Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-1998 Regular Meeting Page 1 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS November 4, 1998 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:07 p.m., Tuesday, November 4, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND ROBINSON. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. Do we have any additions or deletions, MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner? Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have CLERK: a request to delete Item 33A. So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. SHEPARD: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. [MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT] MOTION CARRIES 8-0. CLERK:Today the Augusta Commission proudly recognizes With that in the efforts of the Alzheimer's Association. mind, the Mayor and Commission offer the following proclama- tion in observance of Alzheimer's Disease Month. Mr. Fairmen, would you please join the Mayor at the podium, please. "Whereas more than four million people in the United States are affected by Alzheimer's disease, a degenerative, progressive disease that attacks the brain and results in impaired memory, thinking, and behavior; and whereas Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementing illness, taking more than 100,000 lives in the United States annually, making it the fourth leading cause of death among older adults; and whereas Alzheimer's disease costs the United States more than $80 billion annually with just $4.4 billion covered by the federal government and $4.1 billion covered by Page 2 state governments, leaving the remaining cost to be borne by Alzheimer's patients and their families; and whereas an increase in public awareness about Alzheimer's disease and the Alzheimer's Association may stimulate the interest and concern of the American people which may lead, in turn, to increased research and eventually to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease; and whereas the Congress has resolved and the President of the United States has proclaimed the month of November to be National Alzheimer's Disease Month so as to increase the public awareness of Alzheimer's disease and to support the research and services being conducted by volunteer organizations such as the Alzheimer's Association; now therefore I, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby proclaim November 1998 to be Alzheimer's Disease month and encourage the citizens of Augusta to observe this month with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I'd like to accept this proclamation, not MR. FAIRMEN: on behalf of the local Alzheimer's Association but rather on behalf of the patients and families that are afflicted by this terrible disease. Thank you. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] As you are aware, Mr. Clyde Lester retired MR. OLIVER: at the end of October, and Mr. Sid Mullis has assumed the position of the New Extension Coordinator. Mr. Mullis has worked with the Extension Service for some period of time, and we would like to welcome Mr. Mullis to his new position. Mr. Mullis? Well, I have been here since 1985, so I'm MR. MULLIS: no stranger to a lot of people, but I welcome the challenge and I'm excited about filling this new position. Thanks. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] CLERK:Ms. Kathy Ackridge? Ms. Ackridge is here regarding animal control. I've got some points that I'd like to MS. ACKRIDGE: make about the animal control, about the pound situation that we have. I really do appreciate, first of all, you gentlemen getting rid of our gas chamber. That was a very strong concern of most of the citizens around here. Right now what we are wanting to do is to try to get y'all to consider appointing a private citizen committee that can oversee the functions of the pound. What we would like to do is be able to go out there and inspect the pound to make sure that the Page 3 animals are being treated fairly and that the conditions are good. The facilities that they have out there now are not the best, and I realize that we are fixing to go up and build a new facility. I personally would like to have some say-so in the new facility, the sizes of the runners and the kennels and how we need to house these animals. Another thing that we need is to do more advertisements as far as the type animals that we have out there. We can run that like the humane societies do: they run a weekly ad in the paper. This could also be run for the shelter in the paper at very low cost to run this. That way, the people would be aware of what type of animals are out there and what are available for adoption. Like I said, this could be done on a weekly basis. That should help some of the turnover that we have out there. We need to make sure that the staff out there also is trained to handle these animals. I've had some comments on how the animals are treated out there by the staff. We realize that the money situation is--from what I understand, it's a little tight, they can't really afford to appoint more staff out there, that they're using inmates to take care of these animals. And, again, these people are really not trained properly on how to handle especially sick animals that come in there. These animals should be checked out when they're brought in. If they have an upper respiratory problem or have something wrong with them, they need to be quarantined in special cages that they cannot expose it to the others. We need to make sure that they have their shots when they are brought in there. Parvo is one of the main concerns. Most of your animals that come out of there end up with parvo, which the people end up having to put the animals down. It's a big cost to treat one with parvo. They charge a fee out there, which I think these shots should be included in that fee. They have certificates out there for spaying and neutering, but from what I've talked with some people that have received animals from out there, the certificates are not made available to you. You end up having to pay for them yourself. We need to know--to publicize who these vets are that are willing to do the low-cost spaying and neutering. If we can get the vets publicized, then the people can feel more free to go out and spend $80 compared to $150 to have a dog spayed. Once we can get the animals spayed and neutered, then that should help us cut down on some of our problems that we're having out at Control. There is a way to get some organizations in here; for instance, PETA, American Humane Society. But in order to get them in here for this low-cost spaying and neutering, of course, I've got to have you gentlemen to back me on this to get them brought in here. It pretty much has to be y'all that ask them to come in, but I have been told that if y'all do this, that they will consider coming into Augusta to help out with the spaying and neutering. And basically that's all I've got on my little short list right now. I do have access to all these Page 4 organizations as far as how to get in touch with them so that they can fill you in. I've got pamphlets on all type of ways of going about getting the organizations in here to get the low-cost spaying and neutering started. Thank you. MR. BRIDGES:Motion to receive as information. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. . [MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT] MOTION CARRIES 8-0 CLERK:Ms. Janice Pittman, regarding a claim against Augusta-Richmond County. Good afternoon, I am Janice Pittman. The MS. PITTMAN: last joint of my index finger was painfully amputated in a preventable accident. I am here today because I am seeking compensation for medical bills and pain and suffering. The door of the women's restroom at the Riverwalk marina did not work properly with the closure and slammed shut as quickly as two seconds, giving me no time to get my hand out of the way. Maintained properly and periodically, the door should have taken at least 20 seconds to close, preventing any similar accidents. I was holding the door open on the hinge side to allow others to pass by, then before I could move out of the way the door swung shut. For the last five weeks I have endured having my hand and arm bandaged, which prevents me from carrying on my normal household duties, much less anything else. It has made it extremely difficult to care for my five-year-old daughter while my husband is at work. I have been seen at a physician's office five times, had one plastic surgery, and have another one pending this Friday. The surgery is reconstruction of the stump. It has been excruciatingly painful, very expensive, and the costs are still rising. I do not want to, but I am prepared to take legal action if necessary. I would like the Commission to take a vote and agree to pay my medical expenses, with compensation for pain and suffering. The offending door has been repaired and now has a hinge cushioner which allows a 20-second closing time. Fortunately, the additional 18 seconds will prevent some person, maybe even a child, from having a painful accident like this, especially when it could have been prevented by the city's maintenance department. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this request, Janice Pittman. And I do have a copy of [inaudible] if you'd like to see it. Page 5 Mr. Wall, isn't that something that MAYOR SCONYERS: should be referred to you, not the Commission? That's correct. Risk Management has looked MR. WALL: into the matter and they've conferred with our office. In fact, I've spoken with an attorney. I'm not sure whether he did, in fact, take the case, but I have spoken with him about the matter. My recommendation to the Commission would be that you refer that matter to me for further handling. MR. BRIDGES:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Wall, didn't we discuss this about a MR. HANDY: week or two ago about the door? Well, you and I may have had a conversation MR. WALL: about it from the standpoint that it was--at one point was going to be on the last Commission agenda, and so we--I'm sorry, I don't remember specifically who all I talked with. I talked with several Commissioners about it, yes. Jim, you did say that Risk Management is MR. BRIDGES: dealing with this--is aware of it and dealing with it? They are aware of it, yes. MR. WALL: Isn't that our normal channel? MR. BRIDGES: That is correct. MR. WALL: Excuse me, but Risk Management has told me MS. PITTMAN: they were not liable. And based on the information that has been MR. WALL: furnished to us, I would agree with that. But the fact of the matter is that is the process that we have established for handling claims, and I would urge this Commission to continue to utilize that process. Let them investigate it, analyze it, get an opinion from us as appropriate, and deal with it in that fashion and not open up the floor for resolving every complaint. While he's doing that, Mr. Oliver and I MR. H. BRIGHAM: had a conversation with some folks over there some time ago about the railings. There's no hand rail that's going down. Could we just investigate it? Is this the proper place to do it or is this the time to do it? Page 6 I don't recall the conversation, but I'll MR. OLIVER: be glad to get Mr. Acree or the appropriate people to look at railings. Where is this at, at the marina? No, this is at the amphitheater. She MR. H. BRIGHAM: said the marina. I'm sorry, at the amphitheater. You mean like on the stairs going down to MR. OLIVER: the bottom? Going down, yes. Right. We had talked MR. H. BRIGHAM: about that. You know, I know you have a lot on you, but we had talked about it one time before with some folks at-- I'll get somebody to look at that aspect of MR. OLIVER: it. I did leave a couple of seconds left open MS. PITTMAN: for Neil Gordon to have something to say. Is that okay with the Commissioners? Was there any other discussion, MAYOR SCONYERS: gentlemen? [No response] Okay, go ahead, Neil. I just want to say a couple of things. I MR. GORDON: just encouraged Janice to come down and try and talk with y'all because dealing with all of-- Could we get your name? CLERK: Neil Gordon from Channel 26. I encouraged MR. GORDON: Janice to come before you because you're all very reasonable people, I found in the past. I just wanted you to consider a couple of things. There isn't any kind of a maintenance schedule for the doors that are down there, and that's one thing you might want to consider. I talked with Rick, who runs the maintenance department, and he said the particular door that Janice got hurt on hadn't been looked at in more than a year because there weren't any complaints, which is understandable, but there's no routine maintenance. And we had a door expert look at it who said that it was in very old and poor condition, and I forwarded that to Rick. Rick actually had somebody replace the door hinge, and now it takes about 26 seconds for the door to shut, so I think it at least shows that there was a problem with the door. And, Jim, you probably know much better than I whether y'all have a legal obligation, but I just wonder if there might be just a moral obligation. Someone was hurt on city property, and the door has been replaced now, there was a problem with it, I wonder if you might want to consider just doing the right thing and maybe trying to help this one particular person. That's what Page 7 I was trying to do in doing our stories and checking into it a little. And I think there is--according to the person in charge of Risk Management, there is a few hundred thousand dollars left in their claims budget, so I think there is money available. That's all I wanted to say. The only comment I would make is I think that MR. WALL: it's not appropriate to try to deal with this out on the floor in this manner, that we have a process set up to deal with claims. There are numerous claims that come through. And I would urge you to stick to that process and let Risk Manage- ment complete their investigation, forward the information to us, and then deal with it in that fashion. And if it's a claim that we feel is justified, that ought to be settled, we'll discuss it with you at the appropriate time and get authority. Is a motion on the floor to do that? MR. KUHLKE: [Indicates affirmatively.] MR. WALL: Well, I'll just call the question then. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I guess the motion was made--and MR. MAYS: pardon my just coming in, but while it may not be the appropriate time to do this from a legal standpoint of working with the lady--and I guess maybe what I need to know is probably on the restating of the intent of the motion--well, two things. One, is it the desire of the Commission in the motion to return to this matter at an appropriate time, and, I guess, am I hearing that Risk Management has rendered an official or is this an unofficial opinion of Risk Management at this time? Because, I mean, if we're saying that that is the proper channel, and I don't have a problem with that, then if they have already expressed that opinion, then I'd ask the question then when is the appropriate time, you know, or who are the appropriate people? And probably, like Harry Truman, the buck does stop here then if they've rendered an opinion. Now, if they haven't and we're going to follow that process, I have no debate with the motion that's on the floor. But as long as it contains that type of provision that we will set aside an appropriate time--and even if that means in the legal sense of where they sit down with legal and we determine that. But I want to make sure, Mr. Mayor, that it's not a forgotten item. And I would like to know whether or not Risk Management has issued an official opinion, because I'm going pretty much on what the lady said a minute ago of where they said "we were not responsible." Now, whether they put that in writing or not, if we--we either said it or not said it. And if we've said it, then if that's official, then I think we need to deem a time that we do discuss it and appoint a person to discuss Page 8 it with the lady. Mr. Mays, as best I can answer that question, MR. WALL: I think that they did have a conversation with Mrs. Pittman indicating that they did not feel like there was county liability. The matter, as in any question like this, is typically referred to our office. There has been conversation between Risk Management and Jim Ellison. An attorney contacted me two or three weeks ago, I think it was, concerning the matter. He said that he would be in further contact with me. Nothing, to my knowledge, has come out of our office one way or the other insofar as a final opinion of it is concerned. I will review the matter, but I think that it needs to be addressed in the normal fashion of any claim as opposed to, you know, trying to negotiate a settlement here on the floor. And I agree with you, I don't think this is MR. MAYS: necessarily the place to deal with a legal settlement. But I think if we have people--and many times folk don't necessarily know the process maybe as well as folks who make the decision. And I think if you have people and they state that we're not responsible, I mean, it can be from somebody who may clean up the building to say we're not responsible, and they work for us, some people take that as gospel truth because they don't know anything else to do, and then you refer back to addressing us as a Commission. And I just want to make sure that that's not lost in that process. I think if there is going to be conversation with you and Mrs. Pittman or you and Mrs. Pittman's attorney, there is a process of dealing with that, but I would want to make sure in something like this, particularly--and this is not to state where we go with it. You're right, this should not necessarily be worked out here. But I don't think that you can have an injury of sorts and it not be talked about somewhere in a mutual dialog of folk, and not necessarily in an open session, but I want to make sure that the motion provides that opportunity for the lady to be able to continue this process with the city. And if that's in there, if that's in the spirit of the motion, I have no problem with it. She has made a claim with the county, we're MR. WALL: aware of the claim, and so she's perfected her rights. We will evaluate it and at the appropriate time, in legal session, discuss with you the relative merits of the claim and seek your guidance. Okay. I'm satisfied, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Do you want to read the motion, Ms. MAYOR SCONYERS: Bonner, please? Page 9 The motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. CLERK: Shepard, was to refer to the City Attorney. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, MAYOR SCONYERS: let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. . [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL OUT] MOTION CARRIES 8-0 CLERK:The next item is Nellene R. Lake, regarding neighborhood zoning. Good evening, Mayor Sconyers, Commissioners. MS. LAKE: I want to start by asking the Quail Hollow/Quail Ridge community neighborhood association members to please stand. And if you're standing up, please raise your hand. Once again we come before your panel requesting your assistance to protect our property values. We were here on October the 6th, and the motion was made, nine to zero in favor according to these minutes, that the rezoning of our neighborhood be denied. However, we're still having some problems in the neighborhood because of the developer. Nordahl is still building houses, as we said before, that are smaller in lot sizes, and we feel that these will possibly lower our property values. And we have a problem with that, so we have come again before your panel regarding this matter. We've had a number of instances where we feel like we have not been given a fair shake. Mr. Nordahl, I have written to him with a certified letter, and he has--as of today has not responded, so he has yet to sit down to the table and discuss this issue with us. I've spoken to Mr. Oliver in his office regarding this matter, and we discussed the lot sizes and square footage of the homes. However, according to Mr. Oliver's letter, the homes--our developer, Mr. Trotter, apparently gave us more square footage than he was required, so we are zoned R-1B and R-3B. We want the R-3B, which is classified as multiple-family dwelling apartments, we want that out of our zone. I don't see how that would be fair to put apartments in the middle of a subdivision, so we are asking for that R-3B to be stricken out of that zone. We're asking for R-1B, which is what we are classified as now. We're asking since [inaudible] we want to increase that to R-1, you know, and that it will protect the property value that is already existing. Also, after the October the 6th meeting, the following Friday, October the 9th, October the 16th, and October 23rd, an ad has been in the paper stating that the zoning was approved, and y'all clearly denied it. Okay, we had a problem with that, so I spoke to the Clerk of Commission's Office, and they said, well, we didn't have time to retract it. For three Page 10 consecutive Fridays they couldn't retract this out of the paper? So this is what we're dealing with. We feel that we're not dealt with fairly. And I have a copy of all of that [inaudible]. So I want to reiterate that we are requesting for our property values to be protected by removing multiple- family dwelling, R-3B, out of our zone. We're requesting that you all increase the lot sizes to what we have now, which is-- we have R-1B and we're requesting for R-1. I need to be refreshed just a little bit, MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Oliver, but it appeared to me that when Mr. Nordahl appeared before us and they were asking for a change in zoning, that we did deny that change in zoning. But if they did not get--the property was zoned at that point for multi- family; am I correct? And if I recall correctly, it was pointed out to the delegation that was here that as a result of turning down what he was requesting, it left him with the opportunity to put multi-family dwellings in there. Correct me, Randy, if I'm wrong. If you would like, I can give you a MR. OLIVER: chronology. I like. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. There was a petition done by the MR. OLIVER: developer to change the zoning on this in totality. And you are correct, Mr. Kuhlke, in that the zoning on the property, because it was denied by the Commission, is currently R-1B and R-1C. I have met with Ms. Lake and there was an incorrect ad that was run. That has subsequently been corrected. The zoning was denied, the developer is proceeding knowing that it was denied, and a letter went out from the appropriate parties here for that. As Ms. Lake stated, the issue, I believe, is twofold. One is that the lots in the part of the subdivision that she and her neighbors live are larger than the R-1B zoning designation would require. The R-1B zoning designation requires 75 feet of lot width at the setback and a minimum of 7,500 square feet. The lots in the new section meet that standard, but--by meeting the standard I mean it basically exactly meets that standard. The lots in the other section range in width from, you know, 80, 85, 90, and they're just slightly bigger. In addition to that, and I think equal concern by the community and the people represented here, is that the covenants in the section that they currently live in require 1,250 square feet for a dwelling unit and the covenants in the new section, which Mr. Sherman showed me today, require only 1,150 square feet for that particular property. I advised Ms. Lake that the county does not have authority to enforce a private covenant between the parties, Page 11 and I encouraged her to get the homeowners' association involved. The only thing the county had the authority to enforce would be minimum property standards, to require that the electrical--that there's a certain minimum number of square feet, but that's significantly less than required, and that, you know, you have plumbing and water and all that type of health, safety, welfare issues addressed. And Mr. Patty is here and Mr. Sherman is here, and they can answer any specific questions that you may have relating to either the zoning or the construction. Mr. Sherman also indicated that the new covenants were just signed today also, so apparently they have not even been recorded on the new section. Well, let me address that. We spoke with Mr. MS. LAKE: Patty on a number of occasions and he also reiterated that our area is zoned for R-3B, which is multiple-family dwelling apartments, which is also totally unusual. We don't even know how that happened. So we want that out of our zone. We do not want apartments in our neighborhood. We do not want our homes--the square footage of our homes to be decreased in size for them to build those square footages and a decrease in size. So we're not just here to say--we're not going to just say, well, we appreciate you building these small houses because we understand he's building apartments. We still don't feel that that's fair. No, we do not want apartments, but also, by the same token, we do not want smaller homes, smaller lots, and smaller square footage. So we want to protect our property values and that's why we're here today. If we have to come back again, we'll be here each and every time. And Mr. Jefferson has documented where the homes are clearly under 1,250 square footage, and they all are not 75 square footage frontage. Some are 70 square footage. Ms. Lake, are they continuing to build homes MR. BEARD: now that-- Yes. Yes, they are. MS. LAKE: If I may--excuse me. I contacted the MR. JEFFERSON: Inspection Department yesterday and asked to speak with Mr. Sherman. He hadn't gotten in yet, so I spoke with Mark Masters, his assistant, and I had him to fax me at my personal residence the building permits on each individual house which gave the square footage of the house--all the pertinent information. And I also spoke with Rusty Nordahl yesterday on the site. This is a sheet that they pass out that gives a description of the houses, gives a description of the square footage and so forth. Now, what I wanted to point out, looking at these building permits, they say, for instance, Lot A-4 was 1,299 square feet according to the permit they purchased. And I look on this description sheet where they're Page 12 going to actually put these houses on the market, this A-4 lot is actually 1,241 square feet. That's a difference of about 50-some-odd square feet. And actually going out there with a tape measure and measuring it, it was even smaller than that. So we have three difference measurements of square footage. This gives a description of another house that's 1,166 square feet, which is way below the 1,250 square feet. That's Lot Number 18-B. I have Mr. Masters' signature on this where he faxed each of these to me, if the Commissioners would like to see them. And, also, in that same sheet they have Ashbury Downs and they have Brittany Subdivision. Those houses are 1,800 to 2,200 square feet homes. Now, that's right in my backyard, the homes that Nordahl is building--I mean right across my fence. My house is a little better than 2,500 square feet, and it's on a corner lot. If they can build houses in other subdivisions of that size, of adequate size for that community, why can't they do the same for Quail Hollow/Quail Ridge Subdivision? Basically we're not trying to make them build a product that they don't build. We always hear negativity about South Richmond County, about the flight to Columbia County or West Augusta. Basically they're taking this premier product to West Augusta and Columbia County. Now, if you look at those houses and the prices, we're getting ripped off two ways. Number one, if you do the math, even though that's a lower price tag on those houses, but it's actually more per square foot for an inferior product. The larger houses with the square footage of 2,000 or better are priced at 100-plus. Now, these houses that are significantly smaller are priced at about 70-plus. So if you do the math, you can see he's charging a heck of a lot more per square foot in South Augusta and piggy-backing off of our current property values. I just want to point out the disparity: my tape measure, what's on the building permit, and what's on this spec sheet of those houses. I highlighted it for each Commissioner. So basically what are they building? And we do have a covenant. If a covenant was signed yesterday, and they're talking about they're trying to deal with a close relationship between the Quail Hollow/Quail Ridge Subdivision neighborhood associations, why weren't we informed on the covenant? Why didn't we have any input on the covenant? How can a covenant be signed minutes before a Commission meeting and say, aha, the Commissioners have a covenant right here of 1,150? That was just a smoke screen to make us look foolish. Which we're not the smartest people in the world, we're just hard-working people trying to hold on to our property values. And basically I'm not trying to make any enemies on the Commission or make any enemies with Nordahl Realty or you, Mr. Oliver, but basically my neighbors asked me because I worked with the Inspection Department for several years. I was an electrical inspector when Miller Myers and John Stroup was Page 13 there, so basically I'm familiar with construction, and basically because of that expertise and nothing else they asked me to be the spokesperson. And we've worked hard just like the people in Brittany Downs and Ashbury to afford a house in a neighborhood that's going to maintain it's value, not to bring an inferior product in there or an inferior house because it's affordable and continue to build other houses in West Augusta and Columbia County. That same construction company is building that superior product elsewhere, but to South Augusta it's a slap in the face. So basically I'm just asking that we cease the construction until we--if we have to have a class-action suit, all well and good, but we just want to know our parameters. We're not arguing with you, because we know you all were just brought up to speed on this. We just want to know our options. And if we're talking to the wrong body, inform us of this and we will go further. We're not trying to cause any trouble, basically we just want to know our parameters. If the covenant is out of your hand and that's a class-action suit, that's one thing, but do not come with a signed covenant by a contractor with deeper pockets than mine the day of the Commission meeting saying this is going to stand up because that's--that's not kosher. So, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I apologize if I seem brash, but we are upset because we feel like we're getting the runaround. It's as simple as that. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] Are those new covenants in any way MR. COLCLOUGH: related to yours or are these separate covenants? Well, we haven't seen the new covenants. MR. JEFFERSON: And we were under the impression that the Quail Ridge Subdivision, in order to carry that name, it should fall under the covenants for the 20 or 30 years of the life of the covenants if they're going to carry the name. Now, if they named it Quail Estates or something, that's a whole different ballgame, but it's carrying the name Quail Ridge, and it's picking up where that street dead-ends--maintaining the name of the street and picking up from the next address in multiples of twos on the odd and even sides in the cul-de-sac. So basically how--I'm asking, I'm not fussing, but how can covenants of an existing subdivision be changed before a Commission meeting? And I know I'm taking up a lot of time-- Mr. Wall, can you address that pertaining MR. BRIDGES: to the same question? Yes. The covenants that he is talking about MR. WALL: are covenants that the developer imposes on the property, and it is a private matter and is not something that this Page 14 Commission has control over. When a developer seeks to develop a certain tract of land, those covenants apply to that tract of land. Oftentimes they do it in phases where they'll have Phase I and those covenants will apply to Phase I, and then when they go to the next section, those covenants will be updated, redrafted, whatever, insofar as it deals with the next section. But-- What is applied here? Are their covenants MR. BRIDGES: applied to what he's building now or-- I have not seen the covenants. I am MR. WALL: assuming, from what he's saying, that the covenants--he has one section that deals with the existing development out there that only apply to that land, and then the new covenants that they're talking about applies to the new area that is being developed but was not a part of the original covenants. But that would be a private matter between the association and the developer or the homeowners in that area. But, I mean, he is correct that if they are on a piece of property that there are existing covenants, those covenants cannot be changed without their consent. But even if it's not the case where MR. BRIDGES: they've got difference covenants with different developments-- in other words, what you're saying is they've probably got two sets of covenants for Phase I and Phase II. Even if it were the same, would the association have to seek legal recourse? I mean, is there anything we can do or is this something they're going to have to seek legal recourse against the developer? I think it's something they're going to have MR. WALL: to seek legal--the advice and legal recourse against the developer. We regulate the lot size, but not the home size that goes on there. The home size is a matter of the covenant. These permits that I just passed to the MR. JEFFERSON: Commissioners were issued by our License and Inspection Department, and they were based on 1,299 square feet. And you can see on this fact sheet he's stating that the houses are much smaller. And then if you go out there--I measured, the houses are smaller than his fact sheet. Basically I'm asking because the permit was bought under the assumption that the houses are going to be 1,299 square feet minimum, and he has one that's 1,166 square feet, one that's 1,241 square feet. Basically that's not followed. It was bought under false pretenses. I think we should--I'm asking could we hold that up until we get a ruling on that. Page 15 This Commission, I don't know, they seem to MR. HANDY: forget quickly. We just went through this with Goodale Landing, something similar to what we're doing here now. First of all, this should be going under Planning and Zoning before we come here and try to hear this out. This is not ours yet, it's got to go back to Planning and Zoning. They correct all these things. Not that we don't want the citizens in the street, but these are things that you all are asking, Mr. Jefferson and others, that we can't do here. You got to go to Planning and Zoning. I don't know why we sit here and go through all this first, and somebody should have told you long before now. I mean, we've got other things that we could be doing that come through here. No, I'm asking about the selling of a MR. JEFFERSON: building permit on a size that's not actually the size. I mean-- If you've got a complaint, Mr. Jefferson, MR. HANDY: complain about the building permit, the sizes, to the appropriate people. This is not where it comes to first. Everybody sees can everyone get ahead of--come to us, publicize everything, and not go through the right channels as if we don't know what we're doing. No, we followed the chain of command. MR. JEFFERSON: We went to the County Administrator, we went to George Patty, I called the Inspection Department yesterday. Basically I'm trying to follow the chain of command. And like I said, I apologized in my opening statement if I'm off track. But we're not here to aggravate you, we're basically here to find out if you are not the right person, would you see to it that the right person give us the accurate answers and the time and not be happy for us to get out of the room. I feel like this is being swept under the rug, sir. What I would like to recommend is that MR. COLCLOUGH: we take a look at those new covenants. I know that covenants that are written in a community usually is piggy-backed off the covenants that's already there with a different section. It's not a new--they shouldn't be writing new covenants for this area. It should piggy-back off of the current covenants that is for that community with a different section, and I think you just mentioned that. And I think what we need to do is look at these covenants or someone needs to look at these covenants and make sure that they are in compliance with that community. Mr. Sherman, did you want to say MAYOR SCONYERS: something? Page 16 I was just going to address the comments MR. SHERMAN: about the building permit. When the builder comes in, he'll bring us a house drawing and it'll show us the size of the house that he's proposing to build. On the permit he'll indicate the size of the house. These are all approximately 50 square feet on two houses. And why, I can't answer that. Well, according to the list, it's more MR. JEFFERSON: than two houses. Well, the two that you mentioned are 1,299 MR. SHERMAN: and 1,241, but the others are 1,200, 1,300, 1,400 square feet. We don't enforce the covenants. Without the covenant, I assume they could build any size house that they want to build. We'll do anything that we can to work with you, but we just don't-- Mr. Wall, [inaudible] what she said a MR. J. BRIGHAM: while ago, that we have no minimum square footage, all we have is a lot square--a number of square feet per lot. We don't have a construction square footage? That's correct. We don't get into the size MR. WALL: of the homes that can go on these various lots. We regulate the lot size and the setback requirements, and sometimes that indirectly affects the size of the home, but we do not regulate the size of the house. Okay. My next question is when we MR. J. BRIGHAM: issue a--I guess this is for Rob. When we issue a building permit, is that the minimum size they have to build to or is that the maximum size or is that a estimation of size? Well, as Mr. Jefferson has said, this is MR. SHERMAN: more or less an estimate of what came up on these. For instance, the builder said it's going to be 1,299 square feet and it measured out to 1,244. The cost of his permit is based on the size of the house that he gives us. So actually he paid us more than what MR. J. BRIGHAM: he's actually building? Yes. MR. SHERMAN: And, plus, one is 1,166. MR. JEFFERSON: And it was supposed to be 1,205. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Wall, my next question is we're not MR. J. BRIGHAM: a party to any covenants anywhere in this county on subdivisions, are we? We don't have any rules or regulations Page 17 regarding what's the bare minimum of covenants [inaudible]? That's correct. We do not regulate the MR. WALL: covenants. Now, I think that most of the time we get copies of the covenants, but-- But we don't control them, we don't MR. J. BRIGHAM: regulate them? No. No. MR. WALL: And we don't dispense legal advice? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. Absolutely not. MR. WALL: A question on that: We don't regulate MR. COLCLOUGH: the covenants, but, yes, sir, we get a copy of the covenants. Why haven't we gotten a copy of these new covenants that they just signed today prior to them signing it? When we approve a final plat, the Planning MR. PATTY: Commission would get a copy of the covenants for the property. Now, you know, that's not a requirement that we get those covenants. We generally do, and if we haven't, we'll get a copy of them. But there is nothing in our regulations that says that there can't be a different set of covenants for every section of a subdivision. Yeah, you wouldn't expect a builder to go out and drastically change the covenants from one section to another, but there's nothing in our rules and regulations that would prohibit that if they chose to do it. Well, let me ask one other question, Mr. MR. JEFFERSON: Mayor. Okay, we established the fact on the covenants, but there is a disparity from what's being advertised, what the permit was purchased for, and what's actually there. And basically all I hear from the department heads, they're defending the contractor and not the taxpayers. Jim, can you handle that? MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, again, you know, there are certain MR. WALL: things that we can regulate and certain things that are beyond our ability. I mean, if there is that type of discrepancy--I mean, we can look at it from the permit standpoint and see whether or not there was some intent to mislead, but, I mean, obviously the builder's got to pay a higher fee for the bigger the square footage. So, I mean, it's not in the contractor's best interest to come in and overestimate the square footage of the home. And, you know, I don't know whether that includes all the patio space or something like that that the builder may have included when he was estimating the square Page 18 footage that he didn't necessarily have--I'm just using that as an example. But, you know, that is more of a private matter between your association as far as what your covenants provide, whether or not your covenants somehow give you a right to address a section that may be developing beside you, whether or not you still have a relationship with that developer by virtue of the homeowners' association and the covenants, and whether or not you, through those covenants, have a right to go back against that developer to ensure that what's being built in the section next to you is compatible with what you have. But the government really does not have the right to get into that and to regulate that type thing. Mr. Mayor, I don't mean to be mean-spirited, MR. MAYS: but, you know, I made the motion when these folks were here last time in reference to the zoning denial, and I said something at that time, and I'll just let the record reflect back on it for reference of some things that I was tired of where we run into trying to go back and to help neighborhoods after investments have been made, and it probably reflected a little sharply not just on the builder that bought out the former Trotter developer but on others that we run into as well that we've had to go back and to direct. Now, I do think that--and I'm going to disagree at this point on part of what has been said from the Commission standpoint and from Mr. Wall. We're not fixing to go into nuclear war today, Jim, but I do think that the permitting process--and this is nothing negative in terms of License and Inspection. I think people come in on good faith and give numbers. Whether they issue the license or permit or whatever, naturally at that point on an unbuilt facility, our people have to go by what they say they are going to do. And they take that at face value. I don't buy the argument that a higher fee would have been paid, so the person wouldn't have done that. I think you can make an argument on the other side of the case that a higher fee was paid so that you basically would think that that's what the hell you were going to build and that nobody would go back and measure or check it, and unless there was a complaint made to somebody, then it probably never would be done. So that's my flip side of that part of it. I do think we have a responsibility, Mr. Mayor, in the permitting process if nothing else. Now, we may not have our nose legally in the business of what's going on with the covenants. I realize there are some private things that occur, but there are public things that occur in the permitting process. And I think, if nothing else, the Commissioner from District Four is correct in that we need to combine in taking a look at where those permits are at this point and if necessary--and I don't have a problem with it, will probably make a motion today, or I'll allow Mr. Colclough to make it and I'll second it, but I think we need to do something that contains two things: one, not Page 19 just taking a look at it, but I think we ought to deal with some type of moratorium on the fact--I don't buy that about the paying the higher fee. If there is a deception process that's in there, then the only way you can stop that--you can't go around tearing down buildings and houses after they've been built. If there's a reason for doing it, the way to do it is to stop that process in its tracks where it is. The second thing that ought to be done--and I asked this at that time when I made the motion. I didn't put it in that day because I figured it wouldn't go nine-nothing and I didn't want to cloud the issue with it, I just wanted that day to get the zoning turned down. There's another issue that's in there that needs to be looked at. We went out and we rezoned, which I think for a good cause, but I think, Mr. Mayor, they're showing today that a mobile home is not the most dangerous thing you can run into. We went out to deal with a positive zoning, which took in a new comprehensive plan in the South Richmond area on both sides of Tobacco Road, to make corrections so that people that were in subdivisions with investments that had never been brought up to the proper zoning could be protected. Now, we went out and bothered some folk that had agricultural property that probably never would put a cow or a pig on it, but we went out and we dealt with changing it to residential. Now, what's wrong in the same process with referring this to Zoning, allowing them to go and look at this as one of those areas that needs to be brought up to speed in the zoning process? What I see is a fast-tracking to get some stuff built before Planning and Zoning can deal with putting this together. At the same time we were dealing with knocking out the agriculture and dealing with the mobile homes, if we were going to protect folks in dealing with that, we should have looked at the vacant land. And I supported that plan at that time, but I was reluctant because I said, hey, you're bothering some folk that have no plans about doing anything. But it seems as though the emphasis was in the wrong place, even though well-intended by Planning and Zoning, to go after and protect those people in those subdivisions to upgrade the zoning. But we're having a case here where it seems like you've got a sneakaroo situation where you build half of a subdi- vision, and then once it's built, then you can't do anything about it. We're not going to go on a limb and go out and tell somebody, well, you've got tear all of them down and you've got to move them. That's not fixing to happen. The process there, if you're going to do anything, I think, is through the permitting process of where in good faith they have been to our offices, they have put in numbers. If the numbers are suspect, and they are alleged that they are, then I think that's the time that we direct our license people to see what they are. And then if they're not, then we so order them to halt that. Simultaneously we need to deal with zoning. Just as we went through the Tobacco Road area on both sides to take Page 20 care of the fear of mobile homes and to protect the people in the subdivisions, we need to go in and do the same protection on this side of Tobacco Road. Because obviously it's not the somebody coming up on the back of a truck pulling in a mobile home that these folk have got to do, it's the so-called reputable folk that they've bought and made lifetime investments on that are now coming back to haunt them in the same way. And I'm going to so move--or I'm going to yield to Mr. Colclough in terms of putting that motion in the way that may do. It may sink or swim, but I'm going to vote for it because I think it does need to be dealt with. If we go down blocking folk from moving from one corner with a liquor license to another one whenever we so desire, then I think we darn sure can make sure that if people don't give us the proper information when they buy permits, that it will teach everybody that if you're going to build a chicken coop at two feet, then it's not going to be two feet/five inches or one foot/seven inches, it's going to be two feet. And that's the way you protect the integrity of that process. I do think you have a legal way that you can deal with it if we've got the will to vote on it and to do it. And I think that's your only way to do it, and I think you can. Andrew, I'm asking these questions for MR. KUHLKE: information, but I'd like to ask Mr. Patty--is he around? Was the subdivision plan in question approved by the Commission? I frankly wasn't prepared for this line of MR. PATTY: questioning today. I don't have it with me, but I would assume that it was. If he's out there building houses, it would have had to been. It was approved. MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Rob, when somebody takes out a MR. KUHLKE: building permit--and what Mr. Mays is talking about, I think, is whether somebody is trying to fool somebody. But your requirements on the approved plat for a building permit, basically the setback requirements have got to be met. There's no requirement on square footage; am I correct on that? That's correct. MR. SHERMAN: The only thing is the setback? MR. KUHLKE: That's correct. MR. SHERMAN: And the developer has met those require- MR. KUHLKE: ments, the setback requirements? Page 21 Yes, sir. MR. SHERMAN: So is there anything in this that would MR. KUHLKE: make me support or even consider not letting him go ahead? I mean, is there anything illegal or wrong or whatever it may be other than it's not the same square footage as the houses that are already out there? I don't see the necessity to stop him MR. SHERMAN: myself. Mr. Jefferson was just commenting that the square footage at the Tax Assessor's Office, it could have an impact on that. In this case it's more. The Assessor's Office will adjust the value once the house sells. That record will go on file and be based on the sale. As far as the codes that we enforce, the building codes, the houses are meeting those codes. The size of the house that's required by the covenants is the only thing in question. We just don't enforce that. We haven't seen the covenants. Now, I MR. COLCLOUGH: went through the same--just to give you a little information, I went through the same identical process with the same builder that they are going through only two years ago out in the neighborhood I live at. The same identical process, coming in and building smaller homes in a neighborhood with larger homes. But the problem was they did not change the covenants, they added to our covenants. But we managed to stop those smaller homes going in there. Now, Mr. Jefferson is absolutely right, if we're going to allow the smaller homes to be built in South Richmond County and the larger homes in West Augusta and Columbia County, then we are going to negate what kind of people move over here. Now, I'm going to make a motion before anybody else says anything that we put a moratorium on this building process until we can find out really what's going on. I'll gladly second it. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I am personally tired of MR. J. BRIGHAM: hearing about West Augusta getting the bigger houses. If you'll check the building permits, I believe you'll find the number of square footage in most residential that is being developed in West Augusta now are smaller than the square footage in South Richmond County, so let's don't use that argument against the have's and have-not's. That gets old. And we don't have any control over Columbia County. Mr. Brigham, I apologize to you, but the MR. COLCLOUGH: fact is that they are building--the same builders are building larger homes in Columbia County. Page 22 Mr. Mayor, I want to address a question to MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Wall and perhaps to Mr. Patty. Couldn't our codes and our requirements here be enforced by an injunction suit down in Superior Court if they were being violated? And wouldn't that be a private right of action, that they wouldn't need to come before this body in order to take action to get a temporary restraining order or a permanent injunction if our rules and regulations were being violated? That's exactly right. We are not a party to MR. WALL: those covenants, and this is-- Okay. And what I haven't heard is I have MR. SHEPARD: not heard that any legal counsel has been sought on behalf of the neighborhood, and it seems to me that the advice you need to seek, Mr. Jefferson, is the advice of an attorney at law who practices in the area of zoning. And this is a matter of what we would call a private right of action that you could enforce by going five floors below here and seek an injunction if you have grounds for it, and you're not going to get that with this body. I understand that, sir. MR. JEFFERSON: That's debatable. We haven't voted yet, Mr. MR. MAYS: Shepard, not meaning to interrupt you. Well, I don't think that your motion calls MR. SHEPARD: for an injunction, Mr. Mays. Not as far as an injunction, but it's just MR. MAYS: calling for some help from a simple moratorium to look at it. Maybe what we ought to do is just vote to exclude the paragraph about size, and what we do is just let somebody say it's going to be a big one or a little one and put that down there, then it would be more truthful in the process. But if you're going to include numbers, numbers ought to mean something, and it ought not be on the application to put in. You know, I've always told you to fill in the blanks on applications, the lines mean something. If they don't mean anything, you put not applicable down there and you skip over them. So if you don't ask for size, then don't ask for size. And I think the bottom line in it, you know, we've gone through America about who's telling the truth. There's a reason, I would think, that you ask for that size. If you've not spoken the truth on an application, it should be deter- mined whether it's an accident or whether it's on purpose, and I think that's all the motion asks to do is that it be investigated in terms of what is done. It may be that it's a technical error to deal with it, and I think that's all that that motion gets us into a point of doing. Page 23 But, now, if we want to take the coward's way out of it, then let everybody sue. But I think we need to start picking and choosing what areas we're going to help sometimes from a Commission, and then other folk we tell go get you a lawyer and then you sue. Now, Mr. Brigham is tired of that reference, I'm tired of the reference of where we send folk in some areas, but yet we take all the responsibility through our own legal auspices from the Commission and act as judge and jury and go in and do it, but then we tell other folk you need a lawyer and go sue. Now, everybody ought to be fed out of the same trough. Mr. Shepard, were you through? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I see nothing wrong with the MR. BEARD: request that my colleague down there from District Four has made. I think we've done this on many occasions in assisting people. I think we are supposed to be a friendly Commission here. And if I understood, his motion was just to have an investigation of this to determine where this should go or what have you, and I see nothing wrong with holding up this until that particular time. Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough, the MR. WALL: problem I have with the motion is not that it's just to investigate, but it's to impose a moratorium. That means that we are stopping a builder from building out there when, in my opinion, we do not have a legal basis at this point to inject ourselves into that matter and to stop the construction. And potentially you are subjecting the county to liability for going in there and stopping work and stopping construction when we do not have the authority, in my opinion, to stop that. Now, as far as the information that is required in the permit, the code requires a general description of the proposed work and it's location. There's nothing in this code that says that you've got to have the exact square footage of the permit that is being sought. Now, you buy a building permit based upon a per-square-foot price under the roof and-- plus some other things. But I urge the Commission not to get in the business of enforcing private covenants because, I mean, there are potential-- We are not enforcing private covenants. I MR. BEARD: don't think we've gotten to that point yet. All I'm saying, Jim, is that--I don't think Mr. Colclough meant two or three months of this. I think he would want an immediate investi- gation of this, and I think any developer who is working in this city of Augusta wouldn't mind sitting down to the table and getting something straightened out. And it shouldn't take Page 24 two years and it shouldn't take a year, but it should take a reasonable amount of time to do that, and I don't think a developer would be against that. If I could urge the maker of the motion to MR. WALL: say investigate and to meet with the appropriate--Planning and Zoning, License and Inspection, Administrator, or whomever, to be sure that all the ordinances are being complied with, without the moratorium. The moratorium is what causes me concern from a legal standpoint as far as imposing liability on the county. Okay, we'll take out the moratorium and MR. COLCLOUGH: make the motion that they meet with the proper authorities. And that also means Nordahl would meet with them and sit down with them and talk about the problem, and that should be done within the next week. Mr. Mayor, before I vote a second that gives MR. MAYS: consent to take it out--and I'm not going to argue with my colleague, and I told you in the beginning I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited. But, Jim, you just sit up here and neutered or spayed that whole motion. Well-- MR. WALL: Yes, you have. What you're doing without a MR. MAYS: moratorium--we've declared moratoriums on mobile homes, we've declared moratoriums on a whole bunch of things. It may bother you in that manner, but what if they fast-track the building of those darn homes. It only strengthens the position for us to turn around and take a yellow streak out of it when they are up and running to do that, and I resent turning that way in order to do that. Mr. Mays, in the past every time moratorium MR. WALL: has been mentioned I have urged y'all not to impose a moratorium. Because when you impose a moratorium, effectively you're stopping what's being done without any notice to the other side. And on signs, other things that have come in before you, I have consistently said imposing a moratorium subjects this county to liability. Jim, we've also been subject to quick MR. MAYS: covenants that nobody has seen, on the other side of the fence, even though that may be private in terms of doing it. But if we're saying that they have one that's totally different, then we're still being receptive in that idea to something private that's in there. What I'm saying is how then do you investigate a process that you don't stop? I mean, that's just like you saying you're going to investigate Page 25 somebody beating the dickens out of somebody, but you don't stop them from hitting them. You check to see whether or not it's legal for them to do that, but the process of whipping their butt goes on. That, in essence, is what you set down your ruling on. And I think in order to take that out, you take any guts out of it whatsoever to do anything. Well, Mr. Mays, it's like you don't go arrest MR. WALL: somebody and then investigate whether or not they committed a crime. You investigate to see whether they committed a crime, and at that point, if they have, then you arrest them and you stop them. And all I'm saying is you investigate this, if they're violating our ordinances, if we've got a legal right to stop them, we stop them. But let's don't stop them and then go about looking around to see if we can find a reason to stop them. Well, I guess I'll just ask all my Ken Starr MR. MAYS: friends, is lying an excuse to stop? If you lie on an application, doesn't that give a government a right to ask somebody to stop? If not, then take it off the application. What we ought to do--I said before, take it off. Just take it off. Mr. Wall, I understand what you're saying MR. POWELL: about we don't have a legal stance, but we have a moral stance to protect these citizens' property values. And I don't know how you need to word it or how you need to fix it, but this problem keeps coming back and biting us in the tail neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood, and we need to come up with something to correct this problem so that these developers that go into these existing neighborhoods meet the covenants of the neighborhood, and that's the bottom line. I don't know where you phase it into the process, but it needs to be done because this is a reoccurring problem. And, Mr. Powell, I'm not sure where you phase MR. WALL: it into the process either. I mean, I don't think that we want to get the government involved in reviewing the covenants and forcing architectural drawings, architectural requirements and things like that that are included, and, you know, what you can and can't have within certain lots, and so I don't know what the answer to it is. I mean, I hear you, and I will get with George Patty and Planning and Zoning to see if we can come up with a method, but I don't know what the answer to it is right now. Well, I can tell you what I feel like needs MR. POWELL: to be done. When you sell these building permits, okay, you need to program it into that process right there. I don't care if you have to wait five minutes over there for them to Page 26 look in a book and they check your square footage according to the covenants of that neighborhood. And that may be the point to do it, in my opinion, is right there. If you don't have-- and you're going to have to come up with an ordinance to put in place for this county to do that. But I'm telling you it's a reoccurring problem. I see neighborhood after neighborhood down here, and it's time that we straighten it out. Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Powell is correct. MR. BRIDGES: I'm glad to hear Jim say he's going to get with George Patty and see what kind of ordinance we could come up with to protect this. This has been a reoccurring problem where builders will develop a phase and the phase right next door to it will be not up to the standards or the quality of the first one. And they'll always build the first one better than they do the second one, it seems. So I think it's good that--you know, I would encourage you and George to get together and see what kind of ordinance you can come up with to protect the integrity of these neighborhoods. And like Mr. Mays said, we did it with--as a result of the master plan with agricultural zoning, and maybe there's something you can look at and we can do in this regard as well, but I would encourage you to do that. Ms. Bonner, read the motion, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays, did you accept the change in the CLERK: motion--or Mr. Colclough? Reluctantly, and only because I know where MR. MAYS: his heart is in it. That's probably going to be the best we're going to deal with it on. But I would encourage him in that motion, and I will not withdraw my second, but if we can incorporate in that motion, since Mr. Wall--and I still say you spayed the motion, Jim. But would you give Mr. Wall something to do, Mr. Colclough, in your motion, with an amendment, would you accept Mr. Powell's positioning in there that we not leave today without placing that order on Mr. Wall's desk to draw up the ordinance that will do what is so stated and put that as a part of the building permitting process? So be it. I accept that. MR. COLCLOUGH: And I will leave my second in place. MR. MAYS: Ms. Bonner, did you catch all that? MAYOR SCONYERS: CLERK:Yes, sir, I'm getting there. I'm going to give you the essence of the motion. The motion from Mr. Colclough, seconded by Mr. Mays, was to investigate this building process Page 27 and meet with the appropriate agencies within the next week to modify that to check the square footage at the time of the purchase of the building--for Mr. Wall to draw up an ordinance changing the code to check the square footage at the time of the purchase of the building permit. I've got a question. That last part--I MR. KUHLKE: thought that the ordinance was going to be to protect the neighborhoods in being consistent with what-- Is already in that neighborhood. MR. COLCLOUGH: Yeah. Lena, you mentioned something about MR. KUHLKE: the square footage, but it's really being consistent with the existing neighborhood. Is that right, Mr. Powell? Yes, sir, that was my--that's correct. MR. POWELL: CLERK:Consistent with the existing neighborhood. Okay. Now, with all the changes, we're ready MAYOR SCONYERS: to vote. All in favor of Mr. Colclough's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. . [MR. HANDY OUT] MOTION CARRIES 9-0 CLERK:Item 31: Motion to approve a transfer applica- tion request by Myong Tul Chu for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Pine Hill Food Store located at 1680 Brown Road. No recommendation from the Public Services Committee on October 26th. This application meets all the MR. STEWART: requirements of the License and Inspection Department and has been approved by the Sheriff's Department, and we recommend approval for a transfer to 1680 Brown Road for the Pine Hill Food Store. Are there any objectors? CLERK: [APPROXIMATELY 20 OBJECTORS PRESENT.] Mr. Mayor, could we hear from a spokesman MR. BRIDGES: from the objectors as well as anybody that might be supportive of that? We have aerial maps from our GIS system MR. OLIVER: that we're prepared to show off if you would so choose. Page 28 Do y'all have a spokesman? MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm Jimmy Smith, a resident of Brown Road. MR. SMITH: The last time we were here we had a petition of 587 names, which we could have got again and filled this place up, but we figured just taking one section of it might be adequate. It was said that Mr. Chu's new store at the corner of Brown Road and Old Waynesboro Road could not--they could not make it without the sale of beer and wine. Well, they don't have that privilege right now, and I went by and took some photographs a couple of days ago of the corridor around there and I'd like to pass it around and let you see the cars that are there. I also believe that this will be detrimental to our community. The store in question is at the intersection of Brown Road and Old Waynesboro Road, one of the fastest growing neighborhoods in Richmond County. I was up in a plane on Friday and flew over the area, and it's new residential all over the place out there. Old Waynesboro Road runs parallel to State Highway 25 and Highway 56, who is just really lined with places to buy beer and wine. The new Food Lion store which was mentioned at your committee meeting the other day, which is at Highway 56 and Old Waynesboro Road, is the place for this kind of thing. This is not a residential, this is a commercial establishment, and that's where these licenses need to be. As you know, the zoning of this was denied by the Zoning Commission. It was denied by this body two different times. It went to the Superior Court of Richmond County and was denied December the 17th of '97. It went to the Supreme Court of Georgia and was denied just a little over a month ago, September the 21st, '98. To us, this community is home. It's family, it's children, it's grandchildren, it's schools: Goshen Elementary, the new Goshen High School. There's three churches in the area. And this is where we live and this is where we're going to be, and to Mr. Chu, plain and simple, it's dollars. That's all, just dollars. And we respectfully ask that you deny this request. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. MR. CHUNG: My name is Daniel Chung, I am here with Mr. and Mrs. Chu because they have a language problem. [inaudible] I have a long way to go yet, but I can [inaudible]. Do y'all currently have--I'm a little MAYOR SCONYERS: confused. The last time didn't they apply for a new license? That's correct. MR. WALL: And this is a--they're applying for a MR. OLIVER: transfer. Do y'all already have a beer license? MAYOR SCONYERS: Page 29 Yes, sir, they have a beer license across MR. STEWART: the street, beer and wine, at the old store where they were located. They're asking to transfer that from that location across the street at the corner of Brown Road and Old Waynesboro. Which corner is it on? This one? MR. OLIVER: That's where it is now. MR. STEWART: It's on this particular parcel right now. MR. OLIVER: They want to transfer that license from this parcel to this parcel. So he's selling beer across the street MAYOR SCONYERS: right now? Yes, sir. MR. STEWART: Last year Mr. and Mrs. Chu applied for, but MR. CHUNG: that was in addition to which they had at that time because he is building a new convenience store across the street. At that time there was objection from community members, church group, special interest group, and they have all the right to do so. But this time we are not asking one additional license permission, we are transferring. That particular area, Mr. Chu and Mrs. Chu operate past nine years, and before that the previous owner operate five years. Maybe before there some more years. We have no problems, we're happy with what we're doing, and [inaudible]. Now, this time it is different from the things that happened last year, which Mr. Smith just explained about the Superior Court denial, and that was something different from this time. All I pray and ask you, this Commission, please don't allow to make any precedent on this matter because Mr. Smith already explained that there is a [inaudible] and that there will be another store. Maybe Smile come in, maybe Exxon gas station come in, maybe another gas station come in, another community store, another grocery, Food Lion or Kroger. I do not know what they have in their mind. They talk about the schools, they talk about their children, they talk about their grandchildren. Yes, I have grandchildren, I have three lovely girls and they're all grown up. Now, I understand the Food Lion is about a mile from the school, and they mention the property here is about two miles from the school. Now, I'm not arguing what kind of measurement they're going to stand here, but please don't allow making any precedent because something happened, and this Commission has all the right to make a decision at the time [inaudible] because we were denied and they got the license because we have some racial differences or different Page 30 ethnic background. I'm worried about it. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Stewart a MR. BEARD: question. Across the street over there on the northeast corner there, the old building, a license is in existence there and it's almost time now for it to be renewed? Yes, sir, it is. MR. STEWART: Will that license be renewed over there on MR. BEARD: that corner? If he doesn't transfer it, he can renew MR. STEWART: that license at that location. So if it's not transferred, there will be a MR. BEARD: license there anyway on the corner? Yes, sir. MR. STEWART: We are concerned about the gathering of MR. SMITH: youth on that corner, and there's a large group that's already gathering there where beer and wine is being purchased by older young men and bringing it out to the younger ones. Now, this is a fact. And when the school opens, we all know it's 900 to 1,000 young people will be added to that area and it's going to be worse. He mentioned the Food Lion store. That's what I mentioned. It's across the way, it's a commercial establishment, that's where it ought to be. If you're going to have a beer and wine license, that's where it ought to be. It don't need to be in a residential area that's continually growing. Talking about changing things that--you know, come in and changing. Well, I know something about change. My business on Gordon Highway since way back in the early '60s, the State Department comes along and put a--got right there in the middle and cut my business in half overnight. Well, that's my problem. And, to me, a residence of young people who's growing up--and we've showed you the pictures of the people. He's doing business now, tremendous business. You can go by there at times and there's 15/20 cars out there. So don't say that you can't do business without a beer and wine license, you can. You are. You have been. I'd like to address my question, Mr. MR. SHEPARD: Mayor, to Mr. Wall. I think this is the location that went to the Supreme Court, and I noticed in the opinion that the court noted that it was a new license denial, not a transfer. And I wondered what your opinion is, Mr. Wall, as to whether a transfer denial could be defended on the basis we've had here or whether the Supreme Court is sending us a signal that that Page 31 result might be well different if we voted against the transfer. Well, in my opinion, the--I mean, first of MR. WALL: all, and Mr. Smith and I talked about this, the questions that were asked in the trial court by the judge concerning the fact that the location and the fact that there was an existing establishment there, as well as the fact that at that time we were talking about adding a second license to that intersection, and we had both of those grounds that we were urging. And then in the Supreme Court, likewise similar questions were asked of us about was this a new license. And I think that we are stretching the Supreme Court decision and stretching our ordinance to try to encompass a situation where admittedly they could continue to operate at the one corner, but we're talking about moving it across the street. Yes, I think that they probably were sending us a signal, and we're down to the one category that if you deny the license, deny the transfer, it would be based upon the location. But it would be hard to say that location on one side of the street is improper where we're allowing them to have a license on the other side of the street, and I think we get ourselves into trouble trying to make that argument. Well, Mr. Wall, if we disapprove the MR. SHEPARD: transfer today, don't they continue in operation right across the street and it comes up on the renewal calendar, as Mr. Beard questioned just a few minutes ago? They would certainly have that option--have MR. WALL: that right. And the renewal calendar could be dealt MR. SHEPARD: with--exceptions could be made to the renewal calendar, I take it--I mean the renewal ordinance, rather, not calendar. And the ordinance--and the discretionary MR. WALL: criteria applies to a renewal just as it does, but that part of the ordinance has not been challenged yet. Mr. Wall, I'm in need of a little legal MR. POWELL: advice here on this. We have a county beer license; right? Yes, sir. MR. WALL: There's also a state license requirement. MR. POWELL: Now, have you looked at a copy of the state license? Have you ever looked at a copy of it? No, sir, I can't say-- MR. WALL: Page 32 Is it not stamped on those state licenses MR. POWELL: "not transferrable"? Well, it's not transferrable among MR. WALL: individuals and it's not transferrable as to location without Commission approval, and the stat looks to the county to regulate that. That's what I was thinking. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, is George Patty in the room? MR. BRIDGES: I'd like for him to speak to the master plan in regards to intersections at two-lane roads. Is he already gone? He's gone. SPEAKER: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I've discussed this with MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Patty before at different locations that we have in these developing areas. What our master plan calls for is that in areas such as this that were not previously grandfathered in-- and I recognize that this was grandfathered in as commercial, but I think it's interesting that the master plan calls for these two-lane intersections to be no commercial development at those intersections, and the reason is because of conges- tion and traffic and those things associated with that. Like I say, I recognize these are commercial developments and they got their permit previous to that; however, because the master plan is something that is to control development and aid in development of our county, future areas, two-lane intersections, Planning and Zoning will recommend to us that we do not commercialize those areas, and I think that's helpful in regards to congestion, traffic, accidents, congregation, whatnot. And as I say, I recognize this one was previous to that, but what we could be doing here--and the previous discussion on the integrity of the neighborhoods in regards to the zoning, this is very similar. This area has grown and developed -- [END OF TAPE 1] -- they've issued the reasons why they object to the alcohol transfer. I think they're legitimate. I don't think anything has changed here from the arguments that we made in regards to the new license. As far as the ability of those that wish to purchase alcohol in that neighborhood, there are stores that are within close proximity that they can purchase that from: Johnson's Corner, or as one of the previous speakers mentioned, there's going to be a Food Lion there, which I'm sure will get a license. And we're talking about areas that can handle the traffic, talking about an intersection with four arteries of four-lane roads. If you count the turning lanes, you're talking about six and seven lanes at those intersections. So in that regard, we're not--if you compare this inter- Page 33 section here at Brown Road with Tobacco and 56 you're not comparing apples and oranges, you're talking about arteries that are able to handle it in other areas. So I think the concerns of congestion, the concerns of integrity of the neighborhood, and the previous concerns that some of these residents had in regard to the new license still apply here, and I would make a motion that we deny the transfer. I second the motion. MR. POWELL: For your information, the land use maps on MR. OLIVER: the wall, the blue is residential, the gold/yellow is commercial. Can I ask the gentleman a question? MAYOR SCONYERS: And maybe this might help a little bit. Do you intend to maintain the other store and keep it open, too, so you can continue to sell beer over there? Well, at this time it's up in the air MR. CHUNG: because we're all seeking for this Commission's decision. And since Chu both at the old property, and he's talking of expansion of another type of business over there, but that's down the road because right now the thing is what this Commission make a decision. Mr. Mayor, may I respond to Mr. Smith's-- Well, answer my question for me first. MAYOR SCONYERS: My question is are you going to maintain that other business just so you can keep the beer and wine license if they deny the transfer? Yes. If the denial come from this MR. CHUNG: Commission, they have no choice. So there's still going to be a beer and MAYOR SCONYERS: wine license on the opposite corner? Yes, sir. MR. CHUNG: Mr. Mayor, this particular issue, when it MR. KUHLKE: came up the first time for a new license, I voted against it. When the new application for the transfer came up I began to look at this. And I realize that my position as a Commissioner is to try to do the best job I can to protect the people in the area that I represent and so forth, and I'm trying to do that. But on the other hand, being in business for a long time in this area myself, the thing I despise more than anything I know is the intrusion of government on private business. These people have applied for a transfer of a license that they already have. They're selling beer on the Page 34 corner. As long as we approve the renewal of that license, they can sell beer. They want to transfer this to their new store. I think that this body would do a disservice to these people to disallow the transfer of the license to a new establishment so that they can do something else with the property across the street. That doesn't preclude us from turning down an application for a new license on another corner. But I really wrestled with this thing because I know with all of the people over here, and Mr. Smith and I are good friends, that the motion I'm going to make is contrary to what my colleague, Mr. Bridges, has made. But I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve the transfer of this license to the new location. I second it. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, could I say one other thing? Mr. MR. SMITH: Chu's lease, I understand, is out at the end of this month. Is that true or false, at the little store? It's already expired. MR. CHUNG: The lease is expired. Well, how are you MR. SMITH: going to stay there then if the lease is expired? We have purchased that building. That's why MR. CHUNG: we don't need to renew our lease. You have purchased the place? MR. SMITH: Yes. That's why we didn't need-- MR. CHUNG: The current real estate records do not show a MR. WALL: transfer. It still shows it in Mr. Song's name as of the current records now. I don't know whether there's a contract or whether the deed has been recorded or what, but currently the title is still in Mr. Song's name. Mr. Mayor, while ago you had people MR. J. BRIGHAM: that opposed this license stand. Can we have the people that are in favor of this license stand? Can I say something? Mr. Smith has had MS. CHRISTIAN: three turns, I think it's about time I had one. Ma'am, if I could see who is in favor MR. J. BRIGHAM: of transferring this license, if they'll stand up. I would be curious as to [inaudible]. As far as I'm concerned, you can say something. It's up to the Mayor. [APPROXIMATELY EIGHT PEOPLE STAND.] Page 35 Absolutely. Go ahead, ma'am. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. According to my husband, I MS. CHRISTIAN: don't need amplification, but I'll use it anyway. While we're talking about neighborhoods and commercial, I imagine those people who have got those nice homes up there close to the new high school would love to know that they're only in a commercial district, that they're not residential. Also, I mentioned the Food Lion last week when I spoke to the other group. There's not only the Food Lion, there are Johnson's Corner, two more filling stations selling beer, a liquor store, and I forgot to mention the Smile station. So there will be six places at that intersection. We're only talking about one at this one. As far as the young people congregating and beer being bought for them by older people, the high school is much closer to those six places than it is to Mr. Chu, so why can't the older people go in Food Lion and buy it for them? You're not going to stop that, not if that's what they want to do. I go to Mr. Chu's store almost every day, sometimes quite late at night because I have to get my lottery tickets. I haven't seen any congregation there. There may be. I don't stay up there 24 hours a day, so I don't know. I also want to know how if you want this to be strictly residential and taking care of the grandchildren and having recreation, I'm sure that the people that live in Goshen would love to know what we think of them. Some of our nicest, most expensive homes are in Goshen Plantation. They've got tennis courts, they've got a golf course, and they've got a store right in the middle that sells beer. I don't see the difference, I really don't. And as far as their 500 signa- tures, I don't doubt that they got them. I don't know if anybody checked to see if they're really living that close in the area, but I wasn't ever asked to sign one. And I didn't get out and knock on doors and ask people to sign one to let Mr. Chu have a transfer for the simple reason it looks to me like it's the difference between right and wrong. The man hasn't done anything. There have been no complaints, no trouble, and he's been there nine years. And Mr. Song was there longer than five because I've been out there almost twenty and Mr. Song was there when I moved there. So it still looks to me like the fair thing to do. And I still say it's not a matter of how far you've got to go to purchase your alcohol, because I don't drink beer, as I told you last week, and I'm sure nobody cares whether I do or don't, but that is not the point. There probably are 500 people who live in the area that do like to go there. And, yes, the pictures that they showed--do you know why they got so many cars there? Because they've got the cheapest gas in town. That's the reason. Page 36 Can we have your name and address for the CLERK: record, please? Sure. My name is Elizabeth Christian, MS. CHRISTIAN: 4337 Fair Bluff Road in Hephzibah. Mr. Mayor, we've probably had a little bit MR. MAYS: more discussion probably because of the--two things, probably because of the court case as well as what might be the future of a particular establishment or business. And I've been [inaudible] from the other super district, you know, so one I've wrestled with it, and I voted in favor of us doing the turning down on the new license. We had some very serious, I think at that time, and legitimate concerns. I made a statement in our committee meeting, and we purposely--the committee members knew that this was going to be one that everybody needed to make up their mind on, have a part of it, and pretty much send it to--not to shirk our responsibility, but to send it really to give everybody that opportunity to do it. I made the statement at that time, and I guess it's one of those things where we may not have the full authority to make folks do anything, but, you know, I kind of wondered if there was not some middle ground to deal with some co- existence in this area inasmuch as folk are going to own one building or two, still have a license, and to deal with it. And I hypothetically put forth a situation I guess in the same manner which concerned Bill, and we talked about it from the standpoint that if the alcohol is going to be sold out of the old building, if you make an arbitrary neighbor as opposed to one that people can mutually co-exist, then do you really solve what you're trying to get done in terms of the level of control and the spread of licenses that you would have. I think it's been spoken for on the new license and how it was dealt with in terms of the court case, but I had hoped that maybe there would be some dialogue to a point that what would be done in a friendly nature of what would happen with, you know, the property where the old store is located and of working this thing out of dealing with the new one. Now, we can vote to deny the transfer, and I think that would please a lot of people. But on the side of a person exercising their rights and having a legitimate means of staying in business and of doing it, do we solve anything, Jimmy, in this manner by leaving a situation where you've got two stores on that corner as opposed to one. If it's arbitrary and you put a family member over there, basically when somebody comes up and says "Do you have beer?" and you send them across the street to buy the beer. Because if they have purchased it, they're going to own this building and they're going to be there. And if they choose to fight in such a way which is arbitrary, and probably by the first law Page 37 of nature where self-preservation kicks in and you do defend yourself, have we really solved what we're trying to get to by denying the transfer and you still got alcohol sales going on the other corner? That's what I'm trying to get worked out there, that if you--of a level of control if you've got it in one place, even though you're not doing it on the other side, that if it's a sweat-out type of thing of getting them to not have it at all. I personally don't think you're going to accomplish that through denying a transfer. And if we deny the transfer, I don't think that this Commission, and I may be wrong, can preempt--I think we're getting on some very serious grounds. And so that Jim won't think I'm going to beat on him all day, I'm going to agree with him, that I think we're moving on some very dangerous territory if we're thinking about the prospects of doing a denial on a renewal on the existing one. Even though it's a privileged license, if there is no case history or record of violation, if our Inspections folk say that everything is up to par, if the Sheriff's Department has no reason in terms of coming in and doing a denial, then we're getting on some serious basis that could deal with us in some damages of going out here doing a popular thing if--and I'm only bringing it up because I see that coming. We're asking about the other building, and we might as well go on and get all the discussion about the other building out. This was why I kind of wanted and hoped that there might be some dialogue between y'all and them in reference to what would be on the future of that corner. Because, yeah, we can do it, and you'll clap, you'll leave here happy. But by the same token, I know if I was in business and I'm out there and I'm selling beer and I can economically stay on both corners, if you denied me that access to be able to do it, rather than moving into the other one, I'm going to sell off that other one. I'm going to find somebody that's out of work, that doesn't have a criminal record, that can go over there and ring a cash register, check ID's, still sell beer. So, I mean, we need to get to a reasonable point, I think, of where we can legitimately help the neighborhood put that to rest, but at the same time not border on rights infringement of where this is going to lead us to an area in December that I don't think you're going to be happy with that decision. Because I'm not fixing to cross that line to get into a denial and a taking of a license where really there's no sufficient grounds to do it, and I think that that's what you're looking for, then y'all need to work something out mutually where there can be a co-existence between now and the time you renew that one the first of the year. That's just my personal feeling. Mr. Mays, I talked to Mr. Song's son-in-law, MR. SMITH: and he told me that him and his wife, who is Mr. Song's Page 38 daughter, were coming in after this man's lease was up and renovate the place and open it up; that they had problems with Mr. Chu and they, at the time, had no intentions of selling it to him. Now, he says he's bought it. He may have, I don't know. I asked Mr. Wall to check and see. There's no legal document that says he's bought it, but he may have. He may have a contract in his pocket, I just don't know. But I wanted you to know what he had told me. I appreciate that. MR. MAYS: Mr. Smith has secondary information. I know MR. CHUNG: Mr. Song very well, about for 10/11 years. He was talking to me he's not going to sell. That was a long time. Mr. Chu and Mr. Song have a contract [inaudible]. Mr. Chu has that contract in his car outside this building. So it is done deal, and probably at proper time we're going to register in the courthouse. Mr. Mayor, I'm just wondering if there is any MR. MAYS: response to them meeting on that ground in terms of dealing with that, because obviously we're going to see this again in December. I know we don't go to this extent of dealing with where a license goes in terms of the future, but based on the fact of hoping--and, again, I guess it gets like the applica- tion process with the permit. If we believe the gentleman that such a contract so exists or if that's fixing to happen, I think the first motion to stop the transfer is an honest motion that's aimed at limiting that saturation of licenses into a neighborhood. But if we're going to be still there dealing with two commercial buildings, do we really, gentlemen, need to take a final action to do that today from the standpoint that we may need to see what's going to--I mean, if we really intend for--we can make a popular motion and we can get it over with, but if there is going to be, I'm begging you to consider it, a building on that other corner that for all intents and purposes is going to be owned by either the spokesperson or the person that's in there now, then I think you've got a problem that you're not going to be able to solve by this Commission unless you're planning on dealing with getting us sued in the city and us sued individually, too. And I say that not as no crack, but that's a matter of fact. We basically don't--we're getting almost on a point of where you're challenging income and dealing with the rights and restraints of that business, and I think that's very dangerous, as the gentleman from District Ten has stated. I would hope that probably you wouldn't take an action and allow these folk to meet. I think Jimmy and those have made excellent progress. I think all the intentions are good in terms of what they're doing. But I think if you move forward on that challenge, wipe it out, leave here satisfied with it, Page 39 instead of worrying about one place dealing with it, I think you'll have two commercial establishments, one that sells beer and wine, the other one that doesn't, and you've still got two businesses on the same corner, and I really think you ought to consider that. Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MR. SHEPARD: Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the MAYOR SCONYERS: substitute motion made by Mr. Kuhlke first, please? The substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by CLERK: Mr. Shepard, was to approve the application for the transfer to the new location. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, MAYOR SCONYERS: let it be known by the usual sign of voting, gentlemen. MESSRS. BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, COLCLOUGH & POWELL VOTE NO. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY OUT. . MOTION FAILS 3-4-1 Back to the original motion made by Mr. MAYOR SCONYERS: Bridges. Mr. Bridges, and seconded by Mr. Powell, was to CLERK: deny the application. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, MAYS & SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY OUT. . MOTION FAILS 4-4 Mr. Mayor, am I to understand that comes MR. BRIDGES: up at the next Commission meeting, the same item? Yes, sir. CLERK: So it'll come back on the 17th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mayor, I guess it would be out of order MR. MAYS: to make a motion, but can we suggest, rather than having a repeat of probably no action, as we do in zoning matters and in other situations where a community is at stake and trying to deter-mine a future, of asking those two sides to really seriously meet about what would be the future and existence of two commercial buildings that are on that corner, and the people living there are concerned about that ownership obviously have made an investment of property rights, and suggest that they meet? Because to come back again and hear Page 40 us deal with four-four, it's not going to solve anybody's problem to get anything done. The people who have to work to some type of conclusion, I think, are the people that are involved, those that are there that have a protest and legitimate concern as well as people there who have made that investment, and I think somewhere we need to suggest that. A motion is not in order and would probably be ruled out on it, but I think somebody needs to sit down and work something out because this is going to be going around a long time, and December will be here and then we're going to have to make a serious decision as to whether we continue a license that's in effect. And if we don't have some grounds to deal with it, what's going to happen is you're going to have one that's going to be renewed probably by automatic renewal unless they meet on some ground. Mr. Smith, would you entertain the idea MAYOR SCONYERS: of meeting with the gentleman and see if y'all can come to some kind of agreement? Mr. Mayor, I certainly don't mind meeting, MR. SMITH: but I don't know how we can come to any common ground because we don't want it, he wants it, and I don't know how you can settle over something like that. I just don't know. I'll be glad to talk with him. The main thing is the truth of the matter is the store across the street, that's what they told us, but I think that that's the big thing. Mr. Mayor? Melvin Lowery, Pastor of the MR. LOWERY: Belle Terrace Presbyterian Church and President of the Neighborhood Improvement Project. If I may speak. What does this concern, sir? MAYOR SCONYERS: Concerning what Mr. Mays has just MR. LOWERY: mentioned, that we might also include other communities in that as well, because it is going to come up again, and that we might be able to sit down at the table and see if we can work things out with other residents-- All right. Well, I don't think we can MAYOR SCONYERS: hear this this afternoon. We've already been through a major discussion. We'll do this at another time. Thank you very much. Ms. Bonner, go back to the consent agenda, please. Yes, sir. Under the consent agenda, Items 1 CLERK: through 26. FINANCE: 1. Motion to deny the abatement of interest on Account Page 41 No. #2035653 for 1997 for Charles J. Scavullo, Sr. 2. Motion to refund 1997 taxes in the amount of $29.64 to Howard's Upholstery Shop for overpayment of taxes on Account No. #221961. 3. Motion to credit 1997 taxes in the amount of $13,808.90 to ARC/Augusta LLC for overpayment of taxes on Map 133, Parcel 22. 4. Motion to accept bid made on the Lucie Street surplus property. 5. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the amount of $80.59 to Rae's Coastal Cafe, Inc. for overpayment of taxes on Account No. 2027438. 6. Motion to waive 1998 and future ad valorem taxes on Map 30-0, Parcel 78, owned by the Southeastern Firefighters' Burn Foundation, 501C(3) non-profit corporation. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 7. Motion to approve 1999 Employee Holiday Schedule. 8. Motion to approve resolution authorizing the submission of the 1999 Consolidated Action Plan for receipt of 1999 CDBG, ESG, and HOME funds. 9. Motion to approve 1999 Consolidated Action Plan which includes the 1999 Final Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), the Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG), and the HOME Program. 10. Motion to approve the Organization Chart for Main Street. 11. Motion to approve the Lease Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and the Augusta Housing Authority for property located at 3645 London Blvd. for the Weed and Seed Program subject to the approval of Administrator and Attorney. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 12. Motion to approve proposal with Brian G. Besson and Associates, P.C., to perform engineering site plan services for the new Solid Waste Offices and Scale System at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill at a cost of $4,900.00. 13. Motion to execute the Georgia Department of Transportation contract for acquisition of right-of-way and approve Capital Project Budget #57-8564-096, Wheeless Road Bridge Replacement at Rocky Creek, in the amount of $10,000 to be funded by the Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase III fund. 14. Motion to authorize execution of Change Order One in the amount of $146,892.50 with APAC-GA, Inc. for additional streets. 15. Motion to authorize execution of Change Order Number Two and Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Four for CPB#58-8015-097, Beam Pavement Maintenance Company, in the amount of $38,892 to be funded from the Project Contingency. PUBLIC SAFETY: Page 42 16. Motion to approve $127,680 to award RFP Item #98-178 to Xerox Connect, Inc. and $65,000 to purchase data collection software with user departments to be charged based on service rendered. PUBLIC SERVICES: 17. Motion to approve acquisition of property located at 620 and 624 Chafee Avenue from Nora Pascarella for the sum of $49,200. 18. Motion to approve bid award to Wall Asphalt Services in the amount of $32,930 to seal cracks in the runways at Daniel Field. 19. Motion to approve Work Authorization for Tasks IV and VI with Newton & Associates, Inc. (NAI) at a cost not to exceed $25,000 for services related to the financial feasibility of terminal area improvement at Bush Field Airport. 20. Motion to approve new ownership request by Hwa Yeong Lee for a retail package liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Kissingbower Road Package Shop located at 1773 Kissingbower Road. 21. Motion to approve new ownership request by William L. Mantlow for consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with Rack Boys Bar located at 2900 Deans Bridge Road. 22. Motion to approve new application request by Loyce S. Manuel for consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Ron's Tavern located at 548 Broad Street. 23. Motion to approve new ownership request by Kyong Ok Seo for a package beer and wine license to be used in connection with A.K. Convenience Store located at 2301 Lumpkin Road. 24. Motion to approve transfer application request by Rebecca L. King for consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with The Comedy House Theatre located at 2701 Washington Road. There will be Sunday Sales. 25. Motion to deny a request by Kum Yon Parker to add Sunday Sales to her current liquor, beer and wine license used in connection with Golden Gate Lounge located at 1924 Barton Chapel Road. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 26. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held October 20, 1998. Does anybody want any of these pulled? MAYOR SCONYERS: MR. KUHLKE:I move we approve. Page 43 Second. MR. SHEPARD: Ms. Bonner, the way I understand it, Item MR. BRIDGES: Number 25 is to deny Sunday sales and Item Number 24 is to approve? 25 is to deny the request to add Sunday Sales, CLERK: yes, sir, and 24 is to approve the transfer application, and it does include Sunday sales. Mr. Chairman, if you'll let the record MR. POWELL: reflect that I vote no on the two Sunday sales items. Ms. Bonner, would you show that since 25 MR. BRIDGES: is already to deny Sunday sales, would you let the record show that I vote no on Item Number 24 due to Sunday sales? Mr. Mayor, I want to reflect that I MR. J. BRIGHAM: vote no on Item Number 17. I also would like the record to show I MR. COLCLOUGH: vote no on Item Number 24. 24 then fails to pass, because I believe MR. OLIVER: that would make the vote five to three. Wouldn't it, Ms. Bonner, with Mr. Bridges, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Colclough voting no? But that would just be as to the Sunday MR. WALL: sales. Yes, just as to the--as to Item Number 24. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor, I would ask you and Mr. Wall, can MR. MAYS: Item 24 be taken on a vote at the end of this meeting, since we have Commissioners that are out of the room, on an item of reconsideration to be brought back up at the end of the agenda? Well, why don't we just postpone till MAYOR SCONYERS: the end of the meeting Item 24. I'll add that to the motion. MR. KUHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. MAYOR SCONYERS: MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO ON ITEM 17. ITEM 24 POSTPONED TO END OF MEETING. MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-1, ITEM 17. Page 44 MOTION CARRIES 8-0, ALL ITEMS, EXCEPT 17 & 24. Mr. Mays, are you prepared to do an appointment CLERK: to the Animal Control Board today? Hold it till the end. I've got to get a MR. MAYS: confirmation on something. Okay. And, Mr. Brigham, you want to delete? CLERK: If I don't have it ready on that, I may have MR. MAYS: to go to the next meeting with it. Okay. CLERK: No, I'm not. The person I had on there MR. H. BRIGHAM: passed a couple of months ago and that's why [inaudible], but she has not consented yet, so [inaudible]. CLERK:Okay. Item 27, the appointment of Ms. Barbara Jean Cooksey, Commissioner Richard Colclough offers this recommendation as an appointment to the Augusta-Richmond County Animal Control Board representing District Four. MR. SHEPARD:So move. Second. MR. KUHLKE: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. . [MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY OUT] MOTION CARRIES 8-0 CLERK:Item 28: Motion to approve Change Order No. Four and Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Five for CPB#51-8301-320, in the amount of $80,542.40 to be funded from the Project Contingency, for Mabus Construction Company regarding the revised proposal for construction water and sanitary sewer improvements in conjunction with the Jackson Road Widening Project. MR. SHEPARD:Move approval. Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns, and I MR. POWELL: leveled those concerns to Mr. Oliver concerning the change orders on these projects, and Mr. Oliver is working towards Page 45 bringing us a plan back to handle change orders in the committee. But I have a problem with change orders being done on projects prior to being discussed before the Commission. I think we're opening ourselves up for a problem by doing it. Mr. Powell, this didn't come before your MR. KUHLKE: committee? Yes, sir, it came before the committee, and MR. POWELL: at that time I asked Mr. Oliver to come up with a way to make sure that we get these change orders approved before we get them done unless it's an emergency basis. I do have some concerns with it, and I think that--I think it's a legitimate change order, I'm not saying that, but I do not like the procedure. And the second thing we discussed, and MR. OLIVER: we'll bring a procedure back in November for this, is that above a certain dollar threshold to go through a competitive process to make sure that the amount--and we're going to come up with guidelines in that vein. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in MAYOR SCONYERS: favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. Items 29 and 30. CLERK: [29. Motion to approve $50,877 to award contract to Unisys Corp. for replacement of obsolete HVAC equipment in Information Technology. 30. Motion to approve revised Information Technology GIS Map and Digital Release Policy establishing guidelines for the release of map and digital information to private agencies, city departments, and the public.] MR. SHEPARD:I make a motion to approve those, in the absence of the committee chairman. Second. MR. KUHLKE: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. . [MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY OUT] MOTION CARRIES 8-0 Page 46 CLERK:Item 32: Motion to approve renovations to ninth floor office space for Superior Court Judge's office in the amount of $8,820.00 from Capital Reserves. MR. KUHLKE:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, just curious as to why we MR. POWELL: were doing all these renovations to the building prior to our decision on our space study. Call Judge Fleming. MR. KUHLKE: Well, I really think that we need to MR. POWELL: consider the space study and what we're going to do before we start renovating this whole building. We may rebuild it from top to bottom, but I think that's our decision to make, not Judge Fleming's. I was just kidding you, J.B. I think the MR. KUHLKE: discussion on this, Mr. Wall, was that--who did we move? Judge Mulherin is going to the ninth floor. MR. OLIVER: Judge Mulherin will take senior status MR. WALL: effective January the 1st and Mr. Wheale will become Superior Court Judge, and there will be a swapping of offices among the judges. But the bottom line is we have one additional judge that we need to provide an office for, and we've been working with Mr. Acree. And this needs to be--in order to have privacy up there, there's got to be some modifications and renovations. This will be where Judge Mulherin will go. Either Judge Pickett or Judge Overstreet will move into Judge Mulherin's office, and everybody's going to move around. Well, is this judge going to be a full-time MR. POWELL: judge? In essence, he will be. I mean, he is going MR. WALL: to be working--he intends to carry pretty much a full load, yes, sir. Don't we have a snack room or something we MR. POWELL: could let him use for a while? Well, I don't want to deliver that message. MR. WALL: He might be the one to rule on some of these alcohol licenses. So be it. MR. POWELL: Page 47 I call the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. SHEPARD: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to MAYOR SCONYERS: approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. Let's see, we deleted Item 33. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. CLERK: Mr. Wall, do you need a legal meeting? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. One litigation matter. It should MR. WALL: be short. Do I have a motion, gentlemen? MAYOR SCONYERS: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. H. BRIGHAM: All in favor, usual sign of voting, MAYOR SCONYERS: please. [MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY OUT] MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. SHEPARD LEAVES THE MEETING] [LEGAL MEETING, 4:20 - 5:03 P.M.] 24. Motion to approve transfer application request by Rebecca L. King for consumption on premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Comedy House Theatre located at 2701 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 26, 1998) MR. KUHLKE: I move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MOTION CARRIES 9-0 FOR THE APPLICATION. [MR. SHEPARD OUT] MOTION CARRIES 6-3 for Sunday sales. [MR. POWELL, MR. BRIDGES AND MR. COLCLOUGH VOTING NO] [MR. SHEPARD OUT] [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:03 P.M.] Page 48 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 November 4, 1998. Clerk of Commission