HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-2000 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
August 15, 2000
The Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:08 p.m., Tuesday,
August 15, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham,
Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of the Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
Also present were Jim Wall, Attorney; Randy Oliver, Administrator, and Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Holland.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll go ahead and take our delegations first.
DELEGATIONS:
Greater Augusta Arts Council
Ms. Brenda Durant
Re: Arts in the Heart Festival, September 15-17, 2000
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Durant, we’re glad to have you with us. You can see how
concerned people are about the arts. They really turned out for your presentation
today.
Ms. Durant: I’m passing a volunteer sign-up sheet through the crowd. Thank
you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk about Arts in the Heart this year.
I thought I’d start with a little bit overview about Arts in the Heart of Augusta. Arts
in the Heart of Augusta is Augusta’s largest festival. It’s produced every year by the
Greater Augusta Arts Council. We have won, for the third consecutive year, Top 20
Event in the Southeast, and it will be announced that we have won a larger award. It
will come out right after our event in September. We have some changes this year.
Those of you who are familiar with the festival know that it’s held every year on eight
Street and Ninth Street on the Riverwalk downtown. If you see the construction site,
the Riverwalk, the Radisson expansion, that is really right in the middle of our
festival, and there was some concern, what we could do, where we could go, and it’s
very important to the Arts Council to keep the festival downtown and to keep it on
Riverwalk. We know with the Augusta Commons project that our festival will move
to the Commons area as soon as that is completed, but that has not happened yet. So
we have worked out a plan where we will have the festival on Eighth Street, and if
you can picture Eighth Street, it will run from the river where the jazz stage is always
2
for the festival, all the way up across Reynolds Street to Broad Street. And there will
be a stage on Eighth Street on the inside of Joe’s Underground Café. Eighth Street
and Broad Street, there is Joe’s on one side and SunTrust Bank building on the other.
We are very excited about that. We have done a lot of coordination and I do have
people here to help explain that if there are questions. But Arts in the Heart, we have
to find a place for seven stages. We have entertainment that goes on continuously
from Friday noon until Sunday late night, and then we do have a children’s area that’s
free. We have about 15 booths for children to come and do a hands-free activity. We
also have 60 fine arts and crafters who come from Augusta and all over the Southeast
to show their art work and sell in. And we also have 15 -- in fact, this year we have
two more -- 17 ethnic groups who cook food in the ethnic area and make money for
their different groups. This year -- we’re featuring a different ethnic group every year
-- and this year’s group is Ocha, which is the 28 countries representing the Spanish
culture. So we’re very excited about that and we just wanted to let you know where
this would be. We will be barreling off Reynolds Street and doing some coordination
to limit access so people will be able to walk across Reynolds Street and have the
continuous festival on Eighth this year. Are there any questions? Thank you very
much. I look forward to see you all at Arts in the Heart. I was going to announce that
everyone wear their orange sticker with the Arts in the Heart volunteers, but this
group wouldn’t go for that, create a riot, so I don’t know why they’re here. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Mayor: We might add, too, we appreciate the Arts Council hosting the
Georgia Municipal Association officials. They’ll be here that Friday night. They’ll
be here for training that Friday and Saturday and they are your guests that night, as I
understand it, at the opening ceremony, and we certainly appreciate that.
Ms. Durant: You’re welcome. We look forward to having them here. A lot
of people come to town for Arts in the Heart. Last year we had another group that
booked in that weekend for an Arts in the Heart weekend. It is a wonderful weekend
to bring people to Augusta. You don’t have to worry about what you’ll do. They
really can be busy down on the Riverwalk.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Next delegation?
Augusta Regional Christian Community Development Association
Ms. Stephanie Green
Re: Conference September 23-26, 2000
Mr. Speaker: My name is Matt [inaudible]. Stephanie couldn’t be here. I’m
with Agape Ministries and we’re doing a collaboration of a conference here in
September. First of all, I want to thank you for allowing me the time to be with y’all
and be with the residents of this community, as well. We’re going to be working on a
conference here, a four-day conference, an urban renewal conference. And we’re
having the privilege of receiving Dr. John Perkins here in September. And we want
3
to extend the invitation to the Commissioners and the Mayor and for the residents of
the community to be a part of that, to work in some areas of our community that
probably aren’t addressed very much. So I did bring some brochures for you, if I can
get those to y’all. But the goals of the conference here in Augusta is [inaudible]
Biblical foundation for a holistic approach, providing resources and models for
successful urban community development, networking urban and suburban churches,
networking ministries and business people together. So we would like to extend an
rd
invitation today. It’s going to be a four-day event starting Saturday, the 23, at Laney
High School, with workshops. Sunday, Dr. Perkins and Rev. Gordon will speak in
two of the churches. One will be Lakemont Presbyterian Church, the other will be
Antioch Baptist Church. Monday we’ll be having a pastors’ breakfast. Monday also
at lunch we’ll be having a business persons’ lunch. That Monday night, speaking at
Paine College, trying to get our college campuses together, speaking on issues of
urban renewal. Tuesday we’ll be hosting a city-wide rally at Tabernacle Baptist and I
would hope somewhere in those four days that some of you can find some time to
come out and encourage some of the troops that aren’t grass roots that we’re reaching
out to the urban community in Augusta. I want to thank you for your time. Are there
any questions you have?
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much for being with us. Appreciate it. It sounds
like an exciting event. Madame Clerk, do we have any additions to the agenda today?
Clerk: Addendum Agenda:
Deletion from the Agenda:
Item 53
Additions to the Agenda:
1. Recognition of presentation of award to the ARC Utilities Department
Water Plant by the Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association.
2. Motion to approve $6,000.00 expenditure for the purchase of materials for
replacement of stage sections from General Fund Contingency Account or
Promotion Account.
3. A Resolution expressing support for the creation and development of the
Augusta to Athens Technology Corridor.
Clerk: We’ve been asked by the Attorney to delete Item 53. He’s in trials
today. He’s representing the petitioner.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding those three items and deleting
Item 53?
No objections noted to adding these items to the agenda and deleting Item 53.
Mr. Mayor: None heard, so we will --
4
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: You might, in respect of the attorney not being here, but there may
be some here in reference to Item 53, in reference to residents, and you may just want
to let them know that and to maybe get a count if they are here on reference to that for
the record, in terms of whether or not they may be coming back again at some other
time for that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That’s for the manufactured housing on Danville
Street.
Clerk: There are objectors.
Mr. Mayor: There are some people here objecting that? Could we have a
show of hands of the objectors? This is Item 53, rezoning for manufactured home
residential on property located west of the right-of-way line on Danville Street.
Okay, we’ll make a note of that for the record, then. So this will move forward to our
next meeting.
Mr. Oliver: In two weeks.
Mr. Mayor: Which will be the first Tuesday in September. All right.
Gentlemen, let’s take up those items that we can do on the consent agenda. The items
that we pull we’ll come back to. We have a couple of zoning issues we want to move
forward so we can let some people go on about their business today. So what’s your
pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Clerk: Our consent agenda is Items 1 through 47, adding Item 57, which
was approved in the called meeting of the Engineering Services Committee.
That item is regarding the agreement between the railroads for the installation
of four Hydra Switches, not to exceed a cost of $103,931.
PLANNING:
1. Z-00-65 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc., on
behalf of the Estate of Etta G. Mayson, requesting a Special Exception to
establish a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on
property on the southwest right-of-way line of Doris Road, 280 feet, more
or less, northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of
Tudor drive intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Doris Road
(2210 Tubman Home Road). District 2.
5
2. Z-00-66 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Cogan Industries, Inc., on behalf
of Sharon Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to expand an
existing church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on
property located on the south right-of-way line of Sharon Road, 340 feet,
more or less, east of a point where the centerline of Harvey Road extended
intersects the south right-of-way line of Sharon Road (3434 Sharon Road).
District 3.
3. Z-00-67 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Spirit Creek Baptist Church
requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing church as provided
for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the
south right-of-way line of Dixon Airline Road, 1,197 feet east of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Mike Padgett Highway and Dixon
Airline Road (1783 Dixon Airline Road). District 8.
4. Z-00-68 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Greater Mt. Canaan Baptist
Church requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing church as
provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on
the northeast corner of the intersection of Wheeler Road and Monte Sano
Avenue. Also included in the request is the property located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Wheeler Road and Second Avenue
(2575-77 Wheeler Road and 2573 Wheeler Road and 552-556 Second
Avenue). District 1.
5. Z-00-69 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Good Shepherd Baptist Church
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a cemetery
as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (m) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on
the southeast right-of-way line of Olive Road, 12 feet, more or less, south
of a point where the centerline of Shirley Avenue extended intersects the
southeast right-of-way line of Olive Road (1714 Olive Road). District 5.
6. Z-00-71 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Reverend Angelo Hatcher, on
behalf of the Second Ebenezer Baptist Church, requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County on property located where the centerline
of Boggy Branch intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Old
Waynesboro Road. District 8.
7. Z-00-75 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve with the condition ‘That there be no access to
6
Asbury Hill Subdivision’ a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia
Vitrified Brick & Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) on property
located on the east right-of-way line of Jimmie Dyess Parkway, 370 feet,
more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Belair
Road and Jimmie Dyess Parkway. NOTE! The area to be rezoned was
reduced from 139 acres to 62.35 acres. District 3.
8. Z-00-77 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from W. R. Belangia, on behalf of ATC
Development, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General
Business) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) on property located
on the northeast right-of-way line of Wheeler Road, 922 feet, more or less,
east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate Parkway and
Wheeler Road (3721 Wheeler Road). District 3.
9. Z-00-78 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Watson O. Kitchens requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast
right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road, 403 feet, more or less, southwest
of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of Hilson Road intersects
the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road (4112 Deans Bridge
Road). District 6.
10. Z-00-81 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve with the condition 'That the only commercial use
of this property shall be a day care center; and that at such time as this
use shall cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone A
(Agriculture)' a petition from John L. Williams, on behalf of Pete
Coleman, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northeast
right-of-way line of Jack Kelly Road, 2,180 feet, more or less, north of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Jack Kelly
Road (3564-A Jack Kelly Road). District 8.
11. S-574-II - PEPPERIDGE - SECTION XV - PHASE II - FINAL PLAT -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl &
Company, Inc., requesting Final Plat Approval for Pepperidge, Section
XV, Phase II. This phase is an extension of Monte Carlo Street, adjacent
to Pepperidge, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Phase I and contains 45
lots.
12. S-567-I - ARCADIA SUBDIVISION - PHASE I - FINAL PLAT
(FORMERLY LOST ARCADIA) - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a petition from James G.
Swift & Associates, on behalf of Dr. Louis Battey and Ms. Bertha Toole,
requesting Final Plat Approval of Arcadia Subdivision, Phase I. This
7
phase is located off Hephzibah-McBean Road at Horseshoe Road and
contains 33 lots.
13. S-571 - LILLIAN PLACE - FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Ayercorp, on behalf of James E. Oellerich, requesting Final Plat Approval
of Lillian Place. This subdivision is located off Bertram Road, north of
Washington Road and contains 41 lots (40 lots and retention pond).
FINANCE:
14. Motion to approve Lease Agreement with Community Service Board of
East Central Georgia d/b/a Community Mental Health Center for
buildings A and E. (Approved by Finance Committee August 7, 2000)
15. Motion to approve request by Richmond County Department of Family
and Children Services for $15,000 for Transitional Child Care Center.
Funded from HND if it qualifies and if not General Fund Contingency.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 7, 2000)
16. Motion to authorize the Comptroller, Assistant Comptroller and/or
designated Accountant to initiate investment transactions with Georgia
Fund 1. (Approved by Finance Committee August 7, 2000)
17. Motion to approve payment in the amount of $544.75 to Alison &
Associates, Inc. to reimburse out of pocket expenses for creating ad in
FORBES magazine. (Funded from Promotion Account) (Approved by
Finance Committee August 7, 2000)
18. Motion to approve abatement of taxes for 1997 Map 27-3, Parcel 108 -
Owner: God's Love Missions, Inc. as of the date of closing. (Approved by
Finance Committee August 7, 2000)
19. Motion to approve Edward Skinner, Timothy Weegar, Lon Morrey and
Donna B. Williams as authorized signatures on the indicated bank
accounts and approve the establishment of a new bank account for the
Augusta Richmond County Airport Hotel. (Approved by Finance
Committee August 7, 2000)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
20. Motion to approve cancellation of sublease to Stephen E. Curry
immediately in order to allow enough space for Housing & Neighborhood
Development's additional staff and direct staff to evaluate other space
alternatives prior to lease expiration in May 2001. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee August 7, 2000)
21. Motion to approve Augusta Richmond County Economic Development
Loan for Mildred Goolsby, d/b/a Riverwatch Printing, in the amount of
$25,000 as recommended by the Loan Review Committee on July 28,
2000. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 7, 2000)
22. Motion to approve additional personnel for the Utilities Department to
perform physical inspections and maintain the computerized maintenance
management system required by Consent Order No. END-WQ-3681
8
dated January 27, 2000 (Funds were budgeted in the personnel accounts
under 506043110). (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
August 7, 2000)
23. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 912
Parks Avenue; Hyde Park Neighborhood: 1921 Florida Road, 1922
Florida Road, 1929 Florida Road, 1930 Florida Road, 1931 Florida Road,
(District 2, Super District 9) and waive 2nd reading. (Funds are not
available unless transferred from General Fund Contingency) (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee August 7, 2000)
24. Motion to approve the recommendations from the HND Director to
exceed the $25,000 Housing Rehabilitation Program cap for the following
three projects: (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August
7, 2000)
(1) Frank & Amy Jordan, 517 Eve Street
(2) Ollie Haynes, 1028 13th Street
(3) HUD $1 House, 2940 Shelby Avenue
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
25. Motion to approve petitions for the installation and maintenance of street
lights in various districts throughout the City. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee August 7, 2000)
26. Motion to approve payment to the Georgia Water Wise Council in the
amount of $10,828.26 for Water Sourcebooks. Funded by Account No.
506043110-5314111. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 7, 2000)
27. Motion to accept counteroffer of $15,000 to acquire 0.008 acres of right-
of-way, 0.017 acres of permanent construction easement and 2,704.49
square feet of temporary construction easement (Tax Map 12, Parcel 8)
from Realty Income Corporation of California. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 7, 2000)
28. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering Department to extend
an offer of employment to selected candidate for the Solid Waste Manager
position in the amount of $50,000. We also recommend a reimbursement
of actual relocation expenses, not to exceed $5,000. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 7, 2000)
29. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.114 acres for permanent easement
and 0.169 acres of temporary construction easement against Dorothy M.
Wall for sanitary sewer line. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 7, 2000)
30. Motion to approve condemnation of 0.158 acres for permanent easement
and 0.237 acres of temporary construction easement against Matthew Gay
for sanitary sewer line. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 7, 2000)
9
31. Motion to approve bid award contract to the low bidder, Nordmann
Construction, Inc., in the amount of $398,359.00 subject to the receipt of
signed contracts and proper bonds for the Willis Foreman Road Drainage
Improvements Project (CPB# 322-04-292822791). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 7, 2000)
32. Motion to approve list of roads and authorize Public Works and
Engineering Department to prepare contract documents for letting the
Paving Various Roads - Phase VIII Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee August 7, 2000)
33. Motion to approve selection of CH2MHill for program and contract
management of 2000 Bond Issue CIP Program and authorize amendment
of contract with the contract to provide that CH2MHill cannot perform
any of the project engineering and provide for an incentive for
performance. Funded by 2000 Bond Issue as approved by Commission.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 7, 2000)
34. Motion to approve selection of Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. for
Augusta-Central Savannah River Basin Source Water Assessment Plan.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 7, 2000)
35. Motion to approve contract with Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. in the
amount of $1,093,744.00 to perform a countywide Watershed Assessment.
Funded from 2000 Bond Issue as approved by Commission - Account
Numbers not yet established. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 7, 2000)
36. Motion to approve the surveying and engineering services by James G.
Swift & Associates for the design of water main relocation associated with
the GDOT Wheeless Road Bridge Replacement project ($6,100.00 is
available in Account No. 507043410-5212115/89900180-5212115).
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 7, 2000)
37. Motion to approve award of contract to Waldrop Contracting Company
in the amount of $349,618.00 (Bid Item #00-090) for construction of a raw
water main along Old Waynesboro Road associated with the bond project
known as W-3A, Little Spirit Creek Wellfield. Funds are available in
Account No. 508043410-5425110. (Low bid) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee August 7, 2000)
38. Motion to approve encroachment for canopy at Craig-Houghton
Elementary School. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 7, 2000)
39. Motion to authorize Facilities Management to issue a Request for
Qualifications for Engineering Services for replacement of the Municipal
Building Chiller/Boiler System and Electrical Switchgear. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 7, 2000)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
10
40. Motion to approve indemnity agreement to allow construction of
convenience store without connecting to City water. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee August 7, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
41. Motion to approve and award an A/E professional service contract to
Johnson, Laschober & Associates for $29,950.00. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 7, 2000)
42. Motion to approve a request by Sang W. Pak for a retail package beer &
wine license to be used in connection with Milledgeville Convenience Store
located at 2517 Milledgeville Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved
by Public Services Committee August 7, 2000)
43. Motion to approve a professional service contract for architectural and
engineering fees to Davis Design Group in the amount of $8,000.00.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 7, 2000)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
44. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held August 1 and action minutes of the Called meeting held August 7,
2000.
APPOINTMENTS:
45. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Kent J. Spruill to the Augusta-
Richmond County Human Relations Board representing District 4.
46. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Patrick (Pat) Sizemore to the
Housing and Neighborhood Advisory Board representing District 7.
ATTORNEY:
47. Motion to approve Ordinance To Amend The Augusta-Richmond County
Code, Section 5-2-45, To Provide For Water And Sewer Rates To Be
Established In The Adoption Of The Budget Or By Resolution In
Conjunction With Financing For Water And Sewer Improvements
(Approved by the Commission in Called meting held August 7, 2000 -
second reading)
57. Motion to approve Agreement with CSX and Norfolk Southern for the
installation of four (4) Hydra Switches in an amount not to exceed
$103,931.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second on the consent agenda. Madame
Clerk, did you want to mention any of the zoning issues or do we have any liquor
licenses on here?
11
Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors, I will read the petition. Would
you please signify your objection by the raising of your hand?
1. Z-00-65 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc., on
behalf of the Estate of Etta G. Mayson, requesting a Special Exception to
establish a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on
property on the southwest right-of-way line of Doris Road, 280 feet, more
or less, northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of
Tudor drive intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Doris Road
(2210 Tubman Home Road). District 2.
2. Z-00-66 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Cogan Industries, Inc., on behalf
of Sharon Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to expand an
existing church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on
property located on the south right-of-way line of Sharon Road, 340 feet,
more or less, east of a point where the centerline of Harvey Road extended
intersects the south right-of-way line of Sharon Road (3434 Sharon Road).
District 3.
3. Z-00-67 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Spirit Creek Baptist Church
requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing church as provided
for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the
south right-of-way line of Dixon Airline Road, 1,197 feet east of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Mike Padgett Highway and Dixon
Airline Road (1783 Dixon Airline Road). District 8.
4. Z-00-68 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Greater Mt. Canaan Baptist
Church requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing church as
provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on
the northeast corner of the intersection of Wheeler Road and Monte Sano
Avenue. Also included in the request is the property located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Wheeler Road and Second Avenue
(2575-77 Wheeler Road and 2573 Wheeler Road and 552-556 Second
Avenue). District 1.
5. Z-00-69 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Good Shepherd Baptist Church
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a cemetery
as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (m) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on
12
the southeast right-of-way line of Olive Road, 12 feet, more or less, south
of a point where the centerline of Shirley Avenue extended intersects the
southeast right-of-way line of Olive Road (1714 Olive Road). District 5.
6. Z-00-71 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Reverend Angelo Hatcher, on
behalf of the Second Ebenezer Baptist Church, requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County on property located where the centerline
of Boggy Branch intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Old
Waynesboro Road. District 8.
7. Z-00-75 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve with the condition ‘That there be no access to
Asbury Hill Subdivision’ a petition from Matt Mills, on behalf of Georgia
Vitrified Brick & Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) on property
located on the east right-of-way line of Jimmie Dyess Parkway, 370 feet,
more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Belair
Road and Jimmie Dyess Parkway. NOTE! The area to be rezoned was
reduced from 139 acres to 62.35 acres. District 3.
8. Z-00-77 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from W. R. Belangia, on behalf of ATC
Development, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General
Business) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) on property located
on the northeast right-of-way line of Wheeler Road, 922 feet, more or less,
east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate Parkway and
Wheeler Road (3721 Wheeler Road). District 3.
9. Z-00-78 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Watson O. Kitchens requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast
right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road, 403 feet, more or less, southwest
of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of Hilson Road intersects
the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road (4112 Deans Bridge
Road). District 6.
10. Z-00-81 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve with the condition 'That the only commercial use
of this property shall be a day care center; and that at such time as this
use shall cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone A
(Agriculture)' a petition from John L. Williams, on behalf of Pete
Coleman, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northeast
right-of-way line of Jack Kelly Road, 2,180 feet, more or less, north of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Jack Kelly
Road (3564-A Jack Kelly Road). District 8.
13
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to any of those zoning items that were
read out by the Clerk? None noted.
Clerk: For alcohol petitions, under our Public Services:
42. Motion to approve a request by Sang W. Pak for a retail package beer &
wine license to be used in connection with Milledgeville Convenience Store
located at 2517 Milledgeville Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved
by Public Services Committee August 7, 2000)
Clerk: Are there any objectors to that application?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted. We have a motion to approve, it’s been seconded
to approve the consent agenda. Gentlemen, are there any items you wish to pull from
the consent agenda? Mr. Mays, I don’t want to go too fast and leave you out this
time. Is there anything you’d like to pull.
Mr. Mays: No, Mr. Mayor, I’m okay.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we’ll call the question on the consent agenda. All in
favor of the motion to approve, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Could I have the record show that on Item 15 I voted no. I
believe that’s a state function and not a function of the county.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Oliver: That would come out of General Fund Contingency, by the way,
because Mr. Mack has indicated that funds won’t become available until January 1 for
that item and we can’t advance funds in CDBG.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, have me listed as voting no on that as well.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m the third on that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let the record also note that I voted no in committee on Item 40.
14
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, did you want to log in your vote on the consent
agenda?
Mr. Beard: The consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. We did not pull any items from it.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Cheek and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 7-3. [Item 15]
Mr. Mays votes No.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 40]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-14, 16-39, 41-47, 57]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead to Item 51. We have a number
of people who are here for that item this afternoon.
Clerk: Item 51: Z-00-74 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Nora Cheryl Finks requesting
a change of zoning from Zone $-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Deans Bridge
Road, 389 feet, more or less, northeast of the northeast corner of the intersection
of Wheeless Road and Deans Bridge Road (2933 Deans Bridge Road). District 5.
Mr. Colclough: So moved.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. This would be to deny the
petition. Mr. Patty, could you come over and give us the background and then we’ll
count heads and hear from others.
Mr. Patty: We had a substantial number of objectors to this case. It adjoins a
commercial area. It’s beginning to get away from the intersection where a
commercial area is located. The property backs up to a subdivision. It also, to the
side, to the east, begin a number of residential lots on Deans Bridge Road that have
been occupied by the same folks for years and I think it was the consensus of the
Planning Commission that B-2 zoning, not necessarily the dog grooming
establishment which the lady proposed to do with the site, but the B-2 zoning, allows
a lot of other things that falls in. To deny, I believe it was unanimous.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Do we have any objectors here to this item? If you’d
raise your hand, we’d like to get a head count, if we could, for the record. Any
objectors?
15
(10 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Is the petitioner here?
Ms. Finks: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And do we have someone who will speak for the
objectors or any objectors who would like to speak? Mr. Smith, okay. Let’s hear
from the petitioner and then we’ll hear from the objectors. Give us your name for the
record.
Ms. Finks: My name is Nora Cheryl Finks. I’m in Blythe, Georgia. If the
only problem with the property is being commercial zoned and the community is
afraid that if the dog grooming shop isn’t going to be successful, is it possible that we
can put a condition stating that if the dog grooming isn’t successful that that’s the
only business that can be put in there, or if it can revert back to single-family
residence?
Mr. Mayor: We can put all kinds of stipulations in zoning. The Chair would
respond affirmatively to that.
Ms. Finks: I mean if the community’s problem is if the business fails and they
were afraid that some other business would come in, a tattoo parlor or something of
that nature.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from the objectors and see how they respond to that
and add anything they’d like to. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I’m Jimmy Smith. I represent the
Pride & Progress Committee. And for the past nine years, we have been concerned
about people moving from Richmond County, businesses, residents and so forth, and
we support the economic development, but we also are really concerned about
keeping our people that have been there all their lives, and especially in this case on
Deans Bridge Road, these houses, there are seven of them, people that have been
there 35, 40 and 50 years. And they are not in a position to move right now and they
are afraid that this thing could cause some undesirables to move into the
neighborhood, and I do have a petition. I gave one of them to the Planning
Commission last week. I’ve got one for Rocky Creek Road, just directly behind the
homes on Deans Bridge Road. And the home is question is #8 house. There are eight
in a row there, and they are set back and they’re real nice and clean kept homes, and
the home #8 is on a high incline, it would be hard to get in and our and there is no
parking and these senior citizens don’t really want to relocate at this time in their
lives, and the change of this zoning to General Business will allow other things to
16
come and we are really concerned about that. We respectively request that you deny
this petition.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Commissioners, do you have any
questions, any comments? We have a motion to deny and it’s been seconded.
Mr. Colclough: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. Gentlemen, your pleasure on the
motion to deny it? It’s been duly seconded. All in favor of denial, please vote yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: It’s been disapproved.
Ms. Finks: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, let’s go to #48, if we may, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 48: Z-00-70 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Charlie Davis, on behalf of
Jeffery Daniel, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing
transition housing as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (g) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property
located on the south right-of-way line of Andorra Drive, 140 feet, more or less,
east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Spanish Trace Drive and
Andorra Drive (2564 Andorra Drive). District 4
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to deny this. Mr. Patty, if you
would come up and give us the benefit of the background on this.
Mr. Patty: This is a request to establish transitional housing for veterans.
They would house up to six veterans in this home, which is a particular subdivision
home in the neighborhood. We had substantial opposition to the petition from 50
folks in opposition to it and the Planning Commission recommends it be denied.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any objectors here to this item? If you would please
raise your hands so we can get a count, please, for the record.
(9 objectors noted)
17
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is the petitioner here today? The petitioner has not
identified him or herself. Gentlemen, we have a motion on the floor. Any
discussion? Do want to hear from the objectors.
Mr. Bridges: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and vote on the motion to deny, then. All in favor
of denying this request, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: So the request has been denied. Madame Clerk, if we could skip
over to #54. Item #54, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 54: Z-00-80 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Nickie Marks requesting a
change of zoning form Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Washington
Road, 1,320 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southwest right-of-
way line of Redwood Drive intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of
Washington Road (2315 Washington Road). District 7
Mr. Kuhlke: So moved.
Mr. J. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to deny. Mr. Patty, if you would
give us the background on this, please.
Mr. Patty: This property is located on Washington Road. It’s just west of
where Broad Street and the Calhoun Expressway come together to form Washington
Road, and it’s an area where the traffic coming off the expressway is decelerating and
the traffic from Broad Street is attempting to enter Washington Road. There’s no lane
at that point, so there’s no storage and it’s a really dangerous location. And we’ve
been luck with the type of businesses that have located in this area generally in that
they’ve used existing houses and it’s been low volume, most of them professional,
some of them light commercial, and even though we have had for a long time had a
B-2 zone immediately adjacent to this house where there’s a fortune teller. And the
request is for B-2 zoning to establish a used car lot, which granted, may not generate a
lot of traffic, a lot of parking, a lot of congestion, but I think the Planning
Commission had problems with it. One, just the appearance, which would conflict
with the use of the bungalow style houses that are in the area. Also, the homes
adjacent to it on the street behind it, and also the precedent it would set for other B-2
zoning in the area which would open the door to other type uses that would generate
substantially more traffic and pose a real traffic safety hazard in the area.
18
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, is there some site preparation work underway on this
property now?
Mr. Patty: The lot the sign is on, nothing is happening. Now the lot to the east
of that, there has been some work on -- I think there was a foundation torn down,
some brush cleared. As far as I have seen, and I go by it every day, I haven’t seen
anything that violates any of our ordinances. But there has been some work being
conducted on the adjoining site.
Mr. Mayor: The adjoining site, okay. Thank you. Are there any objectors to
this item? If there are, please raise your hands so we can get a hand count.
{26 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today?
Mr. Hunter: I’ll speak, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And do we have someone who is speaking for the
objectors or some objectors who wish to speak? Okay, thank you very much. Mr.
Hunter, if you’d identify yourself for the record and tell us what you’d like to about
this.
Mr. Hunter: Thank you. My name is Robert W. Hunter, III. I’m an attorney
here in Augusta. I’m representing Mr. Marks, the owner of the property. And we
have a number of people here who are in support of his petition for rezoning and we’d
like for those people to raise their hands.
Mr. Mayor: You can ask the Chair to ask them to raise their hands. The Chair
will entertain a show of hands from those who are in support of this for rezoning.
(46 supporters noted)
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Hunter. Proceed.
Mr. Hunter: Thank you. I have a letter from the lady who is directly behind
here, this property. And she wrote a letter saying that she’s never had any problems
with Mr. Marks and she has no objection to the used car lot at 2315 Washington
Road. She’s present today. We also have a petition with 200 names which I’ll be
glad to submit to Mr. Oliver.
Mr. Mayor: Give those to the Clerk, if you would please.
19
Mr. Hunter: This property is right there as George described it, right at
Washington Road/Calhoun Expressway. In that entire block on both sides, most of
the property is zoned B-1. It’s where the Wilderness outdoor store is. There is a
convenience store which is in a B-1 lot. About two up from that, there is Danny
Durham’s law office there. We’re talking about a small lot that can’t hold probably
more than 10 cars at any one time so we aren’t talking about a major car lot going into
this property. My client has expressed no objection to stipulations being placed on
there that it be placed back into R-1A or whatever the original zoning is should he
cease to operate a car lot there. His property is zoned B-2 adjacent to this and I
realize it’s a difficult situation but most of Washington Road is becoming business
oriented and y’all have had a lot of these cases before you in that same area where
they’ve been rezoned from Residential to B-1. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Now we’ll hear from the objectors. If you would
give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Prince: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. My name is Bill Prince. I live at 216
Lakewood Drive. I have several things that really need to be addressed here. We the
residents nearby 2315 Washington Road are here to offer an objection pertaining to
the zoning of 2315 Washington Road from R-1A to B-2. As you know, this opens up
the area for General Business use. Parking lots, arcades, electronic video games, flea
markets, body shops, travel trailer park, gun shops, pawn shops, car washes, and even
in some instances, adult entertainment and adult theaters. Adult entertainment and
different type businesses, that’s what comes under B-2. On August 7, we attending a
Planning and Zoning Committee meeting here in this room. We had 25 people
present. We also presented four different petitions. A petition from East Vineland,
West Vineland, Arbor Creek Subdivision, residents on [inaudible] Road adjacent to
this property. All up and down Washington Road. Lakewood Drive, where I live. A
total of 158. That was at Planning and Zoning. We didn’t go up to National Road,
two or there miles away, to try to get signatures. We got signatures 1/10, 2/10 of a
mile away from this property. He’s talking about these petitions. He’s way up in
National Hill or wherever to get the signatures.
Mr. Mayor: I think the petitions will speak for themselves and reflect the
addresses. Let’s talk about the merits of the zoning if we could.
Mr. Prince: Our petition consisted -- he mentioned Danny Durham. Danny
Durham signed against this petition, against this rezoning. Now 2310, 2314, 2318,
2316, 2321, 2322, 2324, 2325, 2327, 2328, 2332, 2334, 2333, 2340 Washington
Road, 2346 Washington Road, Danny Durham, 2350, Ed Turner Music Company,
2358 -- all these places are almost in a row on both sides of the street. They all signed
against this rezoning. So therefore, we again ask that this not occur. Also, there is
another important matter which needs to be discussed and that is safety. As we know,
you as the governing body, the main concern is the safety of the people you represent.
And this rezoning would create a very grave, serious problem as far as traffic goes. I
20
have or made three pictures that I would like to pass out for the County Commission
to look at.
Mr. Mayor: Sure. If you’ll give those to the Clerk, please.
Mr. Prince: As you look at them, I’ll be glad -- I just want you to pass them
around and I’ll describe something to you. This also helped contribute to this
dangerous situation. Picture 4, on the back, #4, you can see in this picture one cannot
look over his left shoulder, side mirror, or rear view mirror to see oncoming traffic.
Even at this point. And he’s beginning to pull out in this intersection. This is what
Mr. Patty was talking about where Broad Street ends and merges into Washington
Road. It’s impossible to see the oncoming traffic, which is by the way, 37,000
vehicles a day coming off there, at least 50 to 60 miles an hour. You’re entering
traffic at that point. Picture 5, if you can look at that, this is a view of cars
approaching into Broad Street, merging into Calhoun and Washington Road. You
can’t see oncoming traffic at all. There again, 37,000 cars a day. Picture 6, if you
will please look at the box, the one labeled 6, this is a very close picture to the
merging lane. You see Broad Street coming up at a lower elevation, up into
Washington Road and merges. Now you have an large picture, this one is a little hard
to see, but if you’ll look up the right-hand side of the road, you’ll see a trash can.
Black trash can. That black trash can sits beside about an 8’ driveway that allows
entrance into this piece of property, which is a very dangerous situation. This lot is
not adequate enough to provide circulation of traffic, either coming in or out. A very
dangerous situation. Planning and Zoning Committee also feels like this lot is not
large enough to provide adequate parking and traffic circulation for this General
Business use. They also are very concerned about traffic safety and the location on
Washington Road, every vehicle at speed of 50-60 mph. Ingress and egress to and
from this property would be precarious due to the high vehicle speeds in both
directions at this point on Washington Road. Again, they are concerned with 37,000
vehicles daily, now traveling that block of Washington Road each day up to 50-60
mph. Now that’s the concerns of the Committee, the same concerns we have. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Any
discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Hunter, how big is the lot?
Mr. Hunter: 200 x 370 feet.
Mr. Kuhlke: That lot is that big, George? It doesn’t look that big. It’s two
lots? Two lots. How many driveways?
Mr. Hunter: There are two driveways.
21
Mr. Kuhlke: And how big are the driveways?
Mr. Hunter: I do not know.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say this is in my district and I’ve
ridden by there, and I’ve always been receptive to seeing some growth, but if you
come off of Broad Street onto Calhoun Expressway, you’re on this piece of property
immediately, and I can see somebody trying to turn in to one of these driveways, and
I can see a rear-end collision quickly, and I think from that standpoint that this would
be a bad move in trying to rezone this piece of property.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any further discussion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, this is also my district. I am very familiar with
the location. I have several concerns. Mainly I have a safety concern in that the
gentleman, Mr. Prince, is right about the traffic. I would not even consider doing
anything to this property without a way to egress or to get off Washington Road and
slow down. I would have to be able to know that there would be a deceleration lane
there. I don’t think it’s -- the layout of the property, I don’t think is physically
practical to do that, so that’s one of my concern. The other concern is I do not think
it’s smart growth to piece a B-2 zoning in this area adjacent with all, with everything
on this side of Washington Road where this property is, with the exception of one
property next to it, everything else is B-1 or [inaudible]-1 zoning, and I would much
prefer to see it stay neighborhood zoning or professional zoning in this area. I think
this is much more conducive to a neighborhood transition and I would think that is the
way it would have to go.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: George, I’m looking at this map that comes in, from the
Planning Commission, and if I’m looking at it, the front says it’s zoned Residential,
but the map here says it’s zoned now B-1 and he’s asking B-2, is that correct? I mean
it’s already B-1, I guess is what I’m asking.
Mr. Patty: Okay. The agenda says it’s currently zone R-1A and he’s
requesting --
Mr. Mayor: B-2.
Mr. Patty: It’s currently zoned R-1A and he’s asking to go to B-2.
22
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Then I think the map here has it zoned B-1.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the backup from the Planning Commission agenda?
Mr. Bridges: Yes.
Mr. Patty: I believe the arrow is pointing to the wrong -- the arrow should be
pointing [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: I see. Okay. If that’s the case, I don’t have any further
questions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d just like to ask the question of the
supporters and the people not supporting it. I’d like to know how many people that’s
for it that lives less than a quarter mile, how many people against it live less than a
quarter mile. That people that’s for this rezoning, how many of you less than quarter
mile away?
Mr. Mayor: The question is how many people who are in favor of this live
less than a quarter mile away from the property. All right. Likewise, Mr. Williams, I
think you ought to ask how many people object to it live within a quarter mile of the
property.
Mr. Williams: That same question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, any further discussion? Gentlemen, we have a motion on
the floor to deny this petition. Call the question on the motion. Mr. Mays, you had a
comment?
Mr. Mays: Is there any other access to this property other than off Washington
Road?
Mr. Hunter: No, sir. No, sir, Mr. Mays. He owns the adjacent property, so it
would be, there would be two lots on Washington Road rather than just that one. But
there is no access from the back of the lot.
Mr. Mays: I guess I’m asking George, was any site plan given as to -- even
though I know y’all turned it down -- but was there any plans given as to a protection
on how many cars could be on that lot? I guess what I’m getting to is the fact that if
the lot is full, then you’ve got people coming in or turning in, what predicament does
that put you in? Do you have any type -- since [inaudible], where did that discussion
leave y’all?
23
Mr. Patty: I think the petitioner can speak for himself, but he just told me that
there would only be 8 or 10 cars on the property for sale at one time. There’s also the
question when a property is converted to a used car lot where essentially no
improvements are made, as to what level of site plan they need to provide. In this
case, I think it would be an absolute death sentence for somebody if we didn’t require
a site plan and improvements that would absolutely require, would not allow backing
into the street if this is improved. And I’m not suggesting you approve it. I don’t
know if I’m answering your question or not, Mr. Mays, but if it’s approved I certainly
think we need a site plan and carefully spell out everything that’s going to be done on
the site.
Mr. Mays: That was kind of what I was getting to in terms of
[inaudible],whether or not that had been considered. [inaudible] in reference to how
many would get on there, whether or not you had some type of circular motion. I
don’t even know many cars you could hold at a max on a lot like that if you did
something in that manner. And that’s why I was saying in the absence of what, I’m
kind of a little bit in the gray in terms of what you could put on there if you did it.
But the safety issue does concern me in reference to the fact that if you had five on
there versus 15 and vice versa.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Any further discussion? We’ll go ahead
and call the question on the motion. The motion is to deny. All in favor of that
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The petition has been denied. We’ll give y’all a moment to clear
the room. We’ve got a big group. Of course y’all are welcome to stay also. There’s
more to come.
{Brief recess}
Mr. Mayor: Come back to order, please. The next item will be Item 52.
Clerk: Item 52: Z-00-76 – Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve with a condition ‘That the only commercial
use of this property shall be a beauty shop; and that at such time as this use shall
cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone R-1A (One-family
Residence)’ a petition from Lloyd C. Hooper requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on
property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Alexander Drive, 1,046
feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the intersection of
Washington Road and Alexander Drive (1064 Alexander Drive). District 7
24
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This is about a 1.8 acres tract. It’s a distance down Alexander
Drive from Washington Road -- this property is on the east side of Alexander Drive, a
substantial distance from Washington Road. It’s about 1.8 acres. It’s got a house on
it. The surrounding properties are similar in that they’ve got houses of the period.
The road does plan to be widened, and it’s got considerable traffic at this time. Of
course, traffic will increase when the road is widened. The western side of
Alexander, if you’re not familiar with it, has been recently converted to various types
of medium- and high-density housing. A lot of it owner-occupied. Also some rental
housing, apartments, and the petitioner requested the rezoning of this property
specifically to allow someone to put a beauty shop on it. They would agree to the
condition which is the property would only be used as a beauty shop if it were
rezoned and if it would cease it would revert back to R-1A. The lots on this side of
Alexander don’t have the depth that the lots on the other side had and it is probably
not as likely to be developed. They’re not likely to be developed for the same type of
housing construction that occurred on the west side, and so there is a significant
question as to what is the best use of this property. The Commission felt, and I think
it’s a close call, but I think the Commission felt the restricted B-1 zoning would
prevent commercialism as it’s occurred on other arterial streets and would provide a
good use for the property and hopefully preserve it for the time when the road is
widened and the future is better established for this area. We did have a petition. I
can’t tell you the number of objectors because it was handed back to the folks who
objected. We did have substantial objection to it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Do we have any objectors here today for
this item? Raise your hand.
(5 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today?
Mr. Flanagan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Flanagan: Mr. Mayor, my name is Peter Flanagan. I’m an attorney here
in Augusta, Georgia. I’m here on behalf of my brother, Douglas Flanagan, who is on
vacation. He represents Mr. L.C. Hooper, who is the petitioner in this matter.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything you’d like to tell the Commission about your
request?
Mr. Flanagan: Anything you’d like to say, Mr. Hooper?
25
Mr. Hooper: Yes, sir. [inaudible] high-density traffic is fixing to come
[inaudible] of my front yard to re-widen the road [inaudible].
Mr. Flanagan: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to do that now?
Mr. Flanagan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Please proceed then.
Mr. Flanagan: Thank you very much. This area where this is going to take
place is one of the corner lots, in the corner of the area from where the house hold is.
The physical structure is 307 feet from the back of Kroger. And that is not even
considering the area next to it. There are two lots here. They are 100’ frontage on the
road, 420’ back in from the road. And the place where the house is is the one furthest
from the intersection of Washington Road and Alexander Drive. I have some
photographs here for the members of the Commission showing the household and the
area where this is located in relation to Kroger and to Eckerd’s. It is also my
understanding that this property, or the area of this property where the house structure
is is 500 feet from Eckerd’s property. Mr. Mayor, we know that some of the areas in
here have already been rezoned. We know that there is going to be another widening
of the road within the next two to five years. There are some high-density houses
already built and multi-family units there. This is a transitional area, and we believe
that in due time this whole area will need to be opened up to more commercial
development for more multiple-family units. The Planning and Zoning Commission,
I believe, voted on this, four in favor, one opposed, and one abstained, with the
special stipulation that this matter be used specifically for a beauty shop and that if
the beauty shop ever fails to be there or is no more a business, it would revert back to
the original residential use. I also have a proposal drawing up what this area would
look like. This is on the lot that is actually occupied. Please keep in mind as you look
at this, to the right there’s another lot which is not developed, which is the closest to
the intersection of Washington Road.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, he’s handing you something.
Mr. Flanagan: And Mr. Hooper has with him 38 years there, and this may be
the best use of the property, and it will be a family beauty shop. That’s it.
Mr. Mayor: So you’re going to pave the parking lot there, and if it’s not a
beauty shop anymore and it would revert back to residential with a big parking lot; is
that essentially what you’re saying?
Mr. Flanagan: [inaudible]
26
Mr. Mayor: Are there any people who want to speak for the objectors? If
you’d come up to the podium and give us your name and address for the record and
then share with us what you want.
Mr. Ediscue: I’m Stanley Ediscue. I live at 2539 Commons Trace in
Alexander Commons, which is on the west side of Alexander Drive in Richmond
County. I’ve got some petitions that were alluded to by Mr. Patty that have been
signed by 125 residents that comprise or are residents in the four single-family units
on both sides of this area.
Mr. Mayor: If you’d present those to the Clerk, please. She’ll take those.
Mr. Ediscue: I also have some photographs showing the distance, which I
would dispute what Mr. Flanagan said about the distance. It’s much more than 300-
some-odd feet. I clocked it in my vehicle. It’s better than .11 miles. And I’ve got a
handout for you all, if I can, to give you an idea of what kind of distance we’re talking
about from the house to the Kroger property. I also have photographs showing the
property relative to Kroger, because in the meeting last week, the other Flanagan
attorney alluded to the fact that you could throw a rock to Kroger from this property.
If you can look at this handout that I’m giving you, I wasn’t sure when I made this
thing up exactly which of these it might be, because the car I was using initially had
one of those digital odometers so that in increments it creeps up. So it was someone
over a tenth of a mile but less than two-tenths of a mile. And so I have put in
extrapolation or calculation of distances at one-tenth of a mile, it would be 528 feet
from that property, all the way up to .18 miles, would be 950 feet. Now, I would have
to say that if you could throw a rock that far, I have a comparison here, the
dimensions for the left field, right field and center field walls at Turner Field, Yankee
Stadium, and at old Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, in case you have ever been to
any of these places, to get an idea of what kind of a super athlete it would take to
throw a rock that distance. And I mean it’s just not possible. Now the staff report on
the original Planning Commission agenda says that the long-range plans are to
preclude this from becoming a commercial strip. We’d rather see an orderly
transition to medium- to high-density residential or professional uses. I believe that if
you open the door by making this a business exception, it’s not going to do anything
more but other businesses come in and want to be there. The other thing, the
proposed widening of Alexander Drive, that’s going to come with a median strip with
very limited turns. In fact, as I remember, there are no turn lanes until you get down
to Alexander Commons, which is probably two-tenths or three-tenths of a mile from
Washington Road intersection. That’s the first left-turn lane when you’re coming
down toward Riverwatch. So you’re going to have a tremendous amount of traffic
kind of looping there with this ridiculous design that they’ve got for Alexander Drive.
I would hope that you folks on the Commission would keep faith with the people that
are homeowners in these regions, that are hardworking folks or retired people that
want to see their investment not be obliterated and messed up by having businesses
start creeping in. Yes, it is a high-density neighborhood, but the other side, the east
27
side, still would allow for additional high-density type of dwelling to be built, I
believe. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Gentlemen, members of the Commission, any
questions? Any discussion? Do we have a motion?
Mr. Bridges: George, the back-up didn’t have a map on it this time. Do you
have anything that would show the location? Looking at these pictures, really I can’t
tell a lot from them. And while you’re coming, the question I have is, is this location
within the 400 foot --
Mr. Patty: This is the location. This is Washington Road. Alexander is
[inaudible] from Washington Road [inaudible] here to here.
Mr. Bridges: [inaudible]
Mr. Patty: They’re all -- there’s one B-1 on this side. There’s another B-1 on
the other.
Mr. Bridges: What’s this here?
Mr. Patty: I assume the back of Kroger [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Okay. We’re safe from a four-lane? You can be 400 feet, is it,
back that you can zone this commercial?
Mr. Patty: The general policy is if you’re going to [inaudible] commercial
zoning in a strip like this, you don’t go further than 400 feet back. [inaudible]
Mr. Bridges: So what you’re saying it’s over the 400 feet?
Mr. Patty: It’s 404 feet, so right now, yes.
Mr. Cheek: Which side -- George, you may know this or not -- which side is
the road widening going to take the most property from?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you have a question?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Which side of Alexander Drive are we
going to take the most property from on this road development?
Mr. Mayor: Teresa, you want to try to answer that?
28
Ms. Smith: The majority of the property associated will be on side opposite
[inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: On the same side that this home is on?
Mr. Patty: Yes, that’s right.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any further discussion?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is a similar problem to what we have off of
Windsor Spring Road in that we have had a major road widening project come in and
take a majority or a good portion of front yards and then left these homeowners with
very little in the way of property to sell for residential use, and I sympathize with the
neighbors in that they certainly don’t want commercial properties in there. My
concern is that those that object certainly are, to this, don’t have or in the position
where most of their yards are being taken away and being left with a piece of property
that they can’t sell for anything else. It’s a difficult question. I wish we would get
into the position of when we are going to take people’s homes and make them
basically useless for the real estate market that we may even look at buying this
property from them and not leave them with a mess to deal with.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, do we have a motion?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll make a motion that we concur with the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve the rezoning with the
condition stipulated in the caption on the agenda. Any discussion on the motion? Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I want to address a question to Mr. Patty. Mr. Patty,
what about the consequences of looking at the map there, leap-frogging existing all 1-
A? I mean shouldn’t we try to group the business uses together and let it expand out
from the existing business rather than leap-frog all 1-A? If we leap-from on that side
of the street, aren’t we basically committing to redo the all 1-A between this property
and the B-2 there where the Eckerd’s is?
Mr. Patty: Yes, you’re making a statement that these types of restrictive B-1
uses should be acceptable in this area. Maybe that’s a bad precedent. The actual use,
29
which would be a house converted to a beauty shop surely would be a very substantial
one. Similar uses might not be a bad thing, but I think the question is could this area
evolve, this eastern side evolve as the western side has, with the high-density,
medium-density houses? It probably could, but 400 foot depth would be an
impediment to that.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Patty, one other question. Was there any attempt to buffer
the developments of the Kroger and the Eckerd’s to the rear? I mean do you recall
that? It may not be in your file.
Mr. Patty: The Eckerd’s should have a rear buffer. The Kroger would pre-
date the requirement for that.
Mr. Mayor: The Eckerd’s has a drive, a road, or an alley or something.
Mr. Patty: A drive. It’s got a substantial planting. Frankly, it’s got buffering
on the side facing Alexander and I’m sure it has on the back, but I can’t tell you for a
fact.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Patty, I’m just a little confused here and I do it quite often,
and I know you can’t speak for the Planning Commission, but you know, so often
some of these things come up where we kind of grandfather this in and let it go
without any -- and then it reverts, until it’s reverted back to the original, others we
don’t. And I’m kind of wondering, what plays a fact in there, and secondly would
be, if it’s a safety factor involved here, or is there a safety factor involved here? And
maybe I need some rationale for doing this, because in some cases we do it and some
cases we don’t.
Mr. Patty: The term grandfather means it was there before the zoning
ordinance was adopted or before the zoning was changed and therefore it would have
a grand fathered or non-conforming right to continue to operate. That’s the only
situation where you’ve got a grand fathered usage.
Mr. Beard: Maybe I used the wrong term. I meant that sometimes it’s
allowed to change until the business is no longer in existence, and then it reverts back
to whatever zoning it was.
Mr. Patty: I believe what you’re describing is conditional zoning or stipulated
zoning, and that’s something that’s legal. The courts have upheld it for years. It’s
something that you use in an area that’s in transition or a mixed area and try to soften
up the zoning in situations like this.
30
Mr. Beard: So I assume this would be a recommendation of yours to soften up
the area? I guess what I’m trying to say is what does the staff say about this?
Mr. Patty: Well, the staff slightly favored approval. Let’s say it that way. And
that was based on several things, several different considerations. One of which is,
it’s definitely an area in transition. It probably doesn’t conform to the standards for
the same type of zoning that occurred -- the same type of development that occurred
on the other side which is multi-family and single-family attached, detached on small
lots, probably doesn’t fit that quite as well, and so the question is what is the best use
of the property? And you know, zoning is not a science. I mean you’ve just got to
weigh the issues and make a decision. In this particular case, like I said, I think the
staff slightly favored approving it with the conditions, thereby setting a precedent for
other similar uses, like beauty shops, other similar uses with conditions. Now if this
was an area that was all single-family residential houses on individual lots, no, we
would not be making that recommendation, and I don’t feel real comfortable with it
here, but I think if you consider all the facts and balance the interest, I think it’s a
valid recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I believe Mr. Hooper passed out a site plan. I
have not had an opportunity to see it. I would like to see that. My concern is, Mr.
Flanagan, are y’all going to remodel this building? Or come in there and build a new
building?
Mr. Flanagan: It’s going to remain.
Mr. J. Brigham: The building is going to remain?
Mr. Flanagan: There is not much interior work that would have to be done for
a beauty shop.
Mr. J. Brigham: So it’s basically going to remain as a residence? Are y’all
removing walls? Any or none?
Mr. Flanagan: Only as necessary to move [inaudible] for folks to sit in, in an
open area. Chairs to sit in.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you wanted to address the body?
Mr. Mays: On the proposed amount of space that we take coming down
Alexander Drive, how much is that [inaudible], in terms of how much we’ll be taking
in terms of right of way?
31
Ms. Smith: [inaudible] if I’m not mistaken with what we’re dealing with here -
-
Mr. Mays: That could change.
Ms. Smith: It’s approximately 100 foot nominal on the right-of-way along
Alexander. Currently we have about, I believe it’s a 60 foot right of way width on
this particular property and on both properties in that area, the houses sit back around
80 feet or more from the existing right-of-way line, and so in that front yard we’d be
taking somewhere around the 30, 40 foot mark.
Mr. Mays: That answers my question.
Mr. Mayor: You need to think about it for a moment?
Mr. Mays: Yes, I’m just wondering does that start another situation that is not
on the agenda today, but I think we are someone in the mix of this. I don’t think
anybody has any false illusions that that road is going to remain the same width that
it’s in right now. That’s going to change. But I’m just wondering in terms of -- this
th
kind of reminds me of the one we did in reference to the zoning at 15 and Wooten
Road. Mr. Beard, you mentioned a few minutes ago about what we change and what
we don’t change. And I have to be fair on any side of town. I think if we’re looking
at this, we really need to kind -- and I don’t want to penalize the gentleman in terms
of his property because obviously he sees this, too, in terms of what’s coming. But
then again, if you’re on the other side of that equation, is everybody else leaving or
are they prepared to leave at this point? And then somewhere in the middle of it is
the name of progress in terms of what we’re going to take, and if it’s that much space
that we’re fixing to take, possibly that large a percentage of it, then I think we need to
maybe back this darn thing out and look at it in terms of fairness of not only where
you’re dealing with the petitioner and trying to help him, but if you’re going to come
along there, we’re not just going to take the property on the one we change, we’re
going to take it from everyone that’s down through there, and whether or not
somebody is going to want to change that to having 15 feet of front yard or not, and
then where do they move? I’m kind of like Steve a little bit there. Are we going to
leap-frog in terms of what we’re doing or maybe we need to back out and maybe get
all the property owners in there and sit down and come to them with some type of
conscious decision and say this road is going to widen, you know, what’s in this mix
that maybe you all would like to do as a group? Because if it’s coming down through
there, and you’re going to be looking at grass in one season and two seasons later you
can reach out and touch a car, I agree with the gentleman, you may not be able to
throw that ball that far, but if we widen down through there, you’re going to be able
to basically clean somebody’s windows with your arms when you stick them out your
front door at some point of time in there. And that’s the only thing I’m saying in
terms -- Tubman Home Road was the same situation, with the area that you and I
have now, Marion. We looked at that at Southgate. Maybe it’s one of those things
32
that if we’re going to change it, we need to back it out and look at the whole area in
there and maybe sit down with the neighbors, Mr. Mayor, and say comprehensively
what would you maybe like to do as a group in here? Do you want to stay and us
taking that much right-of-way as a possible proposal or rezone it and give you a
chance to get out, deal with it, but then if you up the zoning in terms of it being
commercial, because what’s going to happen, we take it, quite frankly, nobody is
going to come in there and buy a house from those folks. To live in. You are going
to basically have it in some other means. So it gets to where you are going to damage
somebody either way in this whole deal.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to say something, Teresa?
Ms. Smith: Actually we had a public information meeting on Alexander Drive
about a year ago, I guess it was. And of the persons, the homeowners that are in the
six to eight single-family homes that are there, if I’m not mistaken, about six of those
homeowners attended that meeting, representatives of it. And in the conversations
that we had, we had no outstanding issues raised when we explained to them the
amount of property that we would be acquiring and the revised distance that they
would be from old Alexander to new Alexander, because the houses sit so far back
from the road. I mean the depth of the properties is -- all of them are greater than 300
feet from Alexander. And so in the meeting that we had and the conversations that
we had, focusing on those single-family residences, because that was a particular
concern to us and we were looking at how we would be aligning the road in that area,
because they would be most greatly impacted.
Mr. Mays: I apologize. I thought you said a hundred feet.
Ms. Smith: I’m sorry?
Mr. Mays: I thought I heard a hundred feet in there somewhere.
Ms. Smith: That would be the total width of Alexander. We would only be
acquiring somewhere in the neighborhood to make 30 to 40 on that side. We have 60.
We’d be getting another 30 to 40 from them to make a total of 100.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Jerry Brigham, you have a question?
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, sir, I’ve got several questions. On this site plan, there
shows a number of parking lot spaces. About how many chairs are going to be in this
beauty shop, do you anticipate being in it?
Mr. Flanagan: About three or four, sir. That parking area, I made a mistake
when I spoke to you, Mr. Mayor. It’s a gravel area.
Mr. J. Brigham: It’s a gravel area?
33
Mr. Flanagan: For parking.
Mr. J. Brigham: But it will have approximately how many parking spaces
then?
Mr. Flanagan: How many you need for three or four chairs and people who
work there.
Mr. J. Brigham: If you’ve got three chairs, you need an operator and a client.
That’s six parking spaces. Are we talking 10 or are we talking 20?
Mr. Flanagan: It’s too small to handle.
Mr. J. Brigham: The other thing I’m concerned about, what kind of -- I don’t
believe there is any sewerage on that side of Washington Road. How are you going
to operate a beauty shop with no sewerage?
Mr. Flanagan: Use what’s already in there as far as what’s in existence.
Mr. J. Brigham: I would be concerned about that. I know a beauty shop takes
a massive amount of water and all, and how are you going to dispose of that water,
and I don’t think this is a flood-prone area, but if you’re using a septic tank, I don’t
know the size of your septic tank, but if you are washing a lot of hair and all I would
think you would be using a good bit of water. And I have a concern about that.
Mr. Flanagan: You know, most of the water runs out of the septic system and
it doesn’t [inaudible]
Mr. J. Brigham: But you’re also in clay and it don’t percolate probably too
well, either. I have a concern. That’s why I’m asking the question.
Mr. Flanagan: They would probably have to either increase the septic system,
plus another filter system [inaudible] similar to that, as you would with any business,
to make it acceptable. That might be one of the things, one of the reasons that it was
written down here, the limitations, was because of concerns like that, rather than
something a little more commercial like a car wash or something like that that would
use up a lot of water resources.
Mr. J. Brigham: The other concern that I’ve got is how quickly -- is this a
rezoning or do you plan on operating immediately upon approval or is this something
you’re trying to get approved and wait to operate?
Mr. Flanagan: Operating upon approval.
34
Mr. J. Brigham: Upon approval? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any other questions? We have a motion to approve
with the condition that’s written in the caption. All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion fails 3-5-2.
Mr. Mayor: It’s a no action.
Mr. J. Brigham: Is that a failure or a no action?
Mr. Mayor: No action.
Mr. J. Brigham: So it stick with us for a while then?
Mr. Mayor: It will be back in the next meeting unless it’s reconsidered during
this meeting. Let’s take up Item 49, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 49: Z-00-72 – Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Elaine Mitchell requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1
(neighborhood Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the
intersection of Poplar Street and Bleakley Street (1501 Bleakley Street). District
5
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, would you give us the background on this item, please?
Mr. Patty: Mr. Mayor, I was talking to Ms. Smith. Are we on 49?
Mr. Mayor: 49, yes, sir.
Mr. Patty: This is a tract on Bleakley Street near the railroad. It’s within the
Bethlehem neighborhood. While there are other commercial uses across the street,
this is an interior block. It’s an area that the non-profit 30901 has designs on and I
believe, according to our Chairman, that there are plans for that neighborhood and the
staff Commission felt that a commercial spot zone in that area would be detrimental
to the revitalization that has been planned and therefore we recommend denial. There
were no objectors.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Ms. Mitchell? All right. Are there
any objectors here today for this item? Okay, Ms. Mitchell, would you like to address
the Commission, please?
35
Ms. Mitchell: Yes. I have lived in the area for like 13 years and I watched
over a period of time that the people, when they move out of the houses, the houses
went down. And it came to a point where I had to move myself, but I didn’t want to
lose my home and watch it go to nothing because that’s what most of the houses did.
And being a single parent, I desired to keep my home and use it, utilize it as a
business. I was approved for a one chair salon in 1998, but because of the desire to be
able to do more than just work in the salon and the type things I like doing, you know,
working with the community, helping the elderly or what have you, I thought that this
would be a good area to be able to help like the elderly. There are a lot of elderly
people that live in the Sunset area, which is Cherry Tree now, and then the youth be
able to work in conjunction, like the church people. But my desire is to utilize it as a
salon. It wasn’t to interfere with any of the other residences and from my looking
into it, I cannot see how it would interfere with anyone or a non-profit organization
because there is a church down the street. I had talked with the pastor and shared
with him my desires and they don’t have an objection against me, and the neighbors
in that area, they welcome the idea of having a salon there. I don’t want to see the
home go down. I would like to keep it and I would like to utilize it for the up
building of the neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Are there any questions? Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: It’s my understanding it was turned down from Planning. Is
that correct?
Ms. Mitchell: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. H. Brigham: You want to expand it more? You don’t live there?
Ms. Mitchell: No, well, my desire is to utilize the home as a salon, but I’ve
even given thought to even possibly even live there as residential and business, and
what I was going to do is utilize the back side of the house -- I have some pictures
here of what it looks like. My back yard is large enough for the parking lot spaces
where it would not interfere with anyone in that area. Across the street from my
house is like an abandoned house, and then next door to that is a home. And then
there is another abandoned house. A lot of these houses are just trashing looking and
I really would like to see the area built up and I would like to be a part of that as well.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry, do you have any other questions?
Mr. H. Brigham: No, that’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, you had a question or a comment?
36
Mr. Colclough: I was just going to ask what the business is going to be used
for. Beauty salon.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Marion Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’ve got a couple of questions. I know where this property is
located at and I am in support of business coming in that area and trying to do
something. I realize that is a residential area. I’d like to ask the lady is there any
complaints or any petition against you doing that?
Ms. Mitchell: No, sir. I have a letter from Sam Davis, Pastor Sam Davis, and
also have some of the neighbors on that main street, when I approached them about
the salon they were happy about it. They welcomed the idea. And over there in that
area, some businesses, I mean, what I desire to do is to be active in that area to help,
since I’m a part of the ministry, I guess I could say. I have a salon on Broad Street,
it’s called The Salon Beautiful. I am limited there in the things I could do and desire
to do in the ministry. I would like to have a part of that possibly non-profit, like one
Monday, one weekend, Sunday and Monday out of the month to take women that
have been abused or mistreated and be able to treat them to free hair service, nail care.
These are desires that I have, but I need the facility to be able to do so. And because
being a single parent, I do not have the things I need to get a large facility or
whatever. But my home is there. And that’s where I desire to do this, to be able to
work with the community as well.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: George, I notice on the backup it appears that the staff originally
recommended approval of this with certain stipulations. Is that correct?
Mr. Patty: I believe that is correct. The Chairman and some others felt
strongly that this is an area that is not suitable for any sort of conditional zoning, that
the future of this area is definitely residential and efforts are underway to improve the
existing housing, which is fixable.
Mr. Bridges: Is that part of the area that’s going to be done with ANIC?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Bridges: It’s not? Okay.
Ms. Mitchell: I was just wondering. I have some pictures of some of the
businesses that’s around in that area. It’s a nearby grocery store, sits on the corner of
Tutt, and then there is a Hair Structure Salon building and then there is a Tutt Avenue,
some kind of wash laudromat, and I mean I can’t see how what I’m doing would
37
interfere with I guess the city or whatever. I mean I could see this being an
improvement.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had something?
Mr. Williams: I’m supporting again, like I said, of this young lady and what
she’s -- her efforts. Right across from her, if you want to find a sight for sore eyes, is
a large business and building that’s being addressed at this time by [inaudible]. There
are no objectors. And there are a lot of houses, a lot of the area [inaudible] in that
area that looks really bad, and I think a beauty salon would bring some welcome to
that area, just to be fixed up around there. So I’m strongly in support of what you’re
trying to do in that area, and I’m going to vote to see that we pass it.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make a motion, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve with the stipulations .
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Williams: With those stipulations that’s distributed in the back, the
backup.
Mr. Mayor: Is that in our backup or the Planning Commission backup?
Mr. Bridges: The Planning Commission backup, Mr. Mayor. I brought a copy
with me.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s get the Clerk a copy so we can have that for the record.
Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I was going to make the motion, but she still didn’t answer
the question of -- you have one chair now, are you going to add some more or what
are you going to do?
Ms. Mitchell: My desire is to be able to have the ability an assistant. Right
now I have two assistants that work with me. I would like to have at least one or two
other licensed stylists that will work with me, because what I want to do again is to be
able to, like one day or weekend out of the month, be able to take women, like I said,
that have been neglected or abused, and minister to them, so to speak, or to help them
feel good about themselves, you know, work through the church or whatever, but I
need the help, the assistance to be able to do it, and if I lock myself into not being
able to have help, then that would limit the growth of being able to do that, it would
limit me from expanding in any kind of way.
38
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, would you read the conditions into the record that
were contained in the backup from the Planning Commission meeting that are being
incorporated into this motion, please?
Clerk: Number one, that a solid fence be erected on the south property
line in the rear yard to provide a buffer for vehicle parking and that any sign
necessary for the operation be allowed only on the Poplar Street side in the side
of the rear yard.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll put you on the list. Mr. Colclough, did you want
to --
Mr. Colclough: I just wanted to ask a question that Commissioner Bridges
asked. Do you have one chair or are you intending to add some more chairs?
Ms. Mitchell: I would like to have a total of three chairs.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams again.
Mr. Williams: I’m kind of confused again. Mr. Beard done rubbed off on me.
That buffer you talked about -- have you looked at this? I mean [inaudible] about the
honest, about the buffer, what the buffer consists of? I mean I don’t want to put it in a
box of saying we can do it and she not know what this criteria is to meet the code or
meet the standard that we are placing on her. Are you in agreement with what Ms.
Bonner just explained?
Ms. Mitchell: What I would like to do is introduce -- this is a contractor that I
have from Custom Building Mortgage Company and he would like to explain to you
about the parking.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the question Commissioner Williams asked goes to the
wall that is stipulated in there that would be the buffer.
Mr. Speaker: Does it have to be brick?
Mr. Mayor: Whatever it says. Mr. Patty, how do you interpret that? What’s
your standard interpretation on that condition?
39
Mr. Patty: Two conditions. Let me say this properly and answer Mr. Bridges’
question. Staff recommendations have to be written three weeks before the public
hearing, and there are occasions when things come out after staff reports are written
but before the hearing that have to be taken into account, so there are occasions when
we vary from the written staff report at the Planning Commission and this is one of
them because to me, this effort of the 30901 was unknown at the time the staff report
was written, and it was only brought out by the Chairman of the Planning
Commission at the meeting. But to answer your question on the stipulation, the front
appearance of the home would not be changed. Staff recommends approval subject to
the following qualification, a solid fence be erected on the south property line of the
rear yard to provide a buffer from the vehicle parking. That would be a six foot solid
board fence or board equivalent.
Mr. Mayor: A wood fence, you say would be acceptable?
Mr. Patty: Solid wood fence, yes. Any sign of operation would be allowed
only on the Poplar Street side. That’s the street that faces the commercial area, which
is across Poplar Street, which is the dividing line between commercial and residential
property.
Mr. Williams: That’s fine, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to make sure that we
didn’t put her in a box, that we approved something that she is not able financially to
do right now, so as long as we got an understanding and know it’s a wood fence and
something you can do, I’ve got no problem.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Willie Mays?
Mr. Mays: And I can vote for the motion that’s on the floor. I just wanted to
ask George something a minute and to the petitioner, too. Cause I want to try and
help you with it, but I’m also concerned, and I think many times when a person wants
to do something positive, good people will try and help them, and I think in terms of
your supporting letter from Pastor Davis in reference to what your particular
profession is, there obviously is no objection there. What we do have to be concerned
about, though, is when we change zoning, particularly on precedent zoning, was there
any question, George, in reference to -- I know even on the previous one, even though
there was no action on it, you all did a reversionary situation on the zoning. Was that
considered in the condition, and I guess what I’m getting to now is while I can
support where you’re going with your B-1 in reference to doing this particular
business, is there any problem if it’s such that maybe you want to, if other
development does come in that area, and you’ve been partly victimized from the
standpoint that there has been a lack of development, red lining, you name it, to non-
improvement in that area, but if say in the course that you cease to do business there,
is there a problem with that reverting back to the residential zoning? And I guess
what I’m getting to is I have lived long enough to know when Beulah Grove bought
the [inaudible] property and turned it -- B-1 can also turn into a disaster if you move
40
out to a point and it’s still there as B-1, and I think we should be concerned about that.
And I’ll support with yours, but if there is any objection to you, on reverting on the
zoning, going back to your original, if you cease to do business there or if it’s not sold
for the same purpose. Because B-1 covers a lot of different things. I can support
your going in with the beauty salon. What I’m saying is under B-1, you’re selling it
to somebody who wants to be put a convenience store there. Then I think the church
has a different problem to deal with at that point, because then you’ve got the
convenience store and step two gets into whether or not we’re going to grant
somebody an alcohol license and then they’re back into the red door business again.
Ms. Mitchell: I don’t have a problem with it reverting, because again, like I
say, I tried renting the house out in Section 8, and people when they find out it’s in
that area they don’t want to even rent the house. But I don’t want the house --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, if she’s going to live in there as she says and conduct
her business in there, could she get a home occupation?
Mr. Patty: Home occupation beauty shops are limited to one chair. That’s
what she’s currently operating with now.
Mr. Mayor: So she’s --
Mr. Patty: She’s already got that. She can’t exceed the one chair with a home
occupation license.
Mr. Mayor: And she wants to put additional chairs in there. Okay.
Mr. Mays: I think it would protect her, too, from the standpoint of
encroachment of zoning if she had the condition. We wouldn’t get into a point of
where somebody else wanted something of saying we set a precedent and then we put
something next to it that would even be arbitrary to what she’s trying to do.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to amend the motion to put that stipulation on
there that it would revert back to its original zoning if it ceased to be used for a beauty
shop?
Mr. Mays: If the maker of it would accept it.
Mr. Mayor: It’s got to be accepted by the body. Would you like to make
that amendment?
Mr. Mays: I would.
41
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion to include the
stipulation in there, the additional stipulation? None is heard so it’s accepted by the
body.
Clerk: She wants some clarification. It can continue to be a beauty shop?
Mr. Mays: Oh, yes. If she sells it to a hundred people down the road, it can
continue to be a beauty shop, but what I’m saying, what we don’t necessarily need is
for that to be abandoned in a B-1 zoning and then it’s left up for grabs for anybody
else to come down there, and then we’ve got to team up Beulah Grove again to fight
to get stuff out that we got out ten, five years ago.
Mr. Mayor: As long as it’s a beauty shop. That’s the intent of the stipulation.
Mr. Williams: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor to
approve with the three conditions that have been enumerated during the debate. All
in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much.
Ms. Mitchell: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see, Mr. Findlay, I think you’re next.
Mr. Findlay: Thank you.
Clerk: Item 50: Z-00-73 – Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from James E. Goodman requesting
a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH
(Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the east right-of-way
line of Kissingbower Road a distance of 710 feet, more or less, south of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Darlington Drive and Kissingbower Road
(1862 Kissingbower Road). District 5
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, if you would come to the podium and give us the
background on this.
Mr. Patty: This is a 1.1 acre tract that consists of three separate lots, one of
which has frontage on Kissingbower Road. It’s had mobile homes on it for a long
time, possibly -- the aerial photographs we looked at aren’t conclusive -- going back
42
to prior to 1963, which would mean some of the mobile homes would be legal, not
conclusive. Like I say, the aerial photography was inconclusive, so I can’t tell you it
is or it isn’t. The petitioner has recently bought the property and wants to replace the
mobile homes, wants to replace the manufactured homes on the property. These are
ancient manufactured homes, with new model mobile homes and the Commission
was asked -- he came to us to ask to make that switch, and at the time that he did -- I
might have to go a little deeper. In 1980, the zoning ordinance was amended to try to
get rid of some of the existing manufactured homes that were in inappropriate
locations. The zoning ordinance was submitted to state that mobile homes were on
individual lots in place in 1980, legal non-conforming uses but it further stated at the
current locations, provided however that said manufactured homes could not be
altered or expanded in any way, unless it conformed to zoning. And at the time, for
some time after 1980, after the ordinances was amended, my staff and License &
Inspection did allow manufactured homes to be replaced one for one, which I didn’t
feel from time to time was in the spirit of the language in the ordinance. And
sometime between the time the current owner of this property bought the property and
the time that he placed new manufactured homes on the lot, he came to us -- it was
some time between those two times, rather. We had a situation similar to this where
there were manufactured homes in a location that I felt was inappropriate, probably in
somebody’s back yard or something like that, and I went to the County Attorney and I
asked him for his opinion on what this meant, whether or not existing manufactured
homes should be allowed to be replaced. His opinion was that they should not be. So
the policy changed on the interpretation of this section of the ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you are saying the homes had already been replaced?
Mr. Patty: No, at that time they had not been replaced.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Patty: But between the time, I believe, Mr. Finley correct my memory if I
am wrong, between the time this gentleman bought the property and the time he chose
to place these new mobile homes on the property, that policy changed.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Patty: So he bought the property thinking that he could put these new
mobile homes on there. He stuck them out there and then he came to us for the
permits and the policy had changed and we had to tell him he could not have the
permits, the property is zoned Residential, it’s got single-family homes on one side
and a park on the other side. It’s got nice homes in a subdivision across
Kissingbower Road. It’s got houses on Kissingbower Road adjacent to it. And the
only way to resolve the situation was to rezone the property to R-MH and allow one
manufactured home per lot if that were accomplished. But I think if you went to the
area you’d see that these manufactured homes are not consistent with what’s in the
43
area and are not appropriate in that area, and to allow this rezoning would have an
affect on some adjoining properties on toward Milledgeville Road where there are
other manufactured homes, similar uses, that are carryovers from the 50’s and 60’s,
and we just think that you should deny it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Are there any objectors to this petition
who are here? Please raise your hands. If you are an objector, please raise your hand
so we can count your hand. Thank you.
(16 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: The petitioner is here? Mr. Findlay, I assume you represent the
petitioner?
Mr. Findlay: I do, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: What would you like to tell us about this?
Mr. Findlay: Members of the Commission, I candidly don’t even know if it’s
appropriate for me to stand before you and ask for this. I think history will bear me
out that mobile homes have been there since 1960 or thereabouts. They have been in
their present posture since that time, and the mandate that my client now get a type of
license that is a zoning permit is unthinkable when in fact he was here long before the
zoning ordinances that we are now having to abide by and he has not found himself
being a poor neighbor to these people, contrary to what they perceive. If I may, I start
out by saying that in 1960 or thereabouts, the County Commission at that time
[inaudible] Planning & Zoning permitted the division of this piece of property into
three parcels. Parcels A, B, and of course the home piece where a residential house is
situate. This piece of property, as Mr. Patty may have alluded to in your notes, is 700
feet or thereabouts from Milledgeville Road. It’s buffered nicely to the north by
Minnick Park. I think that’s important because when you look to obstruct the use of a
person’s piece of property, I think you can do it through the police protection that all
of you should use to protect all the citizens. Here, I would suggest to you, there is
nothing in the record whatsoever to indicate that anybody has been injured, molested
or in any way they have felt that they have not been able to use a public park because
of its connection so very close to this piece of property. Now when you do this, you
are actually attempting to take this piece of property from him and obstruct the use of
this piece of property through the use of an ordinance, an ordinance that was not in
place when this piece of property was laid out for the very purpose for which it has
been used since 1960. I find that to be unconstitutional in its very being, that is that
you are using an ordinance that was passed after the placing of the units there and
you’re relying on that ordinance for the purpose of preventing him from doing what
he had every right to do. Now effectively what he is asking to do does not change the
configuration that has been used since 1960. There is evidence -- I think Mr. Patty’s
office will certainly concur -- that the units there today were units that were there in
44
1950. I think Mr. Wall can recall [inaudible] in law school when a person moves next
to the cannery, who is he to complain of the cannery? In this instance, the
subdivisions that are in place were probably in place almost simultaneously with this
development of this piece of property that he has used since 1960. It’s not as if he has
come in and infringed upon them and has come into their neighborhood. Now is
that’s the only thing that he should rely on, I think not. In this case he came to the
county government, the agency, Planning & Zoning, and he spoke to people. And I
think it’s undisputed that Mr. Bob Austin said I did speak with him, I told him if he
bought this piece of property that he would be able to change out one-for-one the
units that are there now in exchange for more modern units, that is, units that have a
date of 1975, 1980, etc. They told him yes, they could in fact do that. The people
who live in these units, regrettable, they are people like you and me in the sense that
they, too, have families. They’ve got children. But I say regrettable in the sense that
they do not have the income that possibly the objectors may have, or for that matter,
the Finley family may have. They pay $200 a month, a meager sum [inaudible] to
live where they are living, to provide them with a roof over their heads, but it is in
fact a roof over their heads, ones that each one is very proud of. Now I mentioned
those words police protection earlier, and the City of Euclid is a case that goes back to
1926 and it talks about the public health. There has been no showing that anybody’s
health has been injured. When we say public health, I think we’re also talking about
police protection. We’re talking about safety. There hasn’t been one showing that an
ambulance can’t get to this piece of property, that a fire truck can’t get to this piece of
property, or for that matter, that any of these neighbors have been affected by this.
[inaudible] talk in terms of the general welfare. These people would have you
suggest that because these units are there, that their property has been diminished in
some way. I have gone to the public records, our tax archives, and I’ve looked at
them. I took a piece of property on Darlington Drive, as close to this property as I
can, and I looked at the appraised property value on that and I can’t quote you the
map and parcel but I don’t think it’s as important as to say that it was $63,000 in 1968
and now it’s at $69,000. I went across the street to a [inaudible] subdivision. I
looked at comparable sales and in 1973 house sold for $15,000 and in 1983 the same
house for sold for in the $30,000’s and in 1997 it sold for in the $60,000’s. So to
suggest that their property values are being diminished by the location of these units, I
don’t think that that’s the case. And so I approach you on two fronts. Number one, if
we can work out what we could call [inaudible] satisfaction or compromise or what
have you, my client has agreed that he will not put in any more units than the total
number of units that are there today. In addition, he would fence off the back part of
this piece property and 75 feet down one side so as not to allow that portion to be seen
from Darlington. He would also fence off the front side so as not to allow it be seen
from Kissingbower. In doing that, he would actually put himself in there. He would
also agree that what you are doing that I perceive to be unconstitutional, that is a
limitation and violation of his due process rights, that he will not sell this to someone
else, although he would like to pass it on to his children as an inheritance to them. So
he is standing here saying that on the public record, it will recorded that this man has
agreed that what happened in 1960 and he will accept that in exchange for being able
45
to get and place in three new units in exchange for three units that he is required to
take out. I think that is a fair compromise considering that this man has paid valuable
money to find himself in the location that he is, he relies on the city fathers through
their agents to do what he has done. This piece of property has been used as it’s
being used today long before any of the neighbors came forth and joined into that
subdivision. I think it was ’63 or thereabouts that Darlington may have been
developed. Having said that, we will have reached a compromise. More than that,
we don’t think we can be treated fairly [inaudible]. That’s all I have to say.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. It’s always a pleasure to have you with us. Mr. Wall
always gets a good legal lesson when you come and appear before us. Are any of the
objectors wanting to come forward and speak? Yes, sir, if you’d come up here and
give us your name and address for the record. Yes, sir, and if you’ll follow.
Mr. Lion: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, gentlemen. I have some pictures that I
would like to show. I am [inaudible] Lion, I live at 2704 Lakewood Drive, which is
in the vicinity of the matter under discussion. I was representing the neighborhoods
at the meeting last week and we had a petition of 90-odd signatures opposing this
motion, this petition. There has been a lot of discussion about when, what laws were
in effect and what happened at that time and so forth. I have not seen a copy of
anything that transpired. However, assuming that what has been presented is factual,
it still does not change the bottom line, and that is, if this is approved as a trailer park,
it is legalizing something that many years have gone by in existence, is illegal. And I
don’t think that’s the proper thing to do, for any governing body. The trailer lot as it
exists today is highly visible from Kissingbower Road. Several years ago, it was not
visible because of trees and underbrush on the front side of the park, Minnick Park
[inaudible] edge of the park. In the past year, a little over a year, $69,000 was
allocated for improvements for Minnick Park. Part of that improvement was the
establishment of a chain link fence around the perimeter of the park. Also, clearing
underbrush and some trees along the southern border of Minnick Park adjacent to this
lot under discussion. When the underbrush and the trees on Kissingbower frontage
were removed, it opened up the trailer lot as it exists today. Also, the tax record
indicate that there were four trailers on that lot in 1999 and four this year, 2000.
There are actually five trailers on that lot. I think the main reason for people
objecting to the action under discussion is that the trailer park in its present condition
and in its present [inaudible] is a blight on the community, and it could be any
member of the Commission’s neighborhood and I’m sure you would be standing
where I am today voicing the same objection that I’m addressing. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Our next speaker, please, if you’d give us
your name and address for the record.
Mr. Houck: Simpson Perry Houck, 2712 Edward Drive, 30904. I built my
house in this area in 1950. There’s been some talk about grandfathering some of
these mobile homes, house trailers. When I moved in that area, there were no house
46
trailers. There weren’t any for years and years. I’ve been informed by the Planning
& Zoning Commission that the License & Inspection department of the city is
responsible for enforcing the zoning laws. Somebody has been extremely lax. I don’t
know who knew who, but if I had had a mobile home placed on the lot that I live on, I
know my tail would have been pulled in a long time ago, and if I buy a lot in any of
the neighborhoods that you councilmen live in and put mobile homes on it, in the
back yard or anywhere around it, as long as that lot is zoned for R-1A, it wouldn’t be
allowed to stand. So for some reason, the person that owned this lot prior to Mr.
Goodman buying it, got by without this property being inspected properly and being
required to have single-family residences on it. [inaudible] the same way. I was
hoping the possibility the City Attorney would be on our side to check into licensing
and inspection of this area. Also, I think Recreation Department would object to
having some trailer park like this against, right adjacent to any park and area. I just
am astounded that taxpayers pay to have their own property monitored. I as a
businessman had to buy a city license and be inspected, and as a property owner, if I
want to make any modifications on my house I have to go by the Inspection
Department to pay a little fee to have it inspected, but these people have gotten away
with murder for years, and it’s entirely wrong. It’s illegal. Thank you. The
Inspection Department should help us.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, a question concerning the legality of this. If he’s just
replacing trailers, and I’m assuming these are rental units obviously, and he’s just
taking an old one out and putting another one in, I understand newer, and this has
gone on for years and years, how can we now enforce a new policy in that regard? It
sounds like what we’re asking him to do, even if he weren’t replacing them, we’d be
telling him to move his trailers off of that lot.
Mr. Wall: I think we’ve got to deal with two different situations. One, let’s
assume that those trailers were put in after the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1963.
Then as a part of the zoning ordinance that as put in in 1980. It specifically stated
that they could continue there, but they -- and you could not replace those, and my
interpretation of that 1980 ordinance was that you could not replace them because the
idea behind the non-conforming use is that they would remain there for a period of
time but if you always allow them to be replaced you would never get them out of the
neighborhood. And so I think the intent of that provision about being altered or
expanded may not be altered or expanded, it’s that they would be phased out of that
neighborhood. And there is no provision in here for them to be replaced. Now let’s
take the pre-1963, let’s assume as Jimmy Findlay is arguing, that the mobile homes
were there prior to 1963. Now George has not found any definitive proof that that
was the proof. He commented about the aerial photographs. It’s not definitive that
they’re there. This gentleman is apparently saying that they were not there prior to
1963. I guess that’s a fact question. But I was sitting here thinking, I would dare say
that any mobile home that was put in there, if it was put in prior to 1963, was
47
probably 8 or 10 feet wide. That probably was not a 12-foot wide and was probably
45, 48 feet long. Now I think you could probably come back if it’s truly a non-
conforming use if it was there prior to 1963, I think he might have a valid argument
that he could come back and put in a 10 x 45 or 8 x 45 or whatever the dimensions
were, but he couldn’t come in and put a 12 x 60, because then again, you’re
expanding the unit, the property. So you’ve got two different situations, but I don’t
think it’s been proven that it was there prior to 1963, and then I think if you have a
right to -- it is not a non-conforming use at that point.
Mr. Bridges: So one of your arguments is that, one of the two points you’re
making is that our ordinance of 1980 says it cannot be replaced?
Mr. Wall: Cannot be altered or expanded in any way and I interpret that to say
you cannot replace them either.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Steve Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wall, the question is why don’t we
take the time to determine the facts in this instance to determine whether these are
pre-1963 zoning ordinance uses or not? Why can’t we? We talked about assume this
and assume that and I know what assume makes out of you and me, but maybe more
me. Why couldn’t we do that and then have a determination on the facts of this issue
one way or the other?
Mr. Wall: I think that Mr. Patty has done that by virtue of looking at the aerial
photographs. They are inconclusive. I’m not sure what other records you might look
at. Obviously that’s an important fact and if there is some other record that any of
these parties know about that we need to look at, we should look at it. But basically,
all we have at this point, I think, are the aerial photographs to look at.
Mr. Shepard: I suggest to Mr. Wall that maybe you should conduct an
investigation to determine the facts so we can make a decision. It seems like to me
that’s a critical point. If these were existing, whether we like them or not, if they
were existing in 1963 I’d rather find out in this body rather than on the third floor
when we deal with the taking.
Mr. Wall: And I don’t mind conducting that investigation.
Mr. Shepard: If I’m in order, Mr. Mayor, I’d ask that this matter be carried
over to the next meeting and allow the Attorney to find the facts in this matter and
determine if this is truly a non-conforming use or not versus the point of the
enactment of the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning and Planning Ordinance.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
48
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Gentlemen, any discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a comment here. Mr. Wall, it was
legal advisor, who has advised us for some time, has told us point blank that Mr. Patty
has evidently checked and researched and what he’s come up with does not show us
anything other than what we’ve got here now, and his legal opinion is that we can act
on this now. Is that right, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: We can always -- when you’re talking about research, when
you’re talking about going back, and I take my hat off to my favorite Commissioner,
Mr. Shepard, who is an attorney and in his own right probably knows some
[inaudible] that we haven’t even looked. But I think we need to go ahead and vote on
this where we are together here now. We need to go ahead and make a decision on
. If I can make a substitute motion, if I’m in order, that we
what we’re going to do
deny this.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion, and that is to deny the petition.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to deny it. Mr. Finley, you wanted to say
something with respect to the motion?
Mr. Findlay: I would like to speak in opposition to Mr. Williams and make
sure I perfect the record as to matters which I feel must be in the record.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you’re not up here to debate the Commission now, to speak
in opposition to what a Commission said.
Mr. Findlay: I’m not.
Mr. Mayor: If you’d like to enter some information in the record, please do
that.
Mr. Findlay: I think it’s of the utmost importance to my client to note that Mr.
Wall said the intention of the statute was the phase out mobile homes. To use a
statute to phase out a particular group of people’s right to have housing is in defiance
of the Constitution and lacks any type of due process. It is a total taking by the use of
a statute and doesn’t show that there is any need to do away with those modular
homes that were in that location. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional in its very
face, and Mr. Wall --
Mr. Mayor: You’re in here arguing law, Mr. Finley, and you need to do that?
49
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right, under advise of counsel, I’ll let you continue.
Mr. Findlay: Secondly, I would like to call my own client in that this body can
certainly hear hearsay. It is based upon Mr. Patty [inaudible] who was not a member
of employee of this County in any way, and Mr. Patty has said that he could not make
a definitive decision as to whether or not modular homes existed at a certain time on
this piece of property. To that end, I want to call my client and ask him what is his
history, as he understands this piece of property, to be able to put something in the
positive in the record as to his understanding, and he would have as much of a right to
make that statement as would Mr. Patty. May I proceed, Mr. Finley?
Mr. Mayor: I’ll allow you to proceed. Go ahead.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll let you perfect the record today, all you need to.
Mr. Goodman: When I purchased the units from Dr. Thompson, he told me
they had been back to the early 60’s, 1960, 1961. When he gave me the plats to the
property, this is what he gave me at the closing and said the units were on the
property after the broke it up in the 60’s.
Mr. Mayor: You purchased the property when?
Mr. Goodman: April, 1997.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Wall commented that some of these units were a particular
size. Would you agree that you do have some certificate of title or bill of sale
indicating that these units were there?
Mr. Goodman: Yes, the tax records should show from the tax bill we paid on
the mobile home what year it is, what size it is, for 1862 Kissingbower Road, 10 x
40’s, 10 x 50’s, and 10 x 48’s. I think there is one 8 x 48 there. It should be on the
tax records downstairs.
Mr. Findlay: [inaudible] brings up another point.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Findlay.
Mr. Findlay: [inaudible] this particular instance. By following the directions
of the county employees, Mr. Bob Austin and of course Mr. George Patty alluded to
it, that my client elected to remove these units from there and replace them. Now his
removal of these units was after he made inquiry of the county. Now it’s the county’s
position, I would suggestion, that now my client may not be entitled to replace by
50
putting back the same units on this piece of property, and to that we would object as
well. We would like the Commission to make a decision separate and apart from the
rezoning that we are, in fact, entitled to put the same units back that were there, that
is, the 1950 vintage units if that is necessary.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Wall, you wanted to comment here?
Mr. Wall: The only comment I would make is that if in fact -- I don’t see an
inconsistency necessary, Mr. Shepard, that there be some research done, because the
petition is to rezone the property. If it is a non-conforming use, then it is not
necessary to rezone the property. That would be an administrative decision as to
whether or not to allow the placement. And so the denial of the rezoning of the
property does not necessarily close the issue of whether or not there is a non-
conforming use and we will take a look at that, because that would not require a
rezoning of the property.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, if the rezoning is denied today and you find that it’s
not a proper use and he’s got to remove the trailers and he can’t come back here and
ask for rezoning for a year, is that right?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: So it in effect shuts him down, then?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: To the gentlemen here, are you saying that the tax record will
show where you’ve been paying, downstairs, the tax record?
Mr. Goodman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: I was just informed by Planning & Zoning there is no tax
record but a license fee. Is that right, Mr. Patty? The thing of the tax record and the
license fee. What’s the difference for me, please?
Mr. Patty: Okay. Mobile homes in the old days were taxed as personal
property rather than real property. Like car, boats, like that. There wouldn’t be any
real estate records for mobile homes on that property. I think the only thing you can
expect to find would be utility records, payment of water bills, utility bills, some other
documentation or rent receipts, something like that. You’re talking about 40 years
ago.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham?
51
Mr. H. Brigham: I understand that most of the people who are against this
have also lived in that area for a long time, and I think that that ought to be considered
somewhere down the line. Now whether that’s legal or by taxes or whether we go
into that, I think that ought to be looked at. But certainly I think that we ought to
realize how these folks probably feel, that they’ve lived in that area for a long time,
and some, most of them have been there since before that time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? You had your hand up a moment ago?
Mr. Cheek: I think some of the things, Mr. Mayor, that I wanted to ask have
been addressed. I guess looking at the pictures, anybody that owns property and
leaves it in the condition I saw in some of those pictures, is certainly providing a
blight to any community.
Mr. Mayor: You wanted to add something?
Mr. Houck: There was [inaudible] dwelling, permanent house on that property
from prior purchase. How can the county justify that number of pieces of living
quarters [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Houck: Also, I think the purpose of the Planning & Zoning board is to
make the county a better place to live and a better place to work. [inaudible]
improvements.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. I think you’ve made that clear. We have -- yes,
Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Wall, clear my mind, because it’s a little foggy right
now. What I understand what we’re voting on is whether or not to rezone this to
mobile homes. We’re not voting on whether or not this is pre the zoning ordinance of
1968, is that? ’63. So if this was preceding the 1963 zoning ordinance, where do we
stand -- and I thought this was what Mr. Shepard’s motion was, in effect?
Mr. Wall: Well, it was. My point is if it’s a non-conforming use, he does not
need to get a change in zoning. He could come back and if he’s got an 8 x 45 foot
mobile home that was there, then the 8 x 45 foot mobile home could remain on that
piece of property because it was there prior to 1963, without a change in the zoning.
At such time as he sought to replace that with a 12 x 60, then he would have to come
back a year from now to apply for a rezoning, because it’s an enlargement of the use
of the non-conforming use.
52
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay, Mr. Wall, let me ask the next question. An 8 x 40, if
he replaced an 8 x 40 with an 8 x 40, is that a change?
Mr. Wall: No. I think he can do that as a non-conforming use.
Mr. Findlay: May I comment, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We’ve talked this thing to death. Let’s go ahead.
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m confused.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion on the floor that we need to deal with. Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote for denial on the substitute
motion, but what I want to ask Jim, is this contrary to every other non-conforming
aspect that we deal with? I guess what my problem is is that once, say for instance
we deal with the denial today, we turn it down, you’ve got objectors, they leave, they
go home, and then we find administratively that something predates and then we -- I
hate to use this term, Mr. Mayor, but we back door it to a point that some similar
mobile homes pop up of the same size. You know, we’ve been turning down things
that once ceases stuff ceases to be, that it goes away, that’s basically just it. We’re not
allowing stuff that’s non-conforming, stuff goes out the window and then we come
right back and then allow that window of opportunity to creep back in again. And I’m
just wondering is that different or is that ordinance that so states that allows
something to happen, because when they’re in a non-conforming state, businesses that
have been closed or when they cease to be, and I know I’ve made this argument in
reference to Olde Town and some other things, that it existed and continued on and
we dealt with certain technicalities because some things changed that they could no
longer be back in business, they could not longer operate. So I’m just wondering if
we, if this is something that applies only to the mobile homes, or are we dealing with
non-conformity based on certain types of things as they occur.
Mr. Wall: No, sir, we’re not dealing with anything specific to mobile homes,
except with the exception of the 1980 ordinance specifically dealing with mobile
homes, but that’s not the issue that we’re addressing right now.
Mr. Mayor: This deals with those five mobile homes that are on that property
today.
Mr. Mays: But what I’m getting at, Mr. Mayor, is the fact that when
something is in a non-conforming status, it ceases to be. I mean [inaudible] matter of
adult entertainment establishments. We established certain things, we grandfather, to
a point that when they go out, then they cease to be. If the trailer ceases to be, then
you tell me that you replace that with another one? I mean --
53
Mr. Wall: No, sir. If the trailer ceases to be, the non-conformity is over with.
Mr. Mays: But what I’m saying is you’re say you can replace it with the same
size. If you’ve got a such and such dimension by such and such dimension, you go
buy another one the same way, you can put that one back in there and that’s how you
handle it administratively.
Mr. Wall: Recognize you’re dealing with a non-conforming use that existed
prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in 1963. If you had a
gravel pit somewhere -- well, that’s not a good example cause you can’t replace that.
But if you had a commercial building there that was in an area, if it existed there prior
to the zoning ordinance being adopted, absent some other provision in the zoning
ordinance that would deal with it, then that would remain a commercial structure
beyond that. So you’re talking about replacing with a like kind.
Mr. Mays: It burns down, goes out of business, close the store down, and we
let them automatically open back up. I don’t think so. I’m still going to vote for the
denial. We’ve done some differently than that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, can you answer the Mayor Pro Tem’s question, Mr.
Patty?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. The ordinance allows only certain types of business for
non-conforming use to be expanded or repaired. It also states that if any non-
conforming use ceases to exist for a period of two years, it forever loses its non-
conforming status. As far as the conditional zoning we’ve been doing for the last ten
years, that just is an effort to firm that up. In those cases where we’ve tried to soften
up the zoning to make uses fit together, that just is further softening it up so that that
use ceases and immediately loses its non-conforming status, rather than wait a two
year period, where some other business might go in and replace it that you don’t want
that situation. So any non-conforming rights are lost after two years of non-use.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: I just want to get a point where there was a period that you could
deny [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: We need to move along. We’ve got a substitute motion on the
floor.
Mr. Mays: Is anybody living in them now?
Mr. Goodman: Yes.
54
Mr. Mayor: All of them? All of them occupied?
Mr. Goodman: Four of them are occupied.
Mr. Mayor: Briefly, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, if we vote to deny this, he can still have the trailers that are
the same size as he pulled out of there, is that right?
Mr. Wall: Well, those that have not been moved, those that are still there, on
site, haven’t been moved, whatever, they still would remain as a non-conforming use
under the 1980 ordinance, regardless of whether they were there before 1963. So they
would remain there. Now if he has pulled one off the foundation and moved it over to
the side of the lot, it’s my opinion that he can’t put it back.
Mr. Findlay: That is bait and switch. I apologize for the interruption.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Findlay. Mr. Cheek, final word and then we’re
going to vote.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I heard something earlier about non-existent tax
records or no records of taxes being paid on those from years past.
Mr. Wall: Change in law. There’s a different way mobile homes have been
taxed through the years.
Mr. Cheek: Is there no way to track it back through the system to see?
Mr. Wall: No, because it’s like a car. I mean you paid it on personal and you
don’t know whether the car was sitting in your driveway or my driveway, so we don’t
know whether that mobile home was sitting on -- where it was sitting.
Mr. Cheek: I hope we can find some definitive information on an exact date.
And Mr. Mayor, just to relate what was said at a town hall meeting a week ago
Monday from mobile home owners, they expect mobile homes to be treated just like
homes and I dare say that a lot of people would not have trouble locating mobile
homes if they would keep them neat and clean and this is not the case in these types
of rental parks or whatever you want to call them. They’ve become eyesores and I
have several in my district.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. We have a substitute motion on the floor
to deny the petition. The original motion was to carry this for two weeks and Mr.
Wall do some additional research. So we vote first on the substitute motion to deny.
All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
55
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: This petition has been denied.
Mr. Findlay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: In view of the hour and the business we have remaining, we will
take a five minute recess and then we’ll come back and resume our agenda with Item
55. 58. 58. We’ll go with 58.
(Brief recess)
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, what we’d like to do is go ahead and take Item 58.
Oh, okay. We have a delegation of employees from our Public Utilities Department
here for a presentation. Who is our presenter? Mr. Oliver. Executive role. Is that
Mr. Oliver out there? We got his attention. Mr. Oliver, we’ll go ahead with our
presentation for Public Utilities employees.
Addendum Item 1: Recognition of presentation of award to the ARC
Utilities Department Water Plant by the Georgia Water and Pollution Control
Association.
Mr. Oliver: Yes, Utilities has gotten a lot of focus and a lot of criticism.
However, we’re pleased to announce that the Georgia Water & Pollution Control
Association has presented to the Augusta Utilities, Augusta Richmond County Water
Plant, an award for 1999 for complete and consistent drinking water permit
compliance. We are one of 15 jurisdictions in the state to receive this award, one of
15. And obviously there are a lot more than that, and I think that we could be very
proud of that accomplishment and I’d like Mr. Hicks and Mr. Brantley to come
forward. Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: All right. Item number 58, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 58: Approve paving of Scott Street from Orange Ave. to the
Northern boundary of the property owned by Mr. Jackie Hayes upon payment
of $4,250 from Mr. James Lewis and agree to permit Mr. Lewis to complete
extension of Scott Street improving same with gravel rather than asphalt upon
proper provision for drainage termination Scott Street in a cul-de-sac at his
property line.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
56
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Gentlemen, any discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Just briefly, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Frails is here and he’s included in our agenda book,
something that he had Mr. Wall had negotiated, and I think this is a win for his client,
Mr. Lewis, and it’s a win for the folks who are residing on Scott Street, particularly
the Hays family, and it’s a win for this government because we’re subsidizing the cost
of paving within existing policy by recognizing this is an exception to our unpaved
roads paving list, due to the payment of funds by Mr. Frails’ client, Mr. Lewis, in the
amount of $4,250. I would ask the Commission to approve it.
Mr. Oliver: And I would ask that the motion be conformed to what’s listed in
the book under Item 58. I think that spells out the details, such that there won’t be
any misunderstanding.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I don’t have any problem doing this on a 50/50 basis, but I think
we need to establish the policy to do that. We have an existing policy now which
says that the county, for somebody that wants to come outside the road paving list, in
other words, get out of order and go ahead and have their street paved, the county will
pay for the third if the property owners or anybody else will pay the balance of the
two-thirds it will cost to pave that street. So this is -- and we just established that
policy, that policy was basically established because of the problems on Scott Street.
It hasn’t been that long. It’s been six months, eight months, something like that. So
this would be an exception to an established policy. I’m afraid if you get into
violating policy in one instance, you’re going to do it in another. I’d rather see us do
something like establish the policy at 50 percent rather than a third and just go ahead
and do it in that regard.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. In follow-up with Commissioner Bridges, my
question would be even if we establish a policy that’s going to be a 50/50 or third or
however we do it, in committee we talked about moving up and so forth. My problem
57
is that the people who still don’t have the money to get on the list or get to be moved
up, going to get further pushed down if we do that. If we do go to a 50/50 deal will
our list still remain the same as we have it now? I’d like to know a little bit more
about that, if we’re going to do that. Cause I still think that people who can afford to
do, going to have their street paved when people who can’t afford it, it’s going to be
still, you know, riding around on a dirt road.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, we might say that since we’ve had the policy I
don’t believe we’ve had anybody come in under the cost-sharing to get a road paved,
have we?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: There hasn’t been any rush to the door to take priority.
Mr. Oliver: But in the event somebody did, they would come to the top of the
list.
Mr. Williams: And we had this in committee back some time. I just got here
and I was trying to follow Mr. Shepard cause he was trying to train me. And it came
up. It came up about someone wanting to come in and add some money to do some
things to get their street paved before somebody else did. And at the same time, I
remember that we talked about this, what about the people that can’t afford it, and if
we’ve got a list, we need to go by the list, not by whether people can afford it. If
that’s the case, only the people that’s got money is going to be able to do the things
and we need to look out for all the citizens of this county.
Mr. Mayor: Coach Shepard, did you want to say anything? You have your
hand up.
Mr. Shepard: Well, the emphasis there -- I’m trying, Mr. Mayor, and we all
are unfinished work, I guess. But I’ve been very aware of the priority system
developed by the unpaved roads list, Mr. Williams, and have reiterated that to people
that would be the beneficiaries of this. The only way that I am really supporting this
is because we have an opportunity here represented by the facts of this situation that
we have a third party willing to participate in this, so I don’t think we have violated
policy, I think what we have is an exception and we should take advantage of these
particular facts. The people that can’t take advantage of these exceptions will
basically have to look, as I understand it, correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Goins, to the
unpaved road portions of the SPLOST, which I think is about $7 million --
Mr. Goins: $7.5 million.
Mr. Shepard: $5 million?
58
Mr. Goins: $7.5 million.
Mr. Shepard: $7.5 million, so that who can’t afford it would have to look to
SPLOST funding. This is simply a way to do something practical in the facts as
presented out on Scott Street.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to Mr. Wall and then we’ll come back down there.
Mr. Wall: Let me comment insofar as the payment by Mr. Frails’ client for
paving a portion of Scott Street. And understand the only portion that is being paved
is down to the previous dead end of the dirt road. Mr. Frails’ client doesn’t own any
property on either side of that road. He owns property at the end of Scott Street, so he
is paying half of the cost that would pave the road down to where it previously ended,
then it would be gravel from the point where the pavement ends down to his property,
where the cul-do-sac is.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Wall, I appreciate that. And I’m in support. I’m not
saying we shouldn’t do this. My thing is we talked about changing the rules, if this is
a special exception that’s one thing. But I don’t want to get into changing the rules
where if somebody else comes then we going to put somebody else down. When we
do that, that’s going to create a trickle down type syndrome of the streets going to get
paved or who got the money. If that’s going to be a special exception type thing, Mr.
Shepard has said, I think Mr. Bridges said it, maybe we should change our whole
policy. I don’t mind the special exception. I’m for it. I think we ought to do that.
We’ve got somebody coming forth and want to do something who has been neglected
for a long time. And until this financing can come in, nobody is going to do anything.
But now we’ve got some financing and money makes the mare trot, we understand
that. So with this money, I’m going to support a special exception, it’s fine, but I
don’t get into changing the guidelines that if you’ve got some money or somebody
come up with some funds that we’ll go ahead and put you on top of the list and those
people who don’t have support, don’t have any money, get pushed down. That’s all
I’m saying.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to support this only because I think we’ve
got a bad policy on the books already. So my conscience won’t hurt me to do this. I
didn’t support the one-third, one-third, one-third deal. I lost that battle and I lost that
one with my lucky tie on, so I got whipped good that day. But I think it was a bad
deal to do. I look at that in terms of services. I stated in committee and I stated even
when we adopted this, that I looked at that, particularly those of us that maybe been
for years in terms of fighting battles and the justice system to a point that you start
dealing with services on a certain basis of who can pay and who can’t pay, you look
at the idea of service districts, and then you get into the question of everything else,
whether it’s justice, whether it’s fairness, whether it’s water, whether it’s anything
59
else, who pays and they get. So I have a problem with what we established anyway.
So this one doesn’t bother me doing that, but I’m kind of reminded and I want you all
next time you see the commercial -- I forget which company it is -- but when they talk
about how you going to pay for your future and the pension system, and the folk are
sitting around in there and they’re going to hit the lottery and that’s how they are
going to live forever. Well, I look at doing this the same way. If you haven’t had a
person in this situation that we were able to deal with in a legal entanglement to a
point of where everybody is coming out happy, the person there in terms of where
you are going to take the funds, you going to deal from that, and you’re going to deal
with paving the road, you’re going to deal with somebody whose family in terms of a
possible health situation that’s in there, I think it’s still, and I want to state if for the
record like I did then. I think, Mr. Mayor, I feel the same to the point that we’re
addressing health issue to a point that it’s such a necessity we do it only because we
were able to work out a situation out of somebody else’s money where we forced
them to a wall. We ought to have been able to do it in the beginning, and the ranking
system to where those roads are was an atrocious situation. You’re talking about a
subdivision and area to a point of where it was put at low priority at the very
beginning, you’re talking about one that’s been left out and neglected in every sales
tax that we’ve ever had, you’re talking about the same area where we said roads and
streets didn’t even exist and yet when folks got ready to leave county government, all
of a sudden they found them. You’re also talking about a situation of a subdivision
where people donated property to this county that had been there for decades that had
been promised recreational use, only to find out to a point where we start counting up
some money, that all of a sudden it got to being property that we couldn’t develop on.
So in this case, my conscience doesn’t both me to violate a bad policy which we
shouldn’t have adopted in the very beginning. And I just wanted to put that in, Mr.
Mayor, for the record. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Are we going to be asked at some point to come in
and pave this part of the street that’s going to be gravel? Are we going to have part of
the street asphalt and part gravel?
Mr. Wall: You’re going to have part of the street that is asphalt, yes, sir. Then
the very end of it will be a gravel portion.
Mr. Mayor: And then who is going to pay for that?
Mr. Wall: That will be a future decision. It will either be under --
Mr. Mays: That will be one, Mr. Mayor, were it hits the lottery again. You
have to be lucky, catch somebody against a wall, [inaudible], take the money and do
it like we did this one.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any other comments or questions? Mr. Cheek?
60
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I myself am opposed to special exceptions. We have
a fixed pot of money and a fixed lot and when we allow people that are not on that list
to come in and impact that pot of money, even if they do make a contribution, that
starts unfunding the people that are at the bottom of the list, and we have several
roads and areas that perpetually stay at the bottom of the list and never make the
priorities of the year. We have accepted this road. We shouldn’t have in the past.
And to answer your question, if we follow trends established by this government,
we’ll be the ones paving that at some point in the future, to somebody’s benefit at
taxpayer expense, and I’m strictly opposed to it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve this as written out in
the caption in the book. Let’s go ahead and take a vote on the motion to approve. All
in favor of approval, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard: I’m not voting. I have property on that street.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Mr. Beard not voting.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see. We’re going to move over to the addendum agenda
before we get into overtime tonight. Pick up item 2.
Clerk: Addendum Item 2: Motion to approve $6,000.00 expenditure for
the purchase of materials for replacement of stage sections from General Fund
contingency Account or Promotion Account.
Mr. Oliver: This is for primarily materials that are going to be used by our
people to repair stages that are going to be necessary to support the Arts in the Heart.
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Bridges: Where is the funding source under the motion?
Mr. Mayor: One of two sources identified here. You need to include in the
motion whether it comes from Contingency or Promotion account. Do you have the
balances of those accounts, Mr. Oliver?
Mr. Oliver: Contingency, I do. Promotion, I don’t recall.
Mr. Kuhlke: I believe it’s in there.
61
Mr. Oliver: I don’t believe there’s a balance on Promotion account. I think
there’s, to my knowledge, there’s sufficient money in the Promotion account but I do
not know how low that draws that account.
Mr. Bridges: It says here that [inaudible] in Finance has found the money in
the Riverwalk Promotion account.
Mr. Oliver: There’s no such account. There’s no such thing as a Riverwalk --
that was erroneous and that’s the reason it came to you. She was thinking that the
Promotional account that you all set up was for Riverwalk and that wasn’t the case.
Mr. Cheek: So is that the amount in the Promotional account?
Mr. Oliver: No. That isn’t the amount currently in that account.
Mr. Beard: It can be considered Promotional.
Mr. Oliver: There’s no question that it would be a valid --
Mr. Beard: So I would ask that it come from Promotional instead of
Contingency.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion then to approve this with the money coming
out of Promotional account. Any further discussion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I want to ask this question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Randy, do you have any idea of what the balance is in that
account?
Mr. Oliver: No, I do not.
Mr. Kuhlke: The only reason I ask that question is I think we all got a letter
from the Arts Council in regards to the activity that they are going to have in Atlanta
where they are going to be requesting funds and what they’re going to be ask I would
think would come out of the Promotional account. I want to make sure we’ve got
some money in there. And that was $7,500.
Mr. Mayor: We have some money that is left over from the Census
Committee. I think there should be about $20,000 left in that. We have money that
was not spent out of the Lobbyist account earlier this year. I think there is some --
Mr. Oliver, if you go back through some of these miscellaneous accounts I think you
will find some additional funds in there to do some things.
62
Mr. Oliver: My suggestion would be to roll the Census money over. I think
you’re going to use part of the Lobbyist money, depending upon whether another item
is approved, because my understanding is she would start about October --
Mr. Mayor: Right, but I don’t think you would use but about half.
Mr. Oliver: I think there is $12,000 to $14,000 in that account currently.
Mr. Williams: So we can use the Promotional account and go ahead and get
this voted on?
Mr. Mayor: For this item today?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. No further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please
vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and take up Item 3 on the addendum agenda.
Addendum Item 3: A Resolution expressing support for the creation and
development of the Augusta to Athens Technology Corridor.
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion: All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back over to Item 55.
Clerk: Item 55: Consider appointment of Interim Fire Chief. (No
recommendation from Public Safety Committee August 7, 2000)
Mr. Oliver: I would like to reiterate that apparently some representatives at
least at the newspaper were confused. This has nothing to do with the permanent
selection of Chief and neither one of the two Deputy Chiefs meet the minimum
qualifications for the job. I have relayed and I have talked to both of them about that.
I think we need to look for a Chief who has an intimate knowledge of EMS services,
because I think that’s going to be a critical issue we’re going to have to address, either
63
on a contractual basis or with an eye toward bringing that all or in part in-house. The
schedule for that is the applications currently close August 31. I would expect that I
will complete the initial screenings to some six, eight or ten candidates by the first
week in September, and that the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and myself would thin
that list down about two weeks after that to three candidates, who would be interview
by the Mayor and Commission and would expect that to occur either the end of
September or the first of October. Recognizing that in all probability, a candidate
could not be here for 30 to 60 days, I think realistically you’re talking of a start date
of some time between about November 15 and December 1. And I think that’s our
current time table. I see no reason why we can’t meet that, but I felt you all should be
aware of that information.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, do you have a recommendation? I think that was the
question that was raised in the last meeting of the Commission, that you come here
with a recommendation for what to do in the interim. Is there an individual that you
recommend to this board as interim fire chief or do you have some other way that you
prefer this be handled until that period of November 15 to December 1, when a new
chief is on board?
Mr. Oliver: One option may be to just acknowledge the chain of command
and let the chain of command do it. I mean, Chief Few had a chain of command that
was set up, because obviously he was not here all the time. He attended conferences
and things of that nature or was on vacation, and so the Fire Department had to
continue to operate. If you all would like, I’m prepared to make a recommendation
based upon my discussions with Chief Few and what he related to me privately,
which was slightly different from what he related in a public setting.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Contrary to some of the beliefs, I think it is necessary that
someone be in charge over there. I think we’ve seen other departments where we’ve
limped along and let everybody kind of go along by themselves and not be, knowing
who is in charge, and I’ve talked to the Administrator early on and I think that was his
suggestion at the beginning, that maybe someone should be in charge over there.
These are discussions that I had with him. And that was the reason it was brought
before our committee, the Public Safety Committee, because it was a point that a lot
of us felt like someone should be in charge of the Fire Department. The other thing
that we considered in doing this, and the proposal was in the committee for that
person to be in charge because as the Administrator just stated, there is a chain of
command and as Chief Few was out of town or he was into some conferences, there
was a senior person existing over there. That is the person that we recommended.
We also recommended that person simply because that person has indicated by letter
and by verbally that he was not interested in applying for the position of Chief. So we
64
saw no reason why we shouldn’t make that recommendation and we made it to the
committee that Chief Deputy Scott become Interim Chief until a Chief is selected.
And it has been stated by the Administrator on previous occasion that both deputies
that we have over there, I don’t think they qualify at this time to solicit the position of
Fire Chief of this county, so that was the rationale behind that and in that Chief Scott
did not want this, the permanent position, he was also acting as the top administrator
over there at this time, we thought this would give him some leverage to handle this
I
into a Chief is selected, and so that’s why we were at this point, and at this point,
would like to recommend Chief Scott as the Interim Fire Chief.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: It’s a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Williams: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I understand that the motion is coming from a committee, but
myself as a Commissioner, I’d like to know what the recommendation of the
Administrator is.
Mr. Oliver: Based on my conversation with Chief Few and his conversation
with me, my recommendation would be Mike Rodgers.
Mr. Kuhlke: Then I make a substitute motion that we appoint Mike Rodgers.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me, if I can, possibly shed a little bit of light on what I see and
reality shaping up to be. Quite frankly, a fight or a non-fight. It doesn’t have to be
fight. I made that comment at the end of the Public Safety Committee last week. I’m
not a member of that committee, of asking the Administrator to make a
recommendation. Quite frankly, I had hoped that the Administrator would make a
recommendation in that committee meeting or prior to it. I think if we’re going to
65
share things, whether they are discussed publicly or privately, and I think this is
something maybe that you gentlemen may want to at least postpone from the
standpoint -- for two reasons -- today. If this is shaping up the way I think it’s going
to be, one if we’re going to get into what is being revealed, you’re talking about two
people that work well together in that department, that I don’t think they have a
problem with each other. I think if it’s drug into the general public and the perception
that this is a political fight, per se, then that’s what it is going to become, we make it
that way, and then we hand it to them to work it out. Mr. Oliver, is it not true that one
of these Deputy Chiefs -- you mentioned about one of them did not want -- Mr. Beard
may have mentioned it in reference to one of them not wanting to apply for Chief.
But did not also one of them state by letter that he did not also want to be considered
for Interim Chief?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct. You are correct, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I think then, gentlemen, in light of that, we’re talking about a
decision of one person that’s not going to apply. Let’s dismiss about what, about
whether or not they can qualify for certain standards at this point. Because this
government with six votes changes anything. We can decide, if we so do, to go
outside of the realm that is set on the minimum standards. We may decide that we
don’t want to do that. That vote has not even taken place yet. There was even talk, to
a point, Mr. Mayor, that we might even express to the fact that whoever was selected
Interim Chief, be it one of the Deputy Chiefs or somebody else in that department or
outside of that department, that we ask them to do that in the vein of not even
applying period. So it would give that department a chance of neutrality, a chance to
function and to take some of the already-existing politics out of it. Now if we’ve got
on board here one person that is not going to put his name in the hat for permanent
Chief and another one that doesn’t want to take it on a temporary basis, I think that
the Administrator -- it’s incumbent upon him to sit both of these folk down and even
to this point decide whether or not one of them wants to be that one. If you’ve got on,
you’ve got a nomination out there and in all fairness to Bill, and I like both people
that are out there, but I think if you’ve got a person expressing the fact that they want
to be considered for Chief, regardless of what we, our standards are on this day, then I
think that you’re doing somewhat of a disservice to a point of at least the
Administrator hearing from that person as to whether or not they want to even be
considered, because what this gets us into, then, is the fight that I’m talking about,
Mr. Mayor, that there doesn’t have to be a fight. This could have possibly been even
resolved to a point where you had two folk, one that wanted to be one and one that
didn’t want to be, and make that decision. Now I think if you’ve got somebody that
wants to still enter their name, then you need to even get a clarification to a point of
finding out whether that person knows that they would Interim Chief if they were
selected, and Interim Chief only, their name is not going to be considered, not only
from the standpoint of where it may be on the minimum standards, but also on the
point that you may not select and move up to Interim Chief. So I think there is a little
bit to a point of some downplaying that could be done on this, to a point of creating
66
further division in something that doesn’t have to be that. And that’s just my
observance from the standpoint of it. You know the feelings of both the men, and
when we make the critical decision over it, we can jockey back and forth and come up
with a 6-4 vote, either way, or 5-5 and break the tie, no decision, but they are the
people, the men and women of the Fire Department, who are going to have to work
together and run that department until somebody else is selected to run it, and I think
that’s what we ought to put first and I think Mr. Oliver ought to put both those Deputy
Chiefs in an office, explain what that situation is. If that changes amongst the
gentlemen concerned, then let that change be known. But it’s confusing to me, and I
think it ought to be confusing to some of y’all if you got a letter stating one thing
from one, you’ve got a letter stating something else from another one, and the only
thing we’re doing basically here is playing a beauty contest of who gets the most
votes, and you are still putting those folks who have to work together. That’s just my
comments on it, Mr. Mayor, and I think it can be cleared up to a point of he runs the
day-to-day show, he will have to be in charge of that department like it is in other
departments, sit them down, run that, get some clarification, and bring it to us in a
better manner than we are doing this, jockeying it back and forth, when we know
what the folk have said and if something changes. I don’t think that [inaudible] fair
where you put it on Carl in one place and another one where you stick Mike in an
awkward position based on what he said if you’re going to take him out of that
picture. Whether you select him or not, he still has a right to apply. Even if he’s
kicked out in the first round, he’s still got that right. Now if he wants to reserve that
right by you doing it, then why is this coming into the picture? I think Randy needs
to handle some of that, Mr. Mayor, and bring it back to us in a better way than is on
this floor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Randy, who is the gentleman that does not want the Interim or
the permanent position?
Mr. Mays: That’s incorrect, Mr. Bridges. He did not say he didn’t want the
permanent position. One of them does not want the Interim position, but he is going
to apply for the permanent position, and that is one of the people that you’ve got on
the floor right now to be nominated. In all fairness to that person, there needs to be
some clarification of that. I think --
Mr. Bridges: Let’s have some clarification on it. Randy, who is that doesn’t
want either position?
Mr. Oliver: Well, I’ve only heard -- I’ve received a letter from Mike Rodgers,
and the only thing that letter says is that he’s not interested on an Interim basis. My
verbal understanding is that Mr., that Carl Scott does not want on a permanent basis.
I want to reiterate, though, that it would not be in the best interest of this government,
and I hate for something like this to be done in a public arena, that neither one of
67
these gentlemen at this point in their career, in my opinion, are capable of the long-
range management of the Augusta Richmond County Fire Department. I think that is
critical because what we need again is to focus on certain things that Chief Few
started carrying forward and continue to do that.
Mr. Bridges: Commenting, too, Mr. Mayor, one of the problems I have with
the Interim, creating somebody as Interim is sometimes they become permanent. I
wouldn’t have any trouble with either one of these gentlemen really, if we would do
something like put a time schedule on the position, say 90 days, then we’ll know it’s
for 90 days, we’ll look at it again if we don’t have a person as Chief. But we’ve got
two positions in this government that have been Interim for four years now, so I know
that these positions become permanent, whether the person is appointed Interim wants
it to be or now. I mean so my true feelings on it, I don’t care which one of these --
my true feeling is I think we just ought to go by the chain of command and let Randy
handle it, but if we’re going to appoint one of these gentlemen, I think we need to put
a time limit when we’ll consider that Interim position again. I think it should be 90
days.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In follow-up to what Mr. Bridges was
saying, I agree. Mr. Bridges, we’ve probably got some people who have been in
positions for some time, and that goes back to Mr. Oliver, in my mind that that’s
something that is set up, a position is open, we advertise it and we do something about
it in a manly, in a time frame that would be acceptable to this government. I don’t
think that the Interim Fire Chief should be a long time and it’s going to depend on our
Administrator as to whether we advertise or whether we do the proper things and the
proper people to apply for that job. I’m like you, Mr. Bridges, 90 days seems like a
sufficient time. We knew this from months ago. It ain’t something that just
happened. It ain’t something that just dropped out the sky in our lap. We should
have been -- I don’t know how far we are. Maybe Mr. Oliver can tell us where we
are. But we should have been advertising, we should have been doing this thing, and
we should have had an Interim already. Somebody needs to be in charge. When
you’ve got a department that’s as big as that, the responsibility is going to have to fall
in somebody’s lap, and if you’ve got two or three people or if you’ve got two people
over there, making decisions, and all that’s going to create is more problems within a
department. And I’m like Mr. Mays. I think that we enjoy, we sometimes get
satisfaction out of seeing stuff go on, disrupt, rather than get along and prosper well
together. It shouldn’t have been a hard decision, not when a letter has already been
stated to Mr. Oliver, and I had verbal contact from Mr. Scott and Mr. Oliver just
confessed to the fact that he heard that he did not want it as a permanent position but
we put a time frame on it, then here we are talking about something that should have
passed up two months ago. We should have knew that the position was coming open,
we should have had somebody in line when the command, the department changed.
We should have had somebody to step right in there. This ain’t no game. These are
68
people’s lives. This is a department that’s very much having an impact on this entire
government and this entire city, and we ought to have somebody in charge, somebody
who we can call in to make sure that things are going right. Go back to Mr. Oliver
again, that’s the third time I said that. Handling the department. The department
head need to be responsible for what they doing. But if you ain’t got nobody to hold
responsible, then I guess you don’t have to do not work. But I still say that somebody
ought to be in charge and somebody should have been in charge, not just now, but
months ago.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further discussion on this? We have a
substitute motion on the floor. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just don’t want to beat this horse to death, but it really kind of
bothered me that here, I guess we’re going to [inaudible] again, but here a person has
been in charge for the last four years of a department, in the absence of the Fire Chief,
and we’re going to come up at the last minute and say that that, this person, I guess,
and I have to say that the Administrator is saying that this person is not capable,
because if he’s not recommending him, then this means that he’s not capable. And I
do remember what Chief Few told all of us, and I do believe this, that both of those
gentlemen were capable people and that they both had done a very good job in his
department. And I don’t think he made a choice of one over the other. And we may
do whatever we want to here today, but I think that in order to be fair again, and I
wouldn’t have made this recommendation, and the only reason I made it was because
Chief Scott told me, as he told all of us, that he did not want the position as permanent
Fire Chief. And I just can’t see the rationale and the logic of people saying that, you
know, he can’t run that department, and that’s what I guess we’re saying, that he can’t
run that department for 90 days or 60 days or whatever until we are able to find a Fire
Chief. I think everybody up here on this rostrum here feels that we need a first class
Fire Chief because Chief Few really set a standard for us, and most of your
firefighters will agree and attest to that. I think we can look forward to a first class
Fire Chief that we are going to select in the future, but I do think based on other
departments that have been neglected to have a person in charge, we have seen
chaotic conditions in those departments. And that is the only reason that I am doing
this, that I made the motion, and I have no ulterior motive for this, other than I know
that that Fire Department needs someone in charge. And some of us have played
some very good games here today with recommendations.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Cheek had his hand up first. I yield to him.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. I remember hearing the same things
from Chief Few when the other two Chiefs were here, but also I remember him giving
69
-- it was kind of passive -- a passive recommendation for Chief Rodgers. The thing
about all this is we ought not to be debating this, especially if we have a letter from
one man that says he doesn’t want it and would rather shoot for the big position, and
someone that doesn’t want the big position. The whole bottom line, though, is this is
a poor way to do business and I’m very, frankly, disgusted that this appears to be
breaking down the lines that it does. We need unity in this Commission, in this
government, for the leadership of this city, and there appears to be -- God grant us -- a
better way at some point here in the future. We ought not to be beating this thing
around because whoever we approve now is going to have the shadow, a shadow over
them and it’s a shame in the Interim position because we need leadership now.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I made the substitute motion because I feel like that the Fire
Chief works for the Administrator, and I think we need to listen to what his
recommendation is. I wouldn’t have any problem if we stayed just like we are. And I
don’t understand why we don’t let this be taken care of administratively rather than
bringing it into this body and debated like it is, but my motion stands as I’ve made it
and my motion is based on what the Administrator has recommended.
Mr. Oliver: The rules provide for you all to select an Interim.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, did we select an Interim Public Works Director?
Mr. Oliver: We did not. We had three strong division heads and at that point, I
did not feel that was necessary because the three of them were distinctive.
Mr. Mayor: And that has continued to work well to this day?
Mr. Oliver: That has. I will say this, I don’t think that that is the way to go for
the Fire Department. I do not.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to do something I shouldn’t do. First
off, I’m happy with the Fire Department the way it is. I think that’s the way it should
be. It ran that way. Obviously we have had somebody in charge for the last two or
three months after Chief Few left. There has obviously been a chain of command and
I’m going to make a motion that we table this issue.
it’s obviously been followed.
I think it’s functioning within our rules, and [inaudible] at any time, and I make
a motion right now that we table this issue.
Mr. Shepard: I second that motion, if the motion is in order.
70
Mr. Mayor: Is that a debatable -- let me ask the Parliamentarian. Okay. We
have a motion on the floor to table this. It’s non-debatable. So all in favor of the
motion to table it, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: It’s not debatable, Mr. Williams. If you want to keep talking,
vote No.
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: So the issue is on the table and anyone can pull it off in the
remainder of this meeting as I understand the parliamentary procedure. The next item
is item 56.
Clerk: Item 56: Consider the appointment of Ms. Jean McRae as
Lobbyist for Augusta-Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, you know that earlier this year we appointed a
committee to pursue this. We have had a couple of meetings. We called in four
individuals for interviews. I’ve shared all their resumes with you. They subsequently
forwarded to us proposals. I’ve shared those with you. Additionally, there were two
other people who would have served us well in this position. I contacted them
individually and they said that they were not going to undertake lobbying efforts at
this time. And so I’ve discussed with the other committee members. The best
proposal seems to come from Jean McRae. She has the credentials to represent us
well in Atlanta if we so choose to have a lobbyist. Her original proposal was way out
of line with the budget we had, so she and I have refined it and we have one sheet of
options and her fee of $15,000. Essentially this is what I think we’ve intended to do
all along, that is have someone help us develop a legislative agenda here and to
pursue that agenda with the Delegation once we’re in Atlanta. So I put this back on
the agenda today to kind of keep the issue moving or bring it to some finality. I’ll be
glad to take it back and talk to anybody else you would like us to. We need some
direction from this point. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I notice that Ms. McRae’s proposal is
for a flat fee plus expenses.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Can we quantify that? I mean, we have a certain amount of
money left in the lobbyist account and theoretically we could have a fee of $15,000
and expense tab of whatever.
71
Mr. Oliver: I would suggest you cap it at a dollar figure.
Mr. Mayor: I think we could do. She would maybe come over here for a
couple of meetings before the session, maybe minimal [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Would a cap of ten percent of her fee be appropriate?
Mr. Mayor: We could easily do that.
Mr. Shepard: Do we have that kind of money left in the --
Mr. Oliver: Well, you probably pay half this year and half next year. Roughly
speaking, my suggestion would be to make it $15,000 with expenses not to exceed
$3,000. I think ten percent, based on mileage, she may stay over here a night or two
to meet with you all collectively or individually.
Mr. Shepard: I think let’s not have the expenses that would be the expenses of
her own overhead but her expenses that are directly related to this performance like
mileage.
Mr. Oliver: These would be directly reimbursable expenses that are provided
for under County policy.
Mr. Shepard: If I’m in order, Mr. Mayor. I move that we hire this lady
for $15,000 with expenses not to exceed $3,000 in both budget years. That would
be $1,500 this year and $1,500 next year.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Is that for the six months of this term of this
agreement, and so if we renew the agreement for next session next year?
Mr. Shepard: I’m looking at only $1,500 of her expenses during this
budget year.
Mr. Mayor: And $1,500 next budget year?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Oliver: This is October through April, according to her proposal.
Mr. Mayor: Did we get a second to that motion?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
72
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a second. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’m probably the only one up here [inaudible]
way that I feel about this. First of all, I understand what you’re trying to do because
you’ve been given a task to do, and I think this has maybe over the last three or four
years, I think we’ve started several years ago trying to secure a lobbyist and I think
Mr. Bridges put something in the budget for that. My point is, I guess, is that with the
Delegation that we have in Atlanta, what good is the lobbyist going to do up there?
Secondly, I know we’re talking about $15,000 plus expenses. Are we growing
another department, because I don’t see her working future for $15,000, so are we
growing another part of the government which will start probably, you know, when
we look around, we’re talking about $45,000 or $50,000 for a lobbyist. And I,
frankly, I just don’t see -- if I could see anything coming out of this, I would be glad
to vote for it. But I can’t see, with that Delegation that we have there -- you know,
half the time they don’t meet, and if they meet, we can’t get a word in or they are not
recognizing what you’re saying, and so why would we want to at this point pay this
money plus grow another department and all the other things that we need? And I do
understand where you’re coming from, Mr. Mayor, because you’re doing what we
asked you to do and it’s been on the table for a long time. But I just don’t see any
need of even considering this. We can use that $15,000 for something better than
what we are going to get out of what we’re doing up there. But like I said, I’m
probably the only one up here that feels that way, but I’m going to express it and I’m
probably going to vote No for it, because I just don’t see the need for it. But if
someone can convince me of the need for it, I’ll be glad to support it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Along those lines, I might say, the last
time Ms. McRae and I spoke, we are doing this with the understanding that we’re
going to try it this year and see how it works. This is no long-term commitment with
her at all. It’s strictly for this session and then we can re-evaluate our relationship and
re-evaluate our need for a lobbyist in general. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have to differ with my colleague. I think we
definitely need a lobbyist. If our Delegation is not -- how can I say this and be kind?
We need someone up there to press our interests and keep them near to the ears,
whispering in the ears of our Delegation and our issues near to their hearts on a daily
basis. Other cities doe this quite successfully. Companies do this. Political action
groups do this. I think it’s a step in the right direction. Even all of us as
Commissioners in our day-to-day activities sometimes get caught up and maybe lose
track of some of the things that we should focus on, and somebody reminding us like
a neighbor in the audience or a friend nearby or a phone call sometimes helps us to
remember things that we should, and I think that this, too, could be what someone in
the lobbyist position. It is certainly worth a try. We are early enough in this
Legislative session to go ahead and plan. We have some major initiatives we need to
push through on behalf of this city. It would certainly be a good trial for us to make
73
an effort at. And finally, Mr. Mayor, if McDonald’s can afford to have a lobbyist to
lobby for hamburgers, certainly I think the city of Augusta can have a lobbyist in
Atlanta to lobby on our behalf.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think you stated that this
would just be for this year?
Mr. Mayor: This session.
Mr. Williams: This session?
Mr. Mayor: This coming session.
Mr. Williams: And then after that we’ll look at whether or not it will be
feasible for us to continue or not? It’s not going to be a permanent position that we’re
locked into?
Mr. Mayor: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: Will it have to come back to this body of Commissioners to go
any further than this session; is that right?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. This agreement has a begin date and an end date on it.
Any further discussion? Mr. Beard, did you want to say anything else?
Mr. Beard: If that is included in the motion, I can go along with it.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, as part of the back-up. Beginning of October through
April.
Mr. Beard: But I just don’t want to see us grow another department, coming
up next year, talking about we’ve got to have another one.
Mr. Shepard: With the consent of the body, I think I was the maker of
the motion, I will include the end date and the begin date. The begin date and the
end date, I guess that should be, as stated in the backup.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that? Okay, we’ll include those dates. Any
discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, would you give me that beginning date again?
Mr. Mayor: October 1.
74
Mr. Mays: What I would suggest, and with that amendment being accepted in
the motion I’m going to vote for it, but this is not [inaudible] one thing we don’t need
to lose sight of is the fact that some of us have expressed this over and over that some
of the legislation that [inaudible], whether we agree wholeheartedly as a Commission
on it, that’s still up for debate. But some of the things that we need as a consolidated
government, and I think that’s the only way that we are going to be able to get some
things passed through a large General Assembly that the state of Georgia has, so that
we don’t get caught up in the Atlanta politics and then the politics of south Georgia,
as well, it’s not that many [inaudible] and I think it’s our best way in order to do that.
But I would suggest strongly that when we bring the lobbyist on that at our first
meeting and that we do it earlier, Mr. Mayor, than we’ve ever done it before, with the
Legislative Delegation, and that that person be there and that we establish that
relationship that they go in and provide our eyes and ears in that first meeting, she’s
there to point a [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: That’s the intent.
Mr. Mays: I heard and I expressed this to you, one of the reasons why I --
when a couple of controversial things came back to us this year, and I got the message
kind of indirectly that when we were raising sand about things locally and word came
back, well, you know they should have had a lobbyist up there. Well, I think that was
somewhat self-answered a little bit to a point, but I want to see us get off on the right
foot with them to a point where if we’re going to hire somebody that they be a part of
that team going in and that we introduce them as such and that that legislation that
we’d like to see passed, that is both coming from Augusta, as well as from our
professional associations that we support as a group, that we can accomplish that with
that person early on, and that even if we have meet more than our traditional one time,
and I know you’ve expressed this privately in terms of trying to make sure that we
have those type of coordinating efforts in doing so, and I just wanted to say that in
that observance that if we’re going to do that, that we may sure that hopefully we can
get together with them, even on more than one occasion on some of our needs here
locally before they get in there in January.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. No further discussion? We have a
motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion to retain Jean McRae as our lobbyist
under the terms outlined in the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 59.
Item 59: Discuss demolition of property located at 911 James Brown
Blvd. Funded from Sheriff’s Drug Seizure funds.
75
Mr. Oliver: Item 59 relates to a house that was seized as part of a drug
seizure. The Department of Housing -- and let me read it to you verbatim -- on
Friday, August 11, Vickie Johnson met with Lt. Partain at 911 Ninth Street at
approximately 4:45. He also had Det. Barry Davis with him. I asked -- and this is
Vickie Johnson -- Ms. Caldwell, the Augusta Task Force [inaudible] to meet us there.
We discovered a woman sleeping on the porch when we arrived. While Lt. Partain
and I talked, Det. Davis went in the house. The woman told us that Mr. [inaudible]
took [inaudible] and they give an address. I don’t feel it’s appropriate to share that.
Det. Davis said that no one else was in the house. At this point, according to the
Sheriff’s Department, no one is living in that particular property other than potentially
a vagrant, and we would recommend that the house be demolished. It’s owned by
Augusta Richmond County, and it was seized by the Sheriff’s Department and the
funding source for demolition of that would be drug seizure funds.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of
the motion -- Mr. Henry Brigham, I’m sorry.
Mr. H. Brigham: You said he had moved out of the house?
Mr. Oliver: They said he had but they’d been unable to contact him. That’s
what the email from Housing and Neighborhood Development said to me that was
relayed by the Sheriff’s Department. That is my understanding.
Mr. Mayor: He’s no longer there? Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
vote aye.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Item 60: Other business.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, I think the floor is yours now.
Mr. Kuhlke: Excuse me just a minute.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: You’re getting ready to go to Mr. Wall?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
76
Mr. Kuhlke: Under other business, is this an appropriate time to bring
something up?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, we could do that now. Take that up now or take that up
afterward.
Mr. Kuhlke: It’s really just a question, and I believe Mr. Beard chairs this
committee. I would appreciate it if he would bring back to this body some
information in regard to the progress that’s been made on the Law Department,
maybe at our next meeting, so that we can have an update on that. I think we hired
the lady a while back and maybe by that time we could get some type of a report from
you on that.
Mr. Beard: Okay. I’ll be happy to do that. I think I gave an update in the last
committee meeting and I’ll bring it to the body at the next meeting.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you.
Item 61: Legal meeting.
??
Discuss personnel.
??
Discuss real estate matter.
??
Discuss possible settlement of litigation matters.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I would request a legal meeting for the purposes -- to discuss real
estate matters and discuss possible settlement, give legal advice, and then discuss
personnel, which I did not put on there.
Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purposes stated by
the Attorney.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor? Is there any dissention to go into legal session? All
right, we are unanimous in this.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL SESSION 5:30 – 6:30 P.M.]
Item 62: Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit
of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
77
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we need a motion with respect to the affidavit.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on August 15, 2000.
Clerk of Commission