a home be of a certain size, 1,750 square feet, or a detached garage. Neither does it have the authority to require those members to become members of the association. However, they have agreed that it would be included on the development plat, and they have furnished that letter to Mr. Patty. And without that included on the development plat--and as a part of the agreement, and this is a fine line, but that is a part of the agreement that the developer is making and that must be included on that development plat or the Planning and Zoning is going to turn the plat down. So, no, this Commission does not have the authority, in my opinion, to impose those conditions on the rezoning itself, and only by virtue of that agreement which the developer has made, and we're going to hold him to that agreement that that be included on the development plan, will that be enforceable. MS. HARRIS: I also think about the prospective home buyers out there. I feel that they will unsuspectingly maybe be purchasing--not realize, hey, this is flood area. So I do think about them, not just my property. Thank you. MR. MORRIS: Mr. Mayor, may I address Mr. Wall's comment? In reference to that, we have agreed to this as a condition, but--you know, I don't want it to seem so presumptuous that we would have that, but we would like to also amend that to the point that if we saw that this project was still not economically feasible, if we got into the engineering aspect and I priced it out with the contractor and weighed the numbers out and if this did not come out to where we could work everything in it, if we could--if we did not extend a public road and it did not require a subdivision plat to be presented to the Commissioners again, if we could still--if we could do away with the square footage requirement. I don't want to get locked in to the square footage requirements. See, this is what I'm talking about, they want us to build a certain size house out there, and we have no reservations about doing that if we can get the R-1C zoning. I mean, if we can get the R-1C zoning and we go in there and we find out that it's not going to be economically feasible for us and we can't extend the county road in there, then we're pretty much stuck with what we have, our layout that we have, and so I would like to make that contingent upon an approval of the subdivision plat that we have a public road extended there. MR. WALL: I didn't know that there were any contingencies when I spoke with a representative of homeowners association, and it would be--I mean, you need to decide, in my opinion, up front whether you're going to agree to it or not agree to it so that this body will have the benefit of that information. And in fairness to the homeowners association, I think they understand that you agreed to build a 1,750 square foot home with an attached garage. MR. MORRIS: Okay. But if this is denied, then I can go back to building whatever I want to build out there basically? MR. WALL: Mr. Patty will have to answer the question as far as the present zoning, but essentially that's true. MR. POWELL: George, I have one question for you. With this being in the floodplain, would any building be permitted or a subdivision be permitted to be expanded in there with our new subdivision regulations? I mean, is this something that looks like it's going to fly? MR. PATTY: First of all, part of this property is outside of what we refer to as a regulatory floodplain. This is the line on the maps that FEMA came down here and spent millions of dollars generating, and it's really the only legal tool that we've got to define a floodplain. Now, obviously if these folks observed in 1990 or this year that this area flooded, then obviously it's in the real floodplain. But from a regulatory standpoint, some of this land is outside the floodplain and he can build in it. In addition to that, we've got the second most restrictive flood ordinance in Georgia, but there are still certain areas of the floodplain, the upper part of the flood- plain, that you can build in by elevating structures and that sort of thing. So, yeah, they can build on this property under the present zoning or if you zone it--there are areas that they can build on on this property. MR. HANDY: I know we've heard a lot about this particular property here. We had one for it, that's the petitioner; we had one either way, that's the association; we've had three people speak against it; and now we have a fourth one at the map. And normally when we have something here we have a spokesman for the organization and we keep going on. We've got a lot of work to do, and if we keep going on--we got four or five people talking about the same thing, and we need to go on with our meeting and make a decision here one way or the other. Because, I mean, everybody speaking against it, that's four different people, that's four different opinions, and we just need one spokesman for the group and then we decide. We can't listen to four or five different people and try to make a decision. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, once again I want to emphasize that what we're looking at here is area that's easily flooded. It's been flooded in the past. The homes he's proposing building have been underwater--that property has been underwater before. We're looking at a future liability for the county. As far as, you know, the Rae's Creek situation, that's what we're looking at here, so I would hope my fellow Commissioners would deny this petition. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, do you want to withdraw your substitute motion? MR. TODD: Yes. I want to withdraw the substitute motion and make a motion to deny. CLERK: We've already got that on the floor. MR. SHEPARD: I withdraw the second on the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the motion made by Mr. Bridges? CLERK: The original motion by Mr. Bridges was to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission staff and to deny the petition. Do you want to include the reasons? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: The increased traffic, the incompatibility of existing lots, and floodplain. And drainage. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, please let it be known by casting your ballot accordingly. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 12: Z-98-65 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Carolyn Schaeffer, on behalf of Trent R. Carr, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential with conditions) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located where the southeast right-of-way line of Grand Boulevard intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Sixth Avenue (2014 Grand Boulevard). MR. PATTY: This is a piece of property that we've actually rezoned several times in the last couple of years. It's a big house at the corner of Grand Boulevard and Sixth Street. Because of the size of the house they've tried to find a use for it other than single-family residential, which it just doesn't lend to, and the most recent idea is a day care center, which, you know, I'm sure is probably needed in the neighborhood. And we're concerned about the impact of the use and we're concerned about the precedent. It's a completely single-family residential area, and the precedent could lead to a lot of bad things in that neighborhood of other zonings. And so the staff recommends denial, and the Commission recommended denial, and there were no objectors. MR. HANDY: I'd like to make a motion to concur with the Commission. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? Hearing none, please cast your vote accordingly. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 13: Z-98-66 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Mills Briggs, on behalf of Rose L. Gloster, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One- family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of George Road, 510 feet north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Busbia Avenue and George Road (1927 George Road). MR. PATTY: This is a similar situation. This is a predominantly residential area, although there is some business zoning near this property. It's off Kissingbower Road, if you're not familiar with it. We did have one objector. The staff recommends denial. It doesn't conform to the plan and the Commission denied it. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. BRIGGS: My name is Mills Briggs, I live at 1927 George Road. We bought that property approximately seven years ago. Rose Gloster's name is on a quit-claim because me and my wife was in California when we bought the property. The property has a 2,500 square foot garage on it that was used for business purposes. It used to be a processing plant. So when I bought the property, I bought the property for that particular use. I'm an electrician and heating and air conditioning specialist, and my wife also is an herbalist, but I plan on using that particular property for my own business, electrical. And I also have consent from the neighbors except for one denial. Out of approximately fifteen homes, I have fourteen consents from the neighbors to say that they've been knowing me for seven years and they see no reason why I can't practice business as an electrician or heating and air conditioning specialist off that property. Also, I have to have your consent to have the property rezoned because I have a big warehouse that I'm going to have to tear down, and I really don't want to do that. I would rather work out of my property. There's also another electrician right behind me who you also okayed for rezoning. Also, two doors down from me there is another contractor who just had his property rezoned, so I'm requesting the same thing. I'm a businessman, I just want to practice my business out of my home. MR. TODD: When was the warehouse built? MR. BRIGGS: Approximately thirty years ago. MR. TODD: So we have a warehouse on the property that's not in compliance with the zoning? MR. BRIGGS: Yes. The property is two acres big. My house is a three- bedroom house, and the warehouse--it's not a garage, it's a warehouse with a loading dock and all. MR. PATTY: I wish I could tell you he had a non-conforming right to use that property because then it would be a zoning issue and he could do what he wants to do, but he does not. He's lost the nonconforming right to use the property because it was not used for a two-year period at some point, so, you know, the only way he can operate any commercial enterprise out of there is to get the zoning. MR. TODD: And did we have a complaint, the reason that he is here for rezoning? MR. PATTY: I don't know whether we had a complaint or not, but there is an objector--or there was an objector at our meeting. MR. KUHLKE: Just one? MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: What would be the negative impacts to the community? I would assume that it's not in our Comprehensive Plan, but at the time we done our Comprehensive Plan everything was in place there, so--and I understand, you know, the two years. What other negative impacts? MR. PATTY: Well, I mean, the traffic, the illumination, the noise, things that normally--you know, I don't know that it would create a big problem, but, you know, it would be more than a residence. And the precedent that he would set. You know, when you get a spot commercial use in there, that sends a message to everybody there, you know, if they wanted to they could get their property zoned commercial. MR. TODD: Mr. Brigham, can you help me with where this is located? MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's what I was just fixing to ask. MR. BRIGGS: It's located between Pep Boys, which is on Gordon Highway, and Milledgeville, which would be north. Right behind Kissingbower. Matter of fact, my back yard is the chiropractor's office and NationsBank. MR. H. BRIGHAM: George, isn't there several businesses along there? MR. PATTY: Well, if you look at this property from George Street you don't see these businesses. I mean, you see houses and you see a neighborhood that's still hanging in there. There are some businesses in the area behind him. Up toward Gordon Highway there are definitely businesses in that area, but this area is pretty solid. CLERK: For the benefit of the entire Commission, Mr. Briggs has submitted a petition with fourteen names. And it reads: This petition is asking for the consent of the neighbors of George Road to have 1927 George Road change of zoning from R-1A to a Zone B-2 (General Business). It has fourteen signatures. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor and my colleagues, I would like to do something to help the gentleman, but put some stipulations on him so we protect the neighbors, and maybe Mr. Patty could come up with some stipulations that we can put on him. Certainly I think that the amount of trucks on this property, noise level, you know, and time of operation could be some that we certainly would want to put on, and that the use of this property would be restricted to the business that he's in now, and at the time that he ceased to operate, that it would revert back to family residential. MR. BRIGGS: One more thing, too, please. The person who objected to this won't allow his tenant to use his particular property to park his truck, but he asked his tenant to ask me to use my property to park his tractor- trailer truck. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Did you let him do it? MR. BRIGGS: Well, I'm a nice guy, I let him do it -- for the last two years. This particular property is unusual and apparently almost thirty years when the warehouse was built. The person who I bought it from was in the same type business I am, but he's located now in Texas. And I bought the property in California, and my sister-in-law, Rose Gloster, is the one that had the quit-claim to manage the property until I moved back here. But my wife and myself name is on the mortgage, so it's not Rose Gloster. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Do you plan to operate the business yourself or are you going to hire somebody? MR. BRIGGS: No, operate it myself. Myself and my wife. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Do you live there also? MR. BRIGGS: Yes. I've been living there seven years now--approximately seven years. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Have you been before this Commission before for some zoning on that same property? MR. BRIGGS: No, only a couple of days ago to the other commission. [End of Tape 1] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we ask Mr. Patty and his staff to come up with some stipulations to cover what Mr. Todd said as far as the noise, the traffic, and the time of day that you will be operating and that sort of thing, but I'd like to move for approval with certain stipulations. MR. PATTY: Let me suggest that you condition it that no additional buildings be built, the sign be limited to the professional sign standards, and specific to the uses he's stated and reversion to the present zoning if he ceases. MR. TODD: Hours of operation and number of vehicles? MR. BRIGGS: Well, I have a large truck that I pick up materials with, that's all I have, and my work van. MR. TODD: We're talking about vehicles that would be parked there that would [inaudible]. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second Mr. Brigham's motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem supporting the gentleman, but when you start getting into hours folks can work and how many vehicles they can have, I think we're pushing this thing a little far. I hope the man gets twenty trucks on the road because that's generating money for Richmond County. But I know in my business I have to work when duty calls, and when you're in the service business you have to work when duty calls. There's none of this nine to five when you're in a service-oriented company, I assure you. MR. HANDY: I want to call for the question so we can move on. I know every Commissioner up here knows that that area, Kissingower Road, we had trouble when we was paving it up about one right across the street is commercial, two streets down is not commercial, and we had trouble with that area before, so that's understood. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read Mr. Brigham's motion, Ms. Bonner, please? CLERK: Mr. Brigham's motion was to approve the request with the following stipulations: that no additional buildings be built, a reversionary clause, to specify the use of Mr. Briggs' hours of operation, and number of vehicle parking. MR. PATTY: And a sign to conform to the P-1 standards. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion with the additions, let it be known by casting your vote accordingly, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 14: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Carlton McDonald, on behalf of ECN Limited Partnership, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 460 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Windsor Spring Road and Tobacco Road. MR. PATTY: This is, I think, pretty routine. This is next to the drugstore that's just been built on Tobacco Road. MR. TODD: What's going to be the use? MR. PATTY: I don't believe that he disclosed the use. MR. TODD: Is he here? What can you put in a General Business [inaudible]. MR. McDONALD: Anything you want to. MR. PATTY: That's right. I mean, auto repair, nightclub--I mean, there are things that you wouldn't want in this area. But this property has at one time all been owned by the same person and Mr. McDonald represents her, so, you know, I think it will be something appropriate. MR. TODD: I so move we approve. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your vote accordingly, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 16: Z-98-50 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Ayercorp, on behalf of T&F Development Co., requesting a modification of a development plan for an R-1D (One-family Residential) rezoning with conditions per Z-97-97 on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Church Road and Inez Street. MR. PATTY: This piece of property was rezoned a year or two ago. The current zoning is R-1E, and R-1E zoning is a single-family zone where the petitioner has to show up front what they're going to do, and what we zone it for is whatever the plan shows. And the plans we zoned it for a year or two ago showed, I believe, eleven lots fronting Church Street, which was a dirt ten-foot outlet basically, and there were conditions. The condition was that they would improve Church Street in that location in front of their property to a standard city right-of-way and standard city street. For whatever reason, the decision was made that that wouldn't be the best use of the property. The request before you today is to modify that change, not to actually change the zoning classification but to modify the plan, to show seventeen lots on an extension of an existing street. That street is also Church Street, which is going to be confusing, but that extension would go into the property and they would improve it as an interior street. So the change is actually from eleven to seventeen lots and an interior street to be constructed by the petitioner versus improvement of the existing city street. MAYOR SCONYERS: What was the staff recommendation, Mr. Patty? MR. PATTY: The staff recommendation was for approval based on the similar uses in the area. I can say this, it's a very unusual area. It's, you know, two streets away from Bransford Road. It's got a minority enclave in that area that--you've got some large lots that are underutilized. In the past ten years, I guess, several of those have been developed with this type of development. So it's an unusual area. There are objectors and, you know, it's easy to see both sides of this one. MR. FINDLAY: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Patty, I'll try not to take but a minute or two. When I was last here y'all suggested that we get with the people who were opposed to our project, and we did meet. They were very friendly, cordial. They allowed us to--or allowed me to express my opinion. They, in turn, gave me their opinions. We did not come to any resolution which was satisfactory to all parties and we find ourselves back here. I find myself thinking of two things that--one of those things would be affordable housing. I think that's the most important issue in my mind as to what we are bringing to this Commission and to this community. Secondly, I think of the adage of many years ago that I heard that things change but they stay the same. I think each one of us can go back in our own private lives and look back. I can remember probably the year 1957 I lived in the Forest Hills Subdivision. At the end of my street there was the greatest baseball park in the world. First base was an ant bed, second base was a telephone pole, and you come on around. That year the Yankees win the World Series, they beat out Milwaukee Braves, we go up there and they're bulldozing and putting houses up there. My mama says, "But what are we going to do about the baseball field? It's gone now. My brothers went on to the Air Force, went on to medical school or pharmacy school, I went on to law school, and things work out. In this particular area people are saying, well, this lot is the only lot remaining, our children play on that, we had hoped that it would be a playground. Gentlemen, there are seventeen/ eighteen houses in the area that we're really talking about that were occupied by these families before we came. We took End Street that in anybody's imagination of housing you would have to say it was a deplorable, less than ideal conditions which people lived in, and we--if you want to use the word tore down a house or houses, we did. We built ten to twelve houses up there and we took the tax base of that area from probably $40,000 to as much as $600,000. The taxes that are paid every year up there are going to probably be as much as $6,000 where they were $4,000 in the past. This piece of property, you're taxing us probably at $400 per year. Once we finish this project, if you allow us to do what we want to do, you're going to have income up there based on $1,200,000 or thereabouts and you're going to have $10,000 coming in. As I told the opposition or the objectors before, most of the people that we have provided housing to are those less fortunate in the sense of what may have happened in their adult lives. They're divorced for whatever reason, they never have married, some of them have children, but very few of them have children. We have provided them with a house that cost $60,000. Today we can go up there and build twelve houses. Now, the only thing we're going to do if we don't increase the density, the number of units up there, is we're going to take the cost of these houses from probably $60,000 upwards to almost $70,000. I don't see any useful purpose in this. Now, their objection is twofold: police protection or public safety. When people leave this subdivision, they don't all leave generally at one time. We found that some of these people, because they are single--it's been our historical findings in the past that when they leave, they don't all leave at 7:00, 8:00, 9:00 and they don't all come back ideally at the exact same time. They're going to have several accesses from here. Some of them will go to Switzer, they'll take Switzer to Reed, Reed to Walton Way. Some of them will take West Lake Forest Drive, some of them take Fox Springs Road. Will they be on their public roads as they know their roads today? I think not. We're suggesting to you that we're planning to put in an entire road down to the bottom. Mr. Todd said he's concerned about police protection or fire safety questions. We think the cul-de-sac that we plan to build at the end will be ample to take care of the turn-around needed for fire protection. If for some reason that is not agreeable, and I've given to each of you a survey or a plat, if we needed to, we could do away with one of the lots and we could tie that last lot into Church Street as it develops into what we all know now as Bussey Road. We will actually be doing some of the engineering down there on that. Bussey Road is something that's going to happen in the future. And for you to think that there is not going to be development when, in fact, this Commission has basically said we do need to do something for the people who live in Bussey Road, that doing something for the people on Bussey Road is going to lighten up the area and make more people want to come. Now, having said these things that I've said, and having the greatest respect for the opposition, they were all nice people and they're all people who have lived in this community for years and years, I can candidly say that I'm very proud of Augusta and I am very, very proud of the project that we've put down there. And the only thing that we've done, in my mind and in my eyes, is we have appreciably helped the area that we all love and care for as Augusta by building on End Street and by doing what we're going to do on this piece of property, whether it's twelve or whether it's a higher number. We do need that higher number. We ask each of you to consider affordable housing done in the private sector as opposed to having been done or having to be done through the Commission. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Findlay put on a good sales pitch. It sounds good. The other housing area you put down there is nice, I like the area, but people in this area--and I have been contacted by three different people that were born and raised and live there. They're concerned about the seventeen houses there. You've got a plan for twelve, why don't you build the twelve? If you got to go up higher, then you have to go up higher. Seventeen houses make it too congested in that little area down there, and that's my opinion, plus that's the opinion of the people who were born and raised there, live there, and they asked me to not support the project. I don't want to say that I don't want to support the project. I want to support the project if you're going to do some building and economic growth in that area, but seventeen houses--why would they want to change it? They got a plan originally for twelve and they want to go to seventeen. The reason he gives is that he wants to lower the houses so they'll be a different price and then build seventeen more. Well, why not raise the price of the houses and not congest the area and still make the money that way if that's what the people in the area want? And that's what I've been hearing about what the people are wanting. They're not objecting to you building there, it's the idea of putting seventeen houses down in there. MR. FINDLAY: If I may respond to that, and forgive me for taking up the Commission's time. When we originally went with this project, the idea of using Church Road was very attractive to us. The Commission has basically asked us to take on a public project to widen Church Road to provide Augusta with affordable housing. We don't think that that is our responsibility. If we have to make such a choice, that is, where we're going to put the road and where we're going to put our money, we think we're better serving the people of Augusta, the private sector, and this Commission, for that matter, by building a new road down the middle and to install it. My first comment when I started, Mr. Handy, and I just disagree with you this, was that things change but they stay the same. The area where I spoke of in 1958, the people would have said the same thing. Today if you ride by that old ballpark, nobody says this was the old ballpark and I wish it was still the old ballpark. You look at it and say isn't it nice that these homes are here. We are going to go in there and we're going to provide housing for a number of people. And for every house that you take away from me by not allowing me to do it, you're going to increase the cost to the next person. We provided people on End Street with a house for $60,000. If it was my family, if it was your family, you would want that $60,000 house, as fine a house as there is in this community for that price. You would not want your son and your daughter to have to pay $66,000. If we don't build the number of units that I have outlined, we are automatically having to increase the price of these houses by five to six thousand dollars. By doing that, we don't take out the bottom of the group of people who are interested in housing, we totally do away with them from the opportunity to have affordable housing. I want your son and my daughter to be able to afford a house, and at the same time I want to make a reasonable profit. If you were to look at our profit lines on End Street, you would say you probably didn't make as much as you could. But it's our intent to sell these houses at a reasonable price. And although those arguments have been made by people, that is an argument made up of idle conversation. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Thank you, Mr. Findlay. But I still say that if you want my support, I'm going to go with the neighbors, and that's stick with the twelve. If you're going to put seventeen in there, you do not have my support. MS. McCOY: My name is Francine McCoy, I'm president of the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. My address is 3102 Bussey Road. As he said, he did come out and he met with us one evening and spoke with the other residents because rumors was going around there was three people, and we wanted him to know it was not just three people, there was more than three people at the association meeting. As for the original eighteen that came up, we talked to him and discussed it with him, and we said if we had to we would go back to the eleven which was the original plan. The thing was, it is a closet area, as I said before. Church and Inez, he's talking about they're going to get to Switzer, but before they can get to Switzer these residents have to come out through Church and Inez. Mr. Shepard has been out there in the neighborhood, I know he's called your office a number of times. We spoke with other residents and people trying to find out what we could do. We would prefer ourselves approximately six to eight. That's how we see it, in order for the homes to be into the same adequate situation as what's there now. When my grandmother built her house so many years ago from her son's estate with World War II, so I'm taking you back to that time frame. It's a brick home. She built that. I am the third generation in that home. What she paid for it, I do not know, but it's a brick home. Most of the other residences out there are brick homes which was built in the '60s and the '70s. Price-wise, I'm not sure how that would go for today. The homes he is building are all look- alikes. They were referred to me as military-type homes. Every house is the same. There are twelve units out there that he did build on End Street. Yes, it's better, because the homes that was there before were shacks. They were really shacks. They were something probably way back when--from World War II. They are an improvement over what was there, but they are so close together. And the children already that's out there, some of the new neighbors that's moved out there, the children are coming around the corner to play in other people's yards because they don't really have any yard to play in. These children also have to walk past Church and Inez. You mentioned the fire department and the sheriff's department. I think both of them at Daniel Village, they do not get into this as a political situation. As for knowing where Church and Inez is, it's like where? Neither area knows, because we are a quiet neighborhood up there, we've always pretty much dealt with our own individual problems out in that neighborhood. What we receive into that neighborhood we cannot say. Times does change. I am the third generation, I moved back to Augusta from New York; so, therefore, times do change and we have to adjust to changes. But the houses that you are building are very small. It could accommodate a small family, but these families are going to need residential families. The families that's out there now are stable families, they've been there for years, they're not moving in and moving out every two or three or five years. This is what we are concerned with. We are concerned with the traffic, yes, because before they can get to Switzer they got to get past Church and Inez right there. Even End Street where you built has got to come out to Church Street, and then from Church they can either go around to Inez or down on the other end before it reaches Kirk-- Reed--Reed and Kirk. But they still have to come out to Church Street. As for the traffic, yes, each of us go out at different times to our work and our jobs and whatnot, and there were some that couldn't come this afternoon because they had to go to work. The fireman, he has to go to work; the police officer, he has to go to work. But we cannot put people on a schedule. I have two other engagements myself after this meeting this afternoon. We cannot say everybody is running out at 7:30 and coming in at 4:30. If everybody has other engagements, they're going to be going back and forth, up and down these roads, and the road is Church and Inez. That is the main intersection for our area up there. I cannot even get to my house until I pass Church and Inez. Yes, we are concerned. And there are twelve units out there already. You're talking about another--they're saying today twelve units, that's going to be twenty-four more units out there in that area. We're saying it is an extra-large amount of sacrifice on our part just to accommodate your building project. So this is what we are concerned with, congestion. They are already rebuilding the Forest Hills school. Lake Forest and Forest Hills is going to be combined for next fiscal year. They're working on that project now. That means all the children from that area is going to be going up in that direction. We are concerned for our children. Our parents was concerned for us, we are concerned for our children. The elderly, the senior citizens that's out there, some of them can't even walk down the street good because they have to walk with walkers or canes or whatever. Out in the neighborhood we know to slow down. We know this one: oh, hello Miss Rebecca, hello so-and-so, and we can talk to our neighbors. And we know to slow down, we know the slow walkers, children with their bicycles, because they're just riding their bike, they're following a ball. This is what we are concerned with. As to the number of units, that is what we're concerned with, the number of units -- not that you're going to build the houses, it's the number of houses that you're building out there. And it's making us very congested out there, which you heard at the meeting, and that is our concern. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I would just like to ask a couple of questions, I guess to Mr. Patty or Mr. Wall. It's my under-standing that the issue is the number of houses. He can put out there--he already has twelve out there and I don't think they objected to that because they're already there. But the issue is doing an exception to go to, what, seventeen, eighteen, or whatever the case may be. MR. PATTY: It's a change in the approved plan. The plan is part of the zoning classification, and the current plan is twelve--eleven, I believe. I'm sorry, I didn't bring the file, but I believe it's eleven with using the existing street and improving the existing street, which is Church Road, to city standards. What the proposal is is for seventeen on the same tract, not improving the existing street, and building a new street into the middle of the property. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, the last time some kind of way, I don't remember how, Mr. Shepard can probably speak to this, we tied this in to Bussey Road. Does that mean that that's not--I know it's not tied in together, but how can we resolve those issues, because Church Road and Bussey Road are in there together. It seems like to me that's where the neighbors are talking about as far as changing of the plan. I think they would agree with eleven or the twelve, I don't think there's any problem with that, but certainly to go to a higher density [inaudible]. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could, I wanted to tell Ms. McCoy I've been out there as recently as last night and drove around. The property that Mr. Findlay has is at the corner of Lynn Street and Church Street. It's presently undeveloped, they haven't built anything out there. This piece of property lies between Fox Spring basically on the south and west and basically Carriage Court Subdivision on the other side, with Bussey Road in-between. On the plat that was passed out, the lower left-hand corner is the intersection of Lynn and Church Street, and then off this plat but at the top Bussey Road would circle around the property to the north and come back and attach to Church Road back here. And Bussey Road happened to come up on the last meeting when we had it added to the unpaved roads list. There had been some information that had been developed that Bussey Road was private, but after more thorough search we found that the former city had maintained it, and I think the City Attorney agreed with us that that was an implied dedication of that road to public purpose and, therefore, it was a proper candidate for the unpaved roads list and it needed to be addressed with priority in the Third District. It's one of the fewer unpaved roads that exist in that area, but we are going to address that and address it through that procedure that I think Mr. Powell guided through this body in the unpaved roads list. So what I see is a neighborhood on End Street that has been revitalized with private capital. I rode down it, it was a peaceful street. People were out there last night watching cars, two women. It seemed very safe, it was the twilight hour, and we were out there. My daughter and I, as a matter of fact, passed a girl riding a bicycle, young men standing around, people seeming to live in harmony. And, you know, if this is the kind of development that T&F group brings to the neighborhood, then certainly in West Augusta we need this kind of affordable housing. But I do think that there are some concerns about density. They are concerned about the amount of houses going in there. There are concerns that could be addressed in the form of a compromise in this development, and I would suggest that rather than approve the request for eighteen, that we consider a lesser number. He can do twelve now, but I think if you do twelve you're going to be fencing folks out of the market that really need to have affordable housing. The area that we're talking about is convenient to Paine College, it's convenient to the Medical College, it's convenient to ASU, it's convenient to numerous retail employment in the Bobby Jones area, which we know is a growth area for retail, so I think that this is a housing niche that certainly could be filled by appropriate housing. And so I would suggest that we reduce it to fifteen houses and approve fifteen houses, which would give three more but not give as much as eighteen. We're taking three off of the request of the petitioner and three off from the other side, so I suggest a compromise at fifteen. So I would make it in the form of a motion, gentleman, that we approve the petition but with the modification that only fifteen lots could be developed according to this plan that has been submitted to us with a development road going down the center of the tract. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Findlay, would that be okay with you? MR. FINDLAY: We will accept that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Findlay, I think you would garner my support a little more if this was a through-street from Lynn to Church [inaudible]; is that possible? MR. FINDLAY: Yes, sir. In the sense that--yes, sir, if you would just accept that and it goes into the record, yes, we would hook this to-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: [inaudible] make it as an addendum to the motion? MR. SHEPARD: I accept that. MR. HANDY: What are you asking for, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Make it a through-street from Lynn to Church and put a cul-de-sac. MS. McCOY: I have a copy of the original plan, which was eleven units, eleven lots there. Could we possibly at least go back to that, what the originals were, because this was the original that I received from Mr. Patty's office with the Planning Commission. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, I'm sure Mr. Brigham probably is more familiar with this area than I am [inaudible] affordable housing for a number of years there. Certainly I think we all are interested in affordable housing, and I guess the buzz word that go along with affordable housing in the last several years has been affordable sustainable housing. Is that right, Mr. Brigham, or something like that? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Something like that. MR. TODD: Yes. And we're talking about the entire environment that go along with that affordable housing. HUD, you know, started the initiative, I guess, of affordable housing back in the '30s or '40s when they built projects all over the country and they packed folks in them, and we've seen that it don't work in the '80s and '90s, or maybe as far back as the '70s. And they're going to a different approach, and that different approach is a one- family situation or a duplex versus a multiple skyrise that pack folks in like rats. And I think that's what those of us that want to change the numbers from eighteen to something that's sustainable that will work versus what will maximize the greatest profit is looking at and is thinking in terms of. Mr. Mayor, I want to do something about redeveloping of downtown and, Mr. Mayor, I also want to do as much of it as possible through the private sector, but I certainly want the private sector to try to do something that's in the best interest of the folks that's going to have to live there and make it work for public safety as far as fire and police go and the entire environment as far as the folks that's going to have to live there. And I would hope that we can work this out where the project can be done, where it's feasible, and also come to some type of compromise on the numbers that will work. Eighteen, in my opinion, is too many. I agree with Mr. Brigham that we need to tie the road in [inaudible] and I agree with Mr. Shepard as far as doing something about decreasing these numbers. I seconded the motion to at least get a dialogue [inaudible]. MR. BEARD: I was just going to ask the lady if--how does she feel about this. I mean, everybody else got an opportunity to speak [inaudible]. MS. McCOY: Fifteen is still a lot. MR. BEARD: What would you be satisfied with? MS. McCOY: Well, if we had to go with the eleven, I think we would go with the eleven. MR. BEARD: Weren't they mentioning twelve? MS. McCOY: Well, I heard twelve today, too, but that's the first plans that I got when I was here last month. Those are the plans that I received from his office when I left this meeting last month and went over to Patty's office. MR. BEARD: Do you think that the neighborhood would go with the twelve? MS. McCOY: They possibly--I told him we would compromise, and we did meet and we had our discussion. And we're not trying to stop it. There are neighbors that want something on the lot. There are those who would like to have seen a park there, but with him having the property, we cannot tell him what to build, but at least, you know, he has concern for the rest of us that's out there. MR. BEARD: We want to see affordable houses, but then I keep hearing, you know, what people can afford, and sometimes I don't think we know what people can afford. I think if you build the houses, the people will come. I wouldn't personally want [inaudible], but I was just trying to determine what the neighborhood wanted because I think that you people should [inaudible]. MS. McCOY: The neighborhood would like to see some houses out there. Fox Spring is a whole different neighborhood from our community, and as I said last month, it's a [inaudible]. As I said, Bussey Road was closed off, everything is coming down through Church and Inez. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to approve fifteen, let it be known by casting your vote accordingly, please. MR. OLIVER: If I may add, I understand that the motion was amended to include making Lynn Street through to Church. MR. SHEPARD: That would be correct. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM AND HANDY VOTE NO; MR. BRIDGES OUT OF ROOM. MOTION FAILS 5-3. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if we could get them maybe to compromise on the twelve, then I so make that motion. MR. FINDLAY: I don't think that would be acceptable to me as a developer. If I had misstated something--and it's never been my position or intention to stand before a public body or otherwise and say something that's not true. If I had said that we have approval already to do twelve and we have now found out that the true figure is eleven, accept my apology. The economics of the situation just do not dictate that twelve helps at all. And I have the greatest affection for my fellow Augustans. I am not trying to do something contrary to what is in the betterment or for the best interest of this community, but I think fifteen is in keeping with compromise in the sense that we have also agreed to pull the road down an additional probably 100 feet at a cost of an additional $10,000, I feel sure. And having said that, I would hope, Mr. Brigham, we could allow it to stay as it is with the vote having been cast for fifteen. Thank you. MR. H. BRIGHAM: But it didn't pass. MR. FINDLAY: It did not? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No, sir. MR. FINDLAY: Oh. Because of lack of--the number of participating people? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe it's six. It has to pass by six [inaudible]. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And we only had five. MR. FINDLAY: Having said that, could I have a few minutes and talk to my clientele and then we will make that decision? But, again, of course, if this lady is not agreeable to that-- MR. H. BRIGHAM: What's the word, Jim, we can postpone this? MR. WALL: Well, there's no action. It'll have to come back. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yeah, it'll have to come back anyway. MR. FINDLAY: Thank you. We will just-- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we can bring it back up in a little while if y'all come back in; is that fair enough? MS. McCOY: Well, Mr. Findlay knew from the meeting that we had, if we had to compromise, we would go along with eleven. That's what we stated before he left our meeting that evening. MR. FINDLAY: I think that's right, but I don't consider that a compromise when I already had eleven. You know, if I misstated, forgive me, but as I say, I don't consider that to be a compromise. But let me excuse myself for a second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We finally got through Planning and Zoning. MR. HANDY: You know, we made a suggestion, Mr. Mayor, a long time ago, all Planning items should have a day of its own. It should not be mixed with this meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, Mr. Wall needs a legal meeting, so what I would suggest is that we have a legal meeting while the gentleman is repairing our microphones. Is that all right with y'all? That way, in case anybody has to leave early, we will have taken care of the legal meeting. Do I hear a motion to go into a legal meeting? MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. WALL: Litigation and legal advice. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [LEGAL MEETING] MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion that we reconsider Item Number 16 with the modification that the lot limitation be reduced to fourteen lots. And my understanding is that the objector and the petitioner have agreed upon that number. MR. FINDLAY: That is correct. MR. OLIVER: Does that provide for Lynn Street to go through to Church Street? MR. SHEPARD: All the conditions previous apply. The only change is the lot number. MR. BEARD: I second that. MR. HANDY: I'm not going to be against it, but fourteen is still a little high. Thirteen would've been better. MR. FINDLAY: I will tell the entire neighborhood that you vigorously fought for thirteen, but you were swayed by your colleagues. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by casting your vote accordingly, please. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-O. CLERK: Mr. Mayor, if it would be okay with you, if we could go to Public Services. We have three petitioners for alcohol, everybody else here is staff. Under Public Services, Items 55 through 67 were approved by the Public Services Committee on May 11th. [55. Motion to approve purchase from C & W Equipment Company of one Farm Tractor for Bush Field Airport in the amount of $13,700. 56. Motion to approve the purchase from Wrenn Handling, Inc., of one Fork Lift for Bush Field Airport in the amount of $22,692. 57. Deleted from agenda. 58. Motion to approve purchase from Southlake Ford of one Pickup Truck for Bush Field Airport in the amount of $14,525. 59. Motion to approve Memorandum of Agreement between Augusta Housing Authority and Augusta-Richmond County Recreation and Parks for Summer Youth Program funded by the Housing Authority and implemented by the Recreation Department in the amount of $62,500.00. 60. Motion to approve a budget allocation of $9,333.33 from the Recreation and Parks-Georgia Games budget to the Greater Augusta Sports Council for 1/3 share of cost for personal services related to employing a Project Coordinator to the Augusta Games Committee, Inc. from June 1, 1998 through August 31, 1999 Georgia Games, subject to the approval of County Attorney and Administrator. 61. Motion to approve new application request by Cuthbert Rubio for a consumption on premises liquor license to be used in connection with The Soul Bar, Inc. located at 984 Broad Street. 62. Motion to approve new application request by Roger W. Pollock, Sr. for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Washington Walk Liquor Store located at 2816 Suite 102 Washington Road. 63. Motion to approve new application request by Tina Parham for a retail package beer license to be used in connection with Eckerds Drug Store #3479 located at 2745 Washington Road. 64. Motion to approve new application request by Sandra W. Attig for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with Homewood Suite Hotels located at 1049 Stevens Creek Road. 65. Motion to approve and award professional services for architecture and engineering to W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. for $78,000 for Eisenhower Park Improvements. 66. Deleted from consent agenda. 67. Motion to approve issuing a hold harmless waiver to Augusta State University regarding usage of (1) one softball field at Wrightsboro Road Athletic Complex at Augusta State University by the Recreation and Parks Department for girls youth softball for the summer of 1998.] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we do it as a consent. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. OLIVER: Mr. McDill has asked that Item Number 57 be pulled because they've become aware of another product that may better suit their needs, so I would ask that 57 be deleted. MR. TODD: Ms. Bonner, were we just doing alcohol? We're not doing 66 at this time; right? MAYOR SCONYERS: 55 through 67. MR. TODD: Okay. We'd like to pull 66 also. MAYOR SCONYERS: So that's Items 55 through 67, with 57 deleted and 66 pulled. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your votes accordingly. MR. SHEPARD ABSTAINS ON ITEM 64. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 6-1, ITEM 64. MOTION CARRIES 7-0, ITEMS 55-63 & 65-67. CLERK: Item 66: Motion to approve Agreement with Newton & Associates, Inc. and Work Authorization for Task I, II and III for professional services related to the financial feasibility of terminal improvements at Bush Field Airport at a cost not to exceed $67,895, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the City Attorney for his advice on the contract, if he's here. MR. WALL: I think that insofar as the coordination of the financial part of it and the professional services in connection with the finances and the coordination of the legal work, that that needs to be done through the County Attorney, inhouse counsel, Comptroller, whoever may be in place within Augusta's government at that point. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to approve it with the recommendation of the City Attorney that part of that approval that the Commission would come through the City Attorney and/or the Comptroller as appropriate. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that if there is misappropriation of funds over there or misspending of funds or a bad deal made, then this government is responsible in the end; is that right, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Okay. I don't think we need to delegate any authority to entities that work for this government. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I assume also that any bond indebtedness has to be voted on by this Commission, and I assume [inaudible]. MR. WALL: You are correct that any bond indebtedness would have to--a bond approval would have to come before this body for approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to approve with certain stipulations, cast your vote accordingly. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Under Finance, Items 17 through 32 were approved by the Finance Committee on May the 11th. [17. Motion to deny the abatement of penalty on property owned by Travis Land Company for 1997 tax bill in the amount of $265.26. 18. Motion to approve increase in parking rates for the Radisson Riverfront from $1.75 to $2.50, effective July 1, 1998, and from $2.50 to 90% of the gate rate, effective January 1, 1999. 19. Motion to award a purchase order to Altec Industries for one (1) articulating, telescopic aerial truck at a cost of $60,789.00 for the Public Works Department Street Lights Division. (Best bid due to time frame.) 20. Motion to award a purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for one (1) full-size pickup truck at a cost of $18,149.90 for the Utilities Department Customer Service Division. 21. Motion to award a purchase order to Southlake Ford for two (2) compact 4x4 pickup trucks at a cost of $32,458.10 for the Utilities Department Engineering Division. 22. Motion to award a purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for one (1) compact 4x4 pickup at a cost of $16,248.00 for the Utilities Department Wastewater Treatment Division. 23. Motion to award a purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for one (1) sport utility vehicle at a cost of $21,164.85 for the Public Works Department Engineering Division. 24. Motion to award a purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for two (2) crewcab trucks at a cost of $71,456.62 for the Utilities Department Construction Division. 25. Motion to award a purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for two (2) full-size pickup trucks at a cost of $32,724.50 for the Utilities Department Customer Service Division. 26. Motion to award a purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for one (1) full-size pickup truck at a cost of $16,362.25 for the Utilities Department Construction Division. 27. Motion to award a purchase order to SRECO-Flexible for one (1) sewer-rodder truck at a cost of $63,378.00 for the Utilities Department Construction Division. 28. Approve filling the Groundskeeper I position for the West Augusta Soccer Complex. 29. Motion to award a purchase order to LJL Truck Center for one (1) dump truck at a cost of $73,936.62 for the Utilities Department Construction Division. 30. Motion to approve assignment of lease agreement and consent to assignment of lease agreement in connection with sale of WBBQ assets to Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. by the Medical College of Georgia Foundation. 31. Deleted from consent agenda. 32. Motion to approve the addition of one (1) Administrative Assistant position to the staff of the Augusta Canal Authority, with all costs of salary and benefits paid from Augusta Canal Authority accounts.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Bridges is absent, but he asked that we approve this by unanimous consent. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Number 31. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, the motion was Items 17 through 32, with the exception of Item 31. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your vote accordingly. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Item 31: Motion to approve acceptance of $7,000 as full and final payment of loan to Augusta Riverboat Cruises, Inc. MR. HANDY: Move for approval. MR. BEARD: I second that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd offer a substitute motion that we don't approve it, that we get the full payment or what this government is due. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd--substitute motion. I don't hear a second. We just have one motion on the floor. Discussion on that original motion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly when folks obligate the debt, they should pay that debt. And there is a provision for forgiveness of that debt, and that's through a Chapter 13 or Chapter 7, you know, reorganization of debt, etc. And it's my position that what you do here is the same as we done when we gave one judge a raise and didn't give the other judges a raise, we open the door for argument that you forgive debt in one situation, so why not in another one, and I think that we all know what we're talking about here. If we're talking, you know, a few thousand dollars, that's important to the taxpayers of this community and citizens of this community the same as $7.5 million, and I'll vote in the negative on this. And certainly when we look at the criticism that we received before for either forgiving or, you know, not being able to collect on a debt as far as UDAG or Community Block Grant, I'm going to listen to those that's criticizing it. Thank you. MR. POWELL: One question, Mr. Chairman, to the County Attorney. Jim, is this perfectly legal for us to forgive this? MR. WALL: Well, you're not talking about forgiving, you're talking about a settlement and to-- MR. POWELL: Right, a settlement, that's what I'm talking about, and forgiving the excess amount. MR. HANDY: What was the total amount? MR. WALL: The total amount was approximately $13,900 or something, so it's roughly half. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, cast your vote accordingly. MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 6-1. CLERK: Item 33: Authorize negotiation of contract with Association of County Commissioners of Georgia and David M. Griffith & Associates to conduct an operational review of Augusta-Richmond County government. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve. MR. BEARD: I'll second that, but I also second that because I think we need to hear from the Administrator on this. There was some question about this in Finance and that's the reason we came with no recommendation, so I think that needs to be cleared up here today. MR. OLIVER: Okay. As you recall, there were two proposals made: one was David M. Griffith, one was Chartwell. This was just basically my sentiment to get it on the table based on those presentations. If you feel that, you know, you're more comfortable with Chartwell, that's fine. I felt that Chartwell tended to be interested but somewhat academic in some ways. I've had some experience with David M. Griffith and found them to be professional. In my opinion, in a matter of a year or two we will easily recoup the amount of money that we spend on this efficiency study. The amount would have to be taken from our contingency account. And all this does is authorize us to go forward with David M. Griffith & Associates and to negotiate a contract, and that scope of services and the final dollar figure would have to come back to you all for approval. I would expect that that will probably take about two weeks. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess the other group did a good presentation, but I think we all are familiar with David M. Griffith & Associates, Association of County Commissioners, the Carl Vincent Institute of Government at the University of Georgia which these individuals work closely with, and also if we're, you know, looking at the sheriff's department or the judges, we also are dealing with folks that works with or at least we have those individuals in our organization. We have former sheriffs that is now county commissioners, we have former judges that's county commissioners, and if we look at the national association, and that is NACO, we have judges and sheriff members. So I think if we are looking at whether we're going to have a fair play in this issue as far as evaluating and looking, that we're going to have individuals here that work with judges, sheriffs, county clerks, you know, comptrollers, etc. So I think this is an outstanding group to do this study and I think it's a group that will be fair to everybody and I think everybody will come away from the table once it's done pleased and possibly even a better organization. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Oliver, how much money [inaudible]. MR. OLIVER: About $800,000 after this expenditure in reserve. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And what kind of percentage of that is [inaudible]. MR. OLIVER: Well, that's not our total reserve account, that's just our budgeted contingency account. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I have a problem in that a couple of weeks ago we wanted to reallocate some money for a park and we had to come up with [inaudible] and I think when we reallocate this money, that we need to do the same thing. I do not want to necessarily go to the reserve fund for this. Do you have any recommendations? MR. OLIVER: Well, I think somewhat of the distinction here is that at some point in the future I would look to recover this money through savings, whereas with other, you know, capital expenditures or operational expenditures you would not typically recoup that through savings. I am not aware of--I mean, I think there's about a ten or twelve thousand dollar consulting account that's within the Administrator's budget, and I would be more than willing to, you know, allocate those dollars to this to try to minimize the overall impact. Beyond that, I'm not aware of any. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I really feel like this needs to be a budgeted expenditure. I'm not opposed to doing the study at all. In fact, I'm very much supportive of that. My problem is where the money is coming from and doing it on quick notice and taking it out of reserves. I think this needs to be a budgeted expenditure. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd had his hand up. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm willing to put the $11,000 or ever how much the Commissioners' discretionary fund up towards it. I can't think of anything else, then we can put it back in the reserve [inaudible] and put towards that, ever what that share is. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, cast your vote accordingly. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION FAILS 4-3. CLERK: Item 34: Motion to approve the fee schedule for the cleanup of overgrown lots. MR. H. BRIGHAM: The fee schedule, Mr. Mayor, is in the book and it was approved. I'd like to move for approval with unanimous consent here. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to support this. I guess I supported Mr. Beard from day one on cleaning up this urban jungle that we have out there, but certainly I think that we need to do our part on cutting our lots. And I seen a tractor pretty busy the last day or two, but I would like to see that tractor just as active when we're not voting on the issue and on doing our lots and doing the right-of-ways throughout this county. And if anyone is here from Public Works, I'm going to challenge them to keep up that effort. And hopefully if we don't, then someone will take us to court and cut our lot and bill us for it. MR. POWELL: I just have one question. Have we looked at the possibility of hiring private people to go do this? MR. MURPHY: We have not. Well, as you can tell, this is the first time approaching vacant lots this way, but that's exactly what they do in Savannah. I think that after this year, if y'all are willing to try this this year, we'll be able to compile some data and we'll have a better handle on it next year and that will be an alternative. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Engineering Services, Items 35 through 48. [35. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering Department to extend an offer of employment to selected candidate for the County Engineer in the amount of $50,575 midpoint. 36. Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 and Final Change Order in the amount of $1,613.95 to Blair Construction, Inc. regarding the construction of water mains and appurtenances on Travis Street, Woodward Avenue, et al. 37. Motion to approve authorization to execute Change Order #2 in the amount of $7,500.00 with Mabus Construction Company, Inc. to replace the existing sluice gate on the Lake Aumond Outlet Structure. 38. Motion to approve authorization to enter into an agreement with CSX Transportation to bore two storm water pipes under the existing railroad tracks at Second Street and Forsythe Street. Agreements require payment of $500.00 each, to CSX Transportation, for License and Risk Fees. Also request approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment One in the amount of $662,000 from allocated Special One Percent Sales Tax and Phase III Funds for Second Street Outfall Storm Water Improvements and approve to let bids. 39. Motion to authorize Eder Associates to prepare No Further Action Letter and meet with EPD on behalf of Augusta, Georgia, cost not to exceed $1,100.00. 40. Motion to authorize Analytical Environmental Services, Inc. to perform required analytical work as requested by EPD, cost not to exceed $450.00. 41. Motion to authorize Conestoga-Rovers & Associates to perform required site assessment work to address EPD comments and prepare response letter-report, cost not to exceed $9,210.00. 42. Motion to award construction contract to Steve Duffie Grading for the Antler Drive West Drainage Improvements in the amount of $169,630.00 and authorize the execution of contracts. 43. Motion to approve the procurement process for the engineering firms providing services for the Public Works and Engineering Department. 44. Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $24,225.00 for Blair Construction Company regarding the construction of the Gordon Highway sanitary sewer crossing. 45. Motion to award engineering contract to ZEL Engineers in the amount of $47,000 for design services and construction services not to exceed $15,000 to design new and replacement chemical feed equipment at Highland Avenue Filter Plant. 46. Motion to approve proposal from Southern Partners, Inc. to provide design services for the Mike Padgett Highway/ Old Waynesboro Road Sewer Extension Project at a cost of $20,722.50. 47. Motion to authorize Conestoga-Rovers & Associates to repair "Well Documentation Report" as requested by EPD and prepare possible revisions to "Proposed Monitoring Well Network Revision Report" (if required by EPD) for a fee not to exceed $1,900.00. 48. Motion to approve Certificate of Ownership and agreement from the Georgia Department of Transportation for the 1998 LARP project.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we take the Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Item 49: Motion to accept the driveway access proposal for Payton Road Properties, LLC, as submitted by Mr. Don Ellefson of ADSI- United Van Lines. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. OLIVER: For the record, I would like to state that Mr. Payton's [sic] proposal--if we're going to do this, we need to do Payton Road. The reason is is there are properties that have access off Payton Road. The proposal that he puts forth basically creates a driveway only to his property, and while that's cheaper, we still have liability as it relates to getting to those other properties. The difficulty we've got is we've got some environmental issues and we've only got a fifteen-foot right-of-way. I would also note, based on the documentation in the backup, he agreed to provide certain things as a condition of his business establishment getting the zoning and the permit for this property. Unfortunately, due to problems he had with his engineer and property owners and things like that it did not come about. If we do this, it's got to come out of the unpaved roads. We don't have any other money to do that--or recapture fund. MR. POWELL: I thought that his proposal was a little different. I thought he was willing to incur some cost as far as this was concerned. MR. OLIVER: Unless he changed it during committee, his proposal was to take his real estate taxes for the next five years and apply those real estate taxes against the cost of this. And I wasn't here for committee, so I don't know what representations may have been made at that time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that unless he's running a manufacturing business, that we can't [inaudible]. And, you know, my position is that we haven't [inaudible]. He might have went into this deal, you know, with the understanding of what the stipulations were as far as we go and what we would do, but he run into a problem and he needs the release. And this is a company that works a lot of folks in Richmond County, and I think we need to do something to try to help him stay here or relieve him of some of the financial burden whether it's a fifty-fifty match or something as far as at some point reimbursing him for what he's expending. He's willing to go in and do the 100% expenditure with some release down the road. MR. BEARD: I've heard a couple of different things here, so, you know, I'm just wondering if we could get some type of clarification on what could happen here or what is to happen here before we--I feel that way, before I could really support this at this particular time, and maybe the Attorney can clear some of this up. MR. WALL: Well, I'm not sure that I can. And I agree with you, I'm not sure what we would be agreeing to at this point if we agreed to the proposal. Mr. Todd is correct that, in essence, he is proposing to fund what, in essence, would just be a driveway to his property, but he is asking the county to participate in that cost. If the Commission's desire is to put a road in there, then I think that you need to instruct us, the staff, to come up with a cost that would come in and put in a new section of Payton Road on the condition that Mr. Ellefson comes up with a right-of-way through this property where he had the original easement. We then abandon the old section of Payton Road as it comes out onto 56, but you take care of the houses that are on the section of Payton Road that runs parallel to 56. But the road would come all the way in and you would pave it and it would have to come out of the unpaved roads. But I think the direction needs to come to Mr. Murphy and us to come up with that if that's, in fact, the proposal. MR. POWELL: Let me clarify this for you. What was discussed in Engineering Services Committee was not for Mr. Murphy to go out there and pave Payton Road, okay? First of all, we didn't have any funding for it; number two, Payton Road is very narrow and you're going to wind up buying some homes or possibly some businesses. MR. WALL: I'm not talking about the existing Payton Road. I agree with you, we don't need to--we need to get off that right-of-way. MR. POWELL: Right. But this gentleman here, what he's asking us to do is--he is going to 100% fund putting him a drive into the Van Lines facilities, okay? What he's asking us to do is to give him the tax incentives that he never got. MR. WALL: Well, we don't have any authority to do that. MR. POWELL: Well, what's the next move, Mr. County Attorney? MR. OLIVER: My suggestion is to let us try to work something out and come back to Engineering Services with a proposal. But I think-- MR. POWELL: All right. I withdraw my motion and I make a motion that y'all go ahead and try to work something out and bring it back to the full Commission. Don't send it back to Engineering Services, we've done all we can do with it. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, while you're researching that I would like to [inaudible]. MR. WALL: I will send you a copy of the opinion that I rendered back in the beginning of '96. MR. TODD: Gentlemen, the way I see it is that we have a company that's been working with us for at least several months. I read a letter that probably go back the last two years. I know December a year ago I read the letter from the gentleman, and basically what he's requesting is some relief. I probably can sit here and name you ten companies that moved from Augusta-Richmond County to the New Horizon. And, you know, we have individuals like the former chairman of our neighboring county talking about regional, you know, working together when they are stealing everything we have here, and I think that we--in talking regional concepts, that we're letting them do it because we're not helping the folks here that's requesting relief, wanting to stay, and is going out front doing things to try to stay in Augusta-Richmond. And I don't know what the bureaucrats are going to come back with, but certainly I think that it's a decision that we could make here versus turning him over to them, because he's been with them for quite some time now and he got no relief. MR. POWELL: I've got one final comment that I'd like to bring up, gentlemen. I'd like to see him go ahead and expedite this thing as soon as possible because we have a very bad traffic situation there and we need to be addressing that. And somebody's going to wind up getting hurt out there, so we need to get this thing moving so we can [inaudible]. MR. OLIVER: I would note, though, for the record that the DOT approval for the planning process required him to put in the accel/decel lanes if required. MR. POWELL: I think he's willing to do that. We're just trying to get the man some tax relief, if possible. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to expedite and bring it back to the full Commission at the next regular meeting, cast your vote accordingly, gentlemen. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Item 50: Motion to accept counteroffer of $600.00 from Mary F. Mills (Tax Map 16, Parcel 50) on the Upper Crane Creek Channel Improvement Project. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Jerry Brigham's motion, cast your vote accordingly, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 6-1. CLERK: Public Safety: Items 51 through 53 were approved by the committee on May 11th. [51. Motion to approve request for Director RCCI to approve imposition of an administrative processing fee for disciplinary reports for inmates at RCCI. 52. Motion to approve the Planning and Zoning Director's recommendation to change the name of Swamp Road to Flake Road. 53. Deleted from consent agenda.] MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion that it be treated as a consent agenda, Items 51, 52, and 53. MR. HANDY: I'll second it. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pull Number 53 just for one question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Items 51 and 52. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your votes accordingly, please. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Item 53: Motion to authorize firefighters to participate in fund-raising activities with the Southeastern Firefighters Burn Foundation on May 22-23, 1998, by collecting money in firefighter boots at several intersections throughout Augusta. MR. SHEPARD: Move approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I just have one thing that I'm concerned with. I want to support this, but I want to make sure that we don't run into any of the problems, you know, that we had with one of our groups' fund-raising tactics that have come under some very, very harsh scrutiny with the public about telephone banks and stuff. And I don't want us to get into that, and I want to make sure and be reassured by the Chief that this isn't going to be the situation that we're getting back into. CHIEF FEW: I can tell you that this is a Fire Department fund-raiser. I understand what you're saying about the firefighters union. MR. POWELL: No telephone banks is what I'm-- CHIEF FEW: No. MR. POWELL: Okay. That's all I want a clarification on. MR. OLIVER: This is going to be boots at lights while people are stopping. It's going to be done--the firefighters are going to be on their time? CHIEF FEW: No, they won't be on their time, they will be-- MR. OLIVER: It's going to be done on our time? CHIEF FEW: Yeah, on our time. Now, let me just say this. What we've done in the past, we have actually supported the Georgia Burn Foundation, we have not supported our own. This is to help support Augusta's, you know, burn foundation, which is an excellent one that we have where we get people from South Carolina as well as all over the state of Georgia. We haven't done anything for them, so I thought it would be good that we do something for our own in Augusta. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, all over the state of Georgia firefighters get out in the intersections and do fund-raisers or for Jerry's kids or burn centers, etc. And all over the state of Georgia and all over the United States the firefighters associations, which is the unions, which this Commission recognize, do telecommunications. And, Mr. Mayor, as long as it's legal, as far as I'm concerned they can do it. And at the point that someone don't want their number called, Mr. Mayor, I believe there is provisions in the law where they can take their number and submit it and not be called by this organization, or if they will kindly let this organization know that they don't want to be called again. Mr. Mayor, the reference to the firefighters union is political and the reference to the phone calls is political. Many of my friends, including myself, you know, receive those phone calls, receive those mailouts, and usually send checks and never go to the function. Why? Because we believe in the firefighters in this county. Thank you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I know the Chief is a welcomed asset to the community, but I think he needs to be reminded the Sheriff stopped a number of organizations several years ago because we would have people in intersections every weekend, so I would advise you to do this very sparingly. And I'm going to support this at this time [inaudible]. MR. WALL: I would just point out, and I was going to mention to the Chief, there is a procedure set forth in the code so that the intersections are identified so that the Sheriff's Department is aware of it, and the safety precautions and everything, so we can coordinate that through them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Has that already been done, Chief? CHIEF FEW: Yes, it's already been done. MAYOR SCONYERS: And our firefighters will respond to calls, there won't be any lapse in service? CHIEF FEW: No, there won't be any lapse in service. MAYOR SCONYERS: I just wanted to make sure everybody understands that. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your vote accordingly, gentlemen. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Item 54: Motion to approve budget adjustment regarding the purchase of an additional file cabinet for the Indigent Defense Office. MR. OLIVER: The amount of $1,975. MR. HANDY: What kind of file cabinet is that? MR. OLIVER: It's a fancy one. MR. TODD: Do they have the money in their budget? MR. OLIVER: What they are proposing to do is take it out of lapsed salaries, and our policy requires that if they're taking it out of lapsed salaries they have to ask for your approval. It's a two-sided, five-tier, rotating file cabinet and it'll hold up to five years of records. The cost is $1,800 plus $175 freight, for a total of $1,975. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. MR. BEARD VOTES NO; MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 6-1. CLERK: Item 68: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular Commission meeting held May 5, 1998. MR. TODD: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your ballot. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Item 69: Motion to ratify the attached list of the Local Legislative Delegation appointments. Animal Advisory Board Dr. Janet Disler General Aviation-Daniel Field William Howard Henry Ingram, Jr. Augusta Aviation-Bush Field Owen Crickenburger Cedric Johnson Board of Zoning Appeals Bill Maddox Harvey Johnson Historic Preservation Commission Roy Sampley, Jr. Fred Mason Human Relations Commission Wilson Rice Ben Crickenburger Library Board Bonnie Kent Richard H. Johnson Personnel Board Mike Brockman Charles Walker, Jr. Planning Commission Ashby Krouse, III Mary Edwards Riverfront Review Board Pete May Sanford Lord Tree Commission Benjamin Bell Pat Jones MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, on Mr. Mike Brockman, I don't know if he lives in Columbia County or not, but his car got a Columbia County tag on it. And he was one of the ones that we selected to get our new Administrator, Mr. Randy Oliver, down here. He's the Director of Human Resources at Gracewood, and I know him personally, and I think he lives in Columbia County. And he's got an 863 telephone number. That could be Belair Hills, too, but he's close on the line anyway. MR. BEARD: I move that we approve the list of names, provided they live in Richmond County. MR. POWELL: I'll second his motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I can't sit here in good conscience and vote for these appointees, not one single one of them, because I don't think that the Local Delegation should put themselves in the appointment business on the local boards. Now, I can understand if it's an authority that they went to Atlanta and created, like the Canal Authority, where they would have maybe an appointment on it or maybe all the appointments, I don't know. But it seems to me that if they want to change anything in Atlanta, it should be the change the authority that they have in the legislation to appoint individuals to the Coliseum Authority and to the other boards that is local boards. Thank you. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, let me ask a question to the County Attorney. Aren't these offices and the appointing authority given to the legislature? Isn't that provided for in the Consolidation Bill? That's what the cover letter says. MR. WALL: Well, it's provided for in there, but it says that they are to recommend them by the Delegation and appointed by the Commission. My cover letter may be--all right, I said appointments by the Legislative Delegation, but the Consolidation Bill says that the boards shall be increased by creating two new members for each who shall be recommended by the Richmond County Delegation in the General Assembly of Georgia and appointed by the Commission established by this act. So the actual appointment comes from the Commission, but they recommend. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. TODD & MR. BRIGHAM VOTE NO; MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION FAILS 4-2-1. CLERK: Item 70: Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 5-2-49 so as to correct penalty and fee amounts with regard to water service. First reading. MR. HANDY: Before Mr. Hicks comes up, could I ask a question, Mr. Mayor, through Jim? These people are already serving on these boards, so how did they start serving before we appoint them? They're already there now, they've been to meetings. We're just approving it today, so how did that happen? MR. WALL: Well, I suppose the way it happened is, I'll take the responsibility for it because after I received the list I mailed them out. In the past, it has been my recollection that the approval and the ratification by this Commission was pretty much a formality, and I went ahead and, at the request of the Legislative Delegation, sent the list out. And I think they were notified and they've been serving. MR. HANDY: Right. Now, how are we going to correct that? That's the question I want to know. MAYOR SCONYERS: Y'all might want to consider rescinding that vote. MR. WALL: Well, I mean, it'll come back before the Commission at the next meeting, and, you know, the-- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, why don't we just go on and discipline the County Attorney? MR. WALL: Probably deserve it. MR. HANDY: Well, what can we do, now, seriously? MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we just let it go and come up at the next meeting. Because they're already serving anyway, I think you said. MR. HANDY: Right. So what we're doing by not approving it ain't going to mean nothing, that's what I'm saying. MAYOR SCONYERS: Max, do you want to go ahead, because I think [inaudible]. MR. HICKS: All right. Gentlemen, after the item came up in the Engineering Services Committee meeting, Commissioner Todd had requested backup information on the proposed change to the code. He had asked specifically that there be a comparison or we show the data as to how it used to be under the city and how it used to be under the county. One thing I would point out is that the amount of fees that are in effect right now were part of a adoption of a miscellaneous fee schedule that was adopted by the Commission on March 18, 1997, and those are attached for your information. And under that, Items G, H, I, and J are the items that are covered under a county code. The other items were not covered under the code. They were items that you could adopt and would not change the code at all. And so Items G, H, I, and J do show--if you'll look on over to the handwritten data, it shows the fees that were previously charged by the city and previously charged by the county and the proposed fee. And so what we're asking is that since these were part of the county code, that the code be modified to represent these fees. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I'd move approval of this ordinance. And in section one, in subsection B, they've got a reference to a second penalty date. There's a penalty date already. I think what they're talking about is a shut-off or a cut-off date, and I would ask that the second penalty date be replaced with the shut-off date, and I think Mr. Hicks is in agreement that might be a little clearer. MR. HICKS: I have no objection to that. MR. HANDY: I second. MR. TODD: Was the second penalty date intended to be a shut-off date or is it an opportunity to level an additional penalty fee? MR. HICKS: The way that it's applied is that, in effect, you're giving them two months in order to pay the bill, and that second penalty date would be at the end of that two months. And we called it a second penalty date and Commissioner Shepard felt it would be better stated to call it a cut-off date, which, in effect, that's what it is. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could address Mr. Todd's concern. I think that the second penalty date didn't really say what it was, and what it was, from the rest of the context, was a cut-off or shut-off date. And so let's have truth in the ordinance here. I mean, that's what it is, let's call it that rather than a second penalty date. MR. TODD: And, Mr. Mayor, my other question is, we've talked about provisions to do a payment, you know, where it would stay on and pay a--pay it out, whatever. Where in the ordinance as far as when there is senior citizens in the heat of summer or small children in the household? MR. HICKS: We already did that. When we have instances like that, Commissioner Todd, and people have run up penalties and they ask us can we pay it off, they can make a written agreement with us and pay it off. MR. WALL: And it's provided in here about special health needs or at a business where [inaudible]. It's in here as special health needs, but, I mean, I think that covers the situation that you're talking about. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. CLERK: Item 71: Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Richmond County Code Section 5-3-5(f). First Reading. MR. WALL: This is the sewer pre-treatment that the--we're making the change at the request of the EPD. In essence, what we're doing is removing parameters that were used for certain industries that we had made on a county- wide basis and the EPD had requested that we modify our ordinance, and this is at their direction and request. MR. TODD: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS ABSENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on May 19, 1998. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission