HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
March 18, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, March
18, 2003, the Honorable Richard Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Mays, Boyles, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek and
Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hons. Bob Young, Mayor; Hankerson and Williams, members of
Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Whatley.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk?
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD
Mr. Carlton Tod Thomas
Department of Public Works and Engineering (Construction Shop)
The Clerk: Mr. Carlton Tod Thomas of our Engineering and Public Works
Department, would you please come forward and join the Mayor Pro Tem here at the
podium, along with appropriate supervision, staff, supervisory staff, I’m sorry. The
Employee of the Month Selection Committee has selected Mr. Carlton Tod Thomas with
the Public Works and Engineering Department as Employee of the Month for February,
2003. Mr. Thomas has worked for the City of Augusta for over 14 years. Mr. Thomas is
employed as a property maintenance supervisor in the construction shop. He was
nominated by operations manager Steven E. Fowler, who gave the following reasons for
his nomination: Mr. Thomas supervises plumbers, painters, carpenters and all general
maintenance employees. He is willing to help in the development process of the total
quality management concept. He offers valued, constructive suggestions to ensure all
maintenance concerns are met throughout Augusta. Tod has a fine eye and the
experience for the little details that mean a lot in maintenance repairs. Tod has the ability
to keep his employees focused to the task at hand. He recognizes his employees’
problems and concerns and they are dealt with a timely, fair and consistent manner. Tod
coordinates the daily workload with operations managers to ensure that maintenance
concerns are met. He is a team player and employs the team concept in daily
correspondence with his employees. He knows the trades that he supervises and he has
the ability to interact with all other employees. He can be fully relied upon to get the job
done. I have to add that Tod will volunteer to work any weekends to ensure completion
1
of any maintenance repairs that have to be scheduled outside of his working hours. He
has received two letters of appreciation for working on his weekends at the Municipal
th
Building, one for the water damage on the 4 floor and the other for removing a partition
so that carpet could be installed to meet the department’s requested time frame and then
putting them back again oncethe work was completed. Tod was very instrumental in
helping the operations managers with the documentation for the RFP’s for the painting
and bridge work for the Riverwalk. Tod displays that attitude to make it happen. He is
also very acceptable to any training that is made available to him. Even when he’s off, he
calls in just to make sure everything is running smoothly. Tod is a valued employee.
The committee felt that based on Mr. Fowler’s recommendation and Mr. Thomas’
attributes, he should be awarded the Employee of the Month. Mr. Thomas has been
married 16 years to his wife, Sandra, and they have one daughter, Courtney. Would Mr.
Bo Fowler or Ms. Teresa Smith like to have anything to say?
Mr. Fowler: I’d like to add [inaudible] he is my right hand man and he works
with me day in and day out to ensure all things are done in a timely manner. [inaudible]
His attitude is a big plus. [inaudible].
(A round of applause is given.)
PRESENTATION: (Requested by Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Kevin Huffman
RE: Augusta Area Technology Startups – Opportunities & Obstacles
The Clerk: Mr. Kevin Huffman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Members of the Commission, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem and fellow citizens, Augusta has embarked upon a course to where we
have decided that we want to be a research center, that we want to bring business and
industry in the medical field and other research endeavors to this area. Today we are
fortunate to have with us a gentleman that has worked very hard through the years, I have
been fortunate to work with him at Savannah River Site on some project work, he’s an
outstanding engineer, and as a result of some of his engineering and some of the things
he’s encountered, he has become an entrepreneur and inventor that has decided that
Augusta would be a good place to do his business. Kevin -- and we both discussed this
and we both felt it very important to bring to you some of the obstacles. And let me
preface that by saying that there’s a lot of people in this city working very hard to make
Augusta a research center. We don’t, we’re not working together quite as well as we
should. What you’re going to hear today is what an inventor goes through trying to bring
a research project to the city of Augusta. I think this is an opportunity for us to both
listen and learn and hopefully to act in the future to help eliminate the bottlenecks and
roadblocks that inventors like Kevin have when he, when they bring things to the city of
Augusta. It’s important for us to get them from point A, which is the idea, to point B, in
the laboratory or in the facility that they need to begin this work, because with each new
2
invention, generally will come jobs and hopefully some type of production of the
equipment that they design and develop. And so we have a desperate need, while we
have this desire within our hearts, we have a desperate need to eliminate the obstacles in
front of Kevin and others like him to make Augusta truly the research center. We have
the elements but we’re not quite where we need to be yet. Kevin?
Mr. Huffman: Thank you, Commissioner Cheek. I thank you for the invitation to
be here today, and I’d like to thank all the Commissioners for your time and the
opportunity to come here and discuss small business economic development, especially
high tech small business economic development, with you today. In my endeavor as
[inaudible] in my work at SRS, I have come in contact with a lot of the resources in the
CSRA that are either directly or indirectly involved with economic development. And
the good news is, that I would like to leave you with today, is there are a lot of resources
out there that in some form of fashion or in some capacity, either directly or indirectly
can contribute to the success of a small business and especially a high tech small
business. The observation that I’ve made is that these resources, while they’re out there
and they’re available, there’s no overriding umbrella that really takes all these different
resources and focuses them in a coordinated effort to look at the big picture of economic
development that they can contribute to. And what -- the analogy I’d like to draw on this
is I can go to a salvage yard over on Sand Bar Ferry, a very well known one, and I can go
through and I can get all the individual pieces I need to make a complete automobile from
scratch. But if I don’t understand the overall big picture of how those pieces go together
to make the automobile, what I’m left with is a truckload of parts and a lot less money.
The same thing can be applied to economic development. You have all these individual
resources but unless they are, unless you have a person looking at the big picture and how
to apply these economic resources to the overall economic development of the Augusta
area, you lose a lot of the effectiveness. You get overlap, you get gaps between their
efforts, and it’s just not as effective. And as an entrepreneur coming into this, the first
problem that I ran into is you have all these different economic development groups --
Small Business Development Center, Georgia Medical Center Authority, and the list goes
on and on -- who do you go talk to for what part of the puzzle you want to answers for
your small business development? And the answer is, there’s no key player. So the first
challenge I would like to offer this Commission today is to look at these individual
organizations, look at your own economic development program, look at the Chamber of
Commerce. Try to identify someone within these organizations that can look at how
these individual resources should play into the overall economic development picture for
Augusta, specifically related to small businesses, specifically related to high tech
businesses. And I think it -- these individual groups are very much team player oriented.
They want to work together and they do work together, but you have to understand that
each one has their own agenda, their own funding sources, and they really need
somebody to work with that can help them to help us with the overall economic
development picture. The second item I would like to bring out is near and dear to me
because I am an engineer. But when you look at the CSRA, you look at Augusta, the
types of industries we have in Augusta, we have a significant need for engineers in this
area. With Club Car, with Frididaire, with SRS, Fort Gordon, all these are major
employers that need engineers. Yet the CSRA does not have any type of engineering
3
programs. The lack of engineer support in this area not only affects small business
growth, it not only affects large corporations, it affects many different aspects of your
economic development program. What I would challenge you, the Commissioners, to do
is look at a method or mechanism to fund an impact study and determine what are the
real needs in this area for engineering programs. What will this area support? How
many people we are lose in this area to Athens and Columbia and Atlanta to go to school
that may be willing to stay here and attend a local program? And the program, the scope
of the program will be driven by the needs and by the impact. It doesn’t have to be a full
four-year, fully accredited program. There are many different options with learning that
are now available that are significantly more cost effective than a full-blown engineering
program, but yet can serve the needs of MCG, serve the needs of your major employers,
serve the needs of your start-up businesses that have a need to access engineering talents
for their business needs. By addressing this issue, you also are addressing another
potential problem of bringing in new businesses. One of the most expensive propositions
that a business can undertake is to move into this area and then have to turn around and
bring engineering support in from other outlying areas. It’s a very expensive proposition
and the probability of retaining those engineers in this area that have to be move in is not
as high as if they could bring them from locally-accredited schools. So again, the two
major issues that I would ask you to consider today from my perspective of economic
development would be (1) how can we coordinate the various resources that are already
out there and more effectively utilize them for all economic development and (2) what
are the real needs in this area for engineering programs? What will this area support?
What would an economic impact statement say about engineering needs and engineering
availability? What kind of program should you have? Beyond that, there are many other
smaller issues that you, the Commissioners, can look at. Yes, I’m sorry? That I’ve
[inaudible] in the handout and I would ask you to look at them. Again, these are minor
issues. There are other communities that you can look at, such as [inaudible] similar
economic outlooks to the CSRA, that has similar needs, that has successfully
implemented economic development programs for small businesses. I would invite you
to look at those resources as well. I know I’m getting long-winded so I will cut off here,
and if there are any questions I can address, I would be glad to do so at this time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anyone have any questions of Mr. Huffman? Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: I guess based on your experience, and I think you said it, that we
have a lot of willing folks in this area but our coordination of those resources is not where
it needs to be.
Mr. Huffman: Yes, I completely concur on that, and many of the resources that
I’ve mentioned in my presentation have also concurred that this is a major issue.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we see this. I’ve heard this from other folks that are
embarking on this path of becoming entrepreneurs. It goes back to two things. One is we
have a desperate need to look at, revisit again the economic development office that our
Administrator has suggested in the past, to parcel that out to Peggy and expect her to
wear several hats, while being economically palatable is certainly not going to get us to a
4
point where when Kevin or someone comes in the door we’re able to put them in a
laboratory or space and help them acquire the grants that they need to bring the business
and industry to Augusta. And two, perhaps we need -- Lord, I hate to think about one
more meeting or committee, but certainly some way to have a summit between all of the
organizations. Get everyone in one room and then talk this through and see what type of
organizational structure we need to help make this happen. We can discuss all day long
about becoming an economic engine, using our research and development medical
community and all, but until we make it possible for people like Kevin to come in the
door with an idea and get it into a lab and make it any a reality, we will never be what we
can be. So I just thought we’d offer that up to let you know that we are in this
community, we do have the resources, but we don’t have a turn key solution yet and
certainly we can’t do this today, but it’s something we need to look at for the not-too-
distant future to have in place.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman: Thank you. I appreciate your time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk:
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Item #49
Item #53
Item #45
Item #46
Item #54
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, it’s been
requested that item 49, item 53, item 45 and item 46 be deleted from today’s agenda.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Motion to approve the appointment of Julia Reese to the General Aviation
Commission representing District 1.
The Clerk: And to add the appointment of Ms. Julia Reese to the General
Aviation Commission representing District 1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Could we add 54 to that deletion, also?
5
Mr. Boyles: Would you read the numbers again?
The Clerk: 49, 53, 45, 46 and 54.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do I have any objections to the deletions? Any discussion
on the deletions? Hearing none --
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to add and delete; is that right, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. It’s to delete those requested items and to add item 1 under
the addendum agenda.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll amend the motion to add the one item the Clerk requested.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: When you get into the discussion, I just wanted to be recognized.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: What I wanted to ask, particularly for item -- hand and eye
coordination today. Should have put them back on before I took them off. 46 to be
deleted. And my reason, the only thing in there I see, 46, it is in the numbers to be
deleted; right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem had received information that the issue
had been resolved.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Well, if it’s been resolved, then what I would request, and this
doesn’t have to be on the Commission floor, is that somebody speak with Ms. Franklin
th
administratively before she leaves the 8 floor today, because she’s here and we’ve had
this issue several times and I think she’s thinking it has been resolved. She is present
again. But then if we delete it and it’s going to be back on that means she has to leave
rdth
work and then come back again to deal with it. That would be about the 3 or 4 time to
do it. And I think just out of courtesy that if it’s going to be taken off, then somebody
within our official family needs to talk with her. She’s sitting over there. And if it’s
resolved, I have no problem with it, but I think somebody needs to tell her that it is
6
resolved and that the issue is over with, or if there is an issue that’s still be to be
discussed, we need to go on and deal with it. She does not need to have to come, keep
coming back to deal with this issue. If it’s over, it’s over.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can ask Ms. --
The Clerk: Mr. Kolb is going to handle that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb to deal with it administratively and let her know
that the issue has been resolved, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Beard: He’s going to meet you outside.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Going to meet you outside.
Ms. Franklin: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’re welcome. So we need a vote?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any further
discussion on the deletion items?
The Clerk: And add.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And additions.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by
the sign of voting.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, for the record, Mr. Bridges will not be in
attendance for today’s meeting, Mr. Hankerson is out of town as well, and Mr. Williams
is attending a relative’s funeral. And the Mayor’s out on sick leave.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Thank you. Go ahead.
The Clerk:
7
RESOLUTIONS:
A. Resolution of support regarding the timely construction of Savannah River
Parkway Project.
The Clerk: Last week, the Commission also received a resolution of support that
had been adopted by the Burke County Commission as well, regarding this project. They
forwarded a copy.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk:
B. Resolution opposing any referendum on the state flag.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I was wondering who requested this. Was this requested by -- who
was the author of this?
The Clerk: The Mayor’s office received that request from [inaudible] Adams,
who is president of the Georgia Municipal Association, and he forwarded the letter to me
and asked that it be placed on the agenda.
Mr. Beard: Well, I move for approval.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor.
Mr. Mays: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve heard the discussion about opposing a
referendum. I’ve heard discussion concerning folks telling other folks not to vote on it if
comes to a referendum. Certainly I’m glad that our former Governor did not allow us to
get into the divisive situation that our neighbors across the river have dealt with with their
8
flag issue. I, for one, certainly support a referendum across this state to allow the people
of the state to decide the colors of their flag. And I just thought I’d make mention of that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a substitute motion that we
have all members of the Commission present when we vote on this and that we
postpone until that time.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor to postpone this
item. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by
the sign of voting.
Mr. Shepard: Is this a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Substitute motion.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk: Under consent agenda, our consent agenda consists of items 1
through 41a. Item 1 through 41. And if it’s permissible with the Commission, if we
could add item 1 under our addendum agenda to our consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thought we did that.
Mr. Cheek: Move to add.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion to move to add item 1 to the consent
agenda.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Second.
Mr. Cheek: And a motion to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Are we pulling items?
9
The Clerk: We’re not there yet. Want me to read the petitions, the planning
petitions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
The Clerk: For the benefits of any objectors to our planning petitions, if
there are any, once the petition is read if you could signify your objection by raising
your hand.
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-19 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition by Bridgette Churchwell
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known under
the present numbering system as 3479 Postell Drive and containing .32 acres. (Tax
Map 107 Parcel 830) DISTRICT 5
2. Z-03-20 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition by Mary Golden, on behalf of
Bryant Lawson, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a
Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known under the
present numbering system as 2009 Shirley Avenue and containing .34 acres. (Tax
Map 72-1 Parcel 1) DISTRICT 2
3. Z-03-21 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition by Altheria Dukes, on behalf
of Shiron Jackson, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a
Family Day Care Home per Section26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known under the present
numbering system as 3520 Postell Drive and containing .22 acres. (Tax Map 119
Parcel 518) DISTRICT 5
4. Z-03-23 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition by Larry Marty, on behalf of
Jennie L. Binion, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone
B-2 (General Business) affecting property known under the present numbering
system as 1991 Tobacco Road and containing 1.6 acres. (Tax Map 156 Parcel 9 and
9.1) DISTRICT 6
5. Z-03-24 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a United Retail Development Co., on
behalf of Grace S. Mays, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture)
and Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property known under the present numbering system as 1203 Augusta West
Parkway and containing 1.9 acres. (Tax Map 30 Parcel 26) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-03-25 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve with the following conditions 1) That
10
the site plan and development must substantially conform to the plan submitted
with this petition except that the buildings should be relocated as far from the
floodplain boundary as possible; 2) That the only commercial use of the property is
the day care center; 3) That there be no development in the 100 year floodplain; 4)
That the floodplain property be donated to the County Greenspace Program; a
petition by Jim Reeves, on behalf of Josephine Kennedy, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting
property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road, a distance of
302.0 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the centerline of Rae’s Creek
intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road and containing
14.6 acres. (Tax Map 18 Parcel 59) DISTRICT 7
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Seeing none.
The Clerk: Our alcohol petitions under our portion services portion of the
agenda.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department
to suspend the alcohol license held by Bong Keun Choi for the Walton Way
Supermarket located at 1931 Walton Way for a 90-day period and that the license
be placed on probation for the balance of the year for the following violation: sale of
alcohol to a minor. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee March 12, 2003)
11. Motion to approve a request by Stephanie Smith for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with S & N
Sports Bar & Grill located at 1801 Kissingbower Rd. There will be a dance hall.
There will be Sunday sales. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 12, 2003)
12. Motion to approve a request by Matt Flynn for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Stillwater Taproom located at 974 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 12, 2003)
13. Motion to approve a request by David S. Fort for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Room 9 located at 913
Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
March 12, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Seeing none, Madame Clerk. Are there any items that the
Commissioners would like to pull? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Number 36, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
11
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 36. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Number 15.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 15. Any other items, gentlemen? Hearing none.
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-19 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition by Bridgette Churchwell
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known under
the present numbering system as 3479 Postell Drive and containing .32 acres. (Tax
Map 107 Parcel 830) DISTRICT 5
2. Z-03-20 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition by Mary Golden, on behalf of
Bryant Lawson, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a
Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known under the
present numbering system as 2009 Shirley Avenue and containing .34 acres. (Tax
Map 72-1 Parcel 1) DISTRICT 2
3. Z-03-21 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition by Altheria Dukes, on behalf
of Shiron Jackson, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a
Family Day Care Home per Section26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known under the present
numbering system as 3520 Postell Drive and containing .22 acres. (Tax Map 119
Parcel 518) DISTRICT 5
4. Z-03-23 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition by Larry Marty, on behalf of
Jennie L. Binion, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone
B-2 (General Business) affecting property known under the present numbering
system as 1991 Tobacco Road and containing 1.6 acres. (Tax Map 156 Parcel 9 and
9.1) DISTRICT 6
5. Z-03-24 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a United Retail Development Co., on
behalf of Grace S. Mays, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture)
and Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property known under the present numbering system as 1203 Augusta West
Parkway and containing 1.9 acres. (Tax Map 30 Parcel 26) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-03-25 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve with the following conditions 1)That the
site plan and development must substantially conform to the plan submitted with
this petition except that the buildings should be relocated as far from the floodplain
boundary as possible; 2)That the only commercial use of the property is the day
12
care center; 3) That there be no development in the 100 year floodplain; 4) That the
floodplain property be donated to the County Greenspace Program; a petition by
Jim Reeves, on behalf of Josephine Kennedy, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property
located on the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road, a distance of 302.0
feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the centerline of Rae’s Creek intersects
with the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road and containing 14.6 acres.
(Tax Map 18 Parcel 59) DISTRICT 7
7. SA-35 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition to amend the requirements of
a sketch plan in developments that contain or will ultimately contain 200 or more
lots.
8. SA-36 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition to add a new section, Article
III, Section 302 (Y), Traffic Control.
9. SA-37 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Commission’s decision to approve a petition to amend the Subdivision Regulations
for Augusta-Richmond County to permit the Executive Director to take action on
Final Plats on behalf of the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department
to suspend the alcohol license held by Bong Keun Choi for the Walton Way
Supermarket located at 1931 Walton Way for a 90-day period and that the license
be placed on probation for the balance of the year for the following violation: sale of
alcohol to a minor. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee March 12, 2003)
11. Motion to approve a request by Stephanie Smith for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with S & N
Sports Bar & Grill located at 1801 Kissingbower Rd. There will be a dance hall.
There will be Sunday sales. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 12, 2003)
12. Motion to approve a request by Matt Flynn for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Stillwater Taproom located at 974 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 12, 2003)
13. Motion to approve a request by David S. Fort for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Room 9 located at 913
Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
March 12, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
14. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1762 Martin
Luther King Boulevard, 1123 Davidson Street, 1527 Chestnut Street, 1620-1622
13
Chestnut Street, 1629 Chestnut Street, (District 2, Super District 9); and waive 2nd
reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 12, 2003)
15. Deleted from the consent agenda.
16. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Bobby Reese under the 1977 Pension Plan.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 12, 2003)
FINANCE:
17. Motion to approve a request for abatement of penalty on Map 12, Parcel 123,
Acct. 1 for tax years 2001 and 2002. (Approved by Finance Committee March 12,
2003)
18. Motion to approve a request to abate balance of 2002 tax bill on Map 132;
Parcel 12.12. (Approved by Finance Committee March 12, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
19. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB # 327-04-296812007)
Change Order Number Three and Change Order Number Four with Mabus
Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $17,418.28 on the Turknett Springs Detention Pond
Project to be funded from the Project Contingency Account ($8,709.14) and
Augusta Utilities Account No. 509043410-5425110/80170150-5425110 ($8,709.14).
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
20. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118, Parcel 22,
which is owned by Bernice Lewis, for an easement on the Morgan Road
Improvement Project, more particularly described as 968.60 square feet, more or
less, of permanent slope easement and 4,410.51 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
March 12, 2003)
21. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118, Parcel 22.1,
which is owned by Joye Mazelle Woodbury Graham a/k/a Joye L. Horne, for an
easement on the Morgan Road Improvement Project, more particularly described
as 2,000.24 square feet, more or less, of permanent slope easement and 2,090.11
square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
22. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 119, Parcel 30,
which is owned by Alberta Connie Lawson, Robert Lee Howard, Constance
Lawson, Freddie Lawson and Conella L. Smith, for an easement on the Butler
Creek Interceptor Upgrade Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
March 12, 2003)
23. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 146, Parcel 4,
which is owned by L. C. Augusta, for an easement on the Water Treatment Plant
Project, more particularly described as 18,744 square feet, more or less, of
permanent easement and 14,000 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 12,
2003)
24. Motion to authorize the Public Works and Engineering Department to award
a single Consultant Services Agreement to URS Corporation in the amount of
$117,400 subject to receipt and approval of executed documents for the Downtown
14
Traffic Signal and Streetlight Upgrades A and B Projects, to be funded from
Downtown Traffic Signal & Streetlight Upgrades A (CPB# 324-04-201824110-
$58,700) and Downtown Traffic Signal & Streetlight Upgrades B (CPB# 324-04-
201824115-$58,700). Preliminary and final design fees to be negotiated upon
completion and approval of the concept. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee March 12, 2003)
25. Motion to approve bid award contract to lowest bidder, Northwood Nursery,
in the amount of $19,146.00 to plant new vibrant trees subject to execution of signed
contractual documents for the Tree Planting Project funded from the One Cent
Sales Tax (SPLOST). Account Number 324062310201160011. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
26. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One for the SR
4/US 1 (Deans Bridge Road) Improvement Project (CPB # 322-04-292822602)
transferring $143,330 from Phase III Recapture to Project Utilities ($130,300) and
Contingency ($13,030). Also execute Relocation Agreements with the Georgia Power
Company for utility relocations with estimated costs of $97,339 to be funded from
the Project Utilities Account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March
12, 2003)
27. Motion to approve the execution of a Relocation Agreement with the Georgia
Power Company for utility relocations in conjunction with the S. R. 121 @ Windsor
Spring Road Upgrade Traffic Signals Project (CPB # 322-04-201822661) with
estimated costs of $78,637 to be funded from the Project Utilities Account.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
28. Motion to approve Change Order Number Two with L. J., Inc. in the amount
of $20,196.18 on the Augusta Levee Tree Removal and Maintenance Project to be
funded from Capital Project Budget (CPB # 323-04-296823081). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
29. Motion to approve the execution Relocation Agreement with the Georgia
Power Company for utility relocations in conjunction with the Fury’s Ferry (S.R.
28) Project (CPB # 322-04-292822205) with estimated costs of $44,458 to be funded
from the Project Utilities Account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
March 12, 2003)
30. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 to Graves Water Services, Inc. to
complete additional well video inspections and existing well modifications to the
Groundwater Treatment Plant #4 Wellfield Investigation Project (CIP Project
30150) in the amount of an addition of $21,300.00(Approved by Engineering
Services Committee March 12, 2003)
31. Motion to approve the acquisition of Camera Unit for Well Inspection for the
Augusta Utilities Department-Construction Division from CUES, Inc for $38,751.00.
(Lowest bid offer on Bid # 02-192) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
March 12, 2003)
32. Motion to approve the award of a design contract to OneSource
Development, LLC in the amount of $41,000.00 for the preparation of construction
documents for a sanitary sewer line to serve the Augusta Utilities Department
Public Works & Engineering Complex. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee March 12, 2003)
15
33. Motion to approve increasing the existing contract line item quantities for a total
amount of $151,000 for expanding the scope of the Hwy. 1/Bath-Edie/Etterlee Rd.
water project in order to tie the Augusta and Blythe water systems together.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
34. Motion to authorize award and execution of a contract with Zimmerman,
Evans and Leopold to provide Engineering Services for the Goodrich St. Raw
Water Pumping Station Improvements in the amount of $1,760,000.00. Approved
by Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
35. Motion to abandon alley on Tax Map 44-4 between Winter St. & Anthony
Rd. and authorize conveying to adjoining property owner. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
36. Deleted from the consent agenda.
38. Motion to authorize the execution of easement encroachment agreement with
Southern Natural Gas Company for installation of 42” raw water line. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
39. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing the adoption of Community
Greenspace Program and the establishment of a Community Greenspace Trust
Fund for Augusta-Richmond County. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee March 12, 2003)
40. Motion to approve adding five (5) additional homes on Dominion Court at a
cost of $39,192.00 to Flood Mitigation Grant Application. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
41. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held
March 4, 2003.
APPOINTMENT:
41A. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Anna Avrett to the Historic
Preservation Commission representing District 10.
Addendum Item 1. Motion to approve the appointment of Julia Reese to the
General Aviation Commission representing District 1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a motion and second on the floor to approve
the consent agenda, minus items 36 and 15.
The Clerk: And the addition of item 1 on the addendum agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And the addition of item on the [inaudible]. All in favor of
the motion --
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
16
Mr. Boyles: Do we have something -- I see a citizen here, Ms. Edwards. I can’t
find that item on the agenda.
Mr. Kuhlke: Regular agenda.
Mr. Boyles: It’s on the regular? Okay, thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a motion and second on the floor?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Bridges out.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Motion carries 6-0. [Item 6]
Mr. Bridges out.
Mr. Colclough votes No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 7-0. [Item 11]
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0. [Items 1-5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-35, 37-41, Addendum Item 1]
Mr. Mays: I vote yes, but let the record -- I was not here at the committee
meeting. My aunt had passed, but I’m a little unclear and I’m not going to muddy that
but I’m voting no on number 6.
The Clerk: Number 6? Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Also let the record show that I vote no on Sunday sales.
Item 15.
15. Motion to reverse the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission
thereby approving the demolition of the structure, and approve an ordinance
providing for the demolition of a certain unsafe and uninhabitable structure in
Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1618 Chestnut Street, (District 2, Super District 9) and
waive 2nd reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 12,
2003)
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman, the members of the HPC had asked to addressed the
Commission on item 15.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sir, you have five minutes.
17
Mr. Pittman: I’m sure that you’ve -- we’ve hashed Bethlehem over and over, but
I would like to address item 15 which is one house at 1618 Chestnut Street. It was one of
six that the Historic Preservation Commission looked at in our February meeting. As you
know, the members of the Historic Preservation Commission --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold up a minute so we can get some -- let these folks exit
the room. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Pittman: As you know, the members of the Historic Preservation
Commission get out and look at these houses. Five of them were obviously of such
condition that we had no problems with okaying their demolition. However, the house at
1618 Chestnut Street, while it is in need of repair, would cost someone in the
neighborhood, in my estimation, $30,000 to $35,000 to put back in living condition. It is
of a footprint size sufficient to meet the need for the Bethlehem area that we intend to
rebuild and that we are in the process of rebuilding, and I would respectfully submit to
the Commission that at some point in time, we’re going to need to develop a plan to save
what we deem necessary to save in Bethlehem and I think this house would be a good
starting point.
Mr. Bush: Good afternoon, I’m George Bush, the Chairman of the Historic
Preservation Commission. I just wanted the Commissioners to know that after looking at
the Administrative Services minutes that it is clear from the record that this is not an
unsafe or uninhabitable structure. This is a contributing structure in the Bethlehem
District. And the ordinance as it is on the books gives us the job to preserve these
structures that are worthy of saving, and in this particular case this structure is clearly
rehabitable and can be renovated and we would just ask that another look be taken at this
particular structure. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, since the representative from District 2 is
not here and to give him an opportunity to say something, I’d like to move that item
number 15 be referred back to the Administrative Services Committee.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion on the floor. Mr. Beard, you had
something?
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a second.
Mr. Beard: Okay. You going into discussion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. Discussion.
18
Mr. Beard: I don’t see any -- if we passed it out of Administrative Services
Committee, I don’t see a need for it coming back there. If you want it to come back,
Commissioner Kuhlke, I guess it should come back to this body, if that’s what you have
in mind.
Mr. Kuhlke: That’s fine.
Mr. Beard: But I see no see a need for it because I think when we let it out of
Administrative Services Committee, it was something about the owner of the house was
out of town and he needed some ample time to --
Mr. Kuhlke: Demolish it.
Mr. Beard: Demolish it or whatever he was going to do with it. But I don’t see
the need for it coming back to Administrative Services.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll amend my motion that it comes back to the next
Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, there’s an amendment on the floor that this item
comes back to the full body.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second the amendment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Second on the motion. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: No comment. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and second on the floor. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, obviously the time frame to -- the time frame -- I’m
going to vote for the motion because the time frame to delay is a lot less than the time
frame that it takes to fight. So that’s for starters. We could debate this one for a long
time and the objections that the Historic Board could raise that in terms of time could
take us back far longer than the two weeks of coming back. What I’d like to suggest,
though, and it’s nothing that they can do other than try, but if the, if we’re starting to do
this, then -- and I know Chairman Beard of that committee has also been very sensitive
about this particular issue, is that one thing that we could always use some help on, you
know, from the Historic Board and particularly in Bethlehem. If we’re going to do what
you’re talking about doing, the obvious common denominator in this whole process is
money. And if we’re going -- if you’re talking about $37,000, what I think in the
meantime would be most helpful is that several things be done, one that HND be
consulted during the time frame that we’re talking about to see if in the rehab process that
that could be a true $37,000. And then if that could be done, then maybe that could be,
you know, some transferring or selling of ownership to somebody that might be willing,
you know, to deal with that. But when I look at the point of trying to get citizens into
19
decent housing, I’ve got a situation right now that I think is almost deplorable from a
financial standpoint, is that we’re building new homes that in case, and I’ve said this
sometimes, not jokingly but very seriously to people in financial institutions, is that I
think it’s almost an economic crime that folk can get car of the highest magnitude, to get
it financed, when we have working people, and particularly single mothers, that can’t get
financed into brand new homes that are going to appreciate after they get in it. We got
some that are still empty. So you got institutions that aren’t willing to take the chance, to
come in and to back up even what the City’s financial resources are doing. So I think
while it’s not to knock what you’re doing, we’ve got folk who live in those areas that are
saying hey, we need some help and relief in here, too. If nobody’s in it, if it’s going to
get worse, then obviously it needs to come down. So I think in the two week period,
rather than just rehearing it, we need to come back, hopefully together with some
solutions and may be able to say okay, fine. If we want to keep it up, let’s find someone
who is interested in being able to do this in the $37,000. I think we’ve got an avenue
through City resources that can at least examine, look at, and see whether or not within
that $37,000 to $40,000, whether that could put it in the type of shape that you could do
it. And find some of our good friends that would be willing to loan some decent people a
small amount of money to own a decent home. And that’s where this whole thing really
boils down to. Some of these people that have either left the area, that have inherited
property, a lot of these houses have been out there for decades to where people could not
get assistance, even in improving a home, before it got into that kind of condition. They
could not get money to get a roof fixed, they could not get money to get small repairs
done. So rather than to live in it, a lot of them just moved because there could be no
assistance and they couldn’t pay it back. So I think it’s a combination of a lot in there
and if we are going to start somewhere, and I said I’d vote for it because I think it’s a lot
easier to try and see if we could work something out on this one maybe than it is to start a
fight and deal with it and we got clogged down with technicalities of the Board opposing
and our board trying to get it through. So if it’s just that one, maybe that can our pilot
project, say okay, let’s talk about it. But we’re going to need to get some other folks
interested in it, but the bottom line in this obviously is going to have to be resources
that’s in there, and obviously the City cannot be the only lender and financier in this
whole project of rehabilitating the City. Something is going to have to happen on the
private side, and it’s going to have to happen with some of these institutions that I say
quite often, gentlemen, and I know y’all get tire of me talking about, but we house
millions of dollars, millions, and this is probably where we could have used some of that
[inaudible] on that board to influence some of these the other folk. When we house
millions of dollars, and I’m of the person opinion and I can’t speak for this Commission,
but when we house money in institutions, it’s my firm belief that they ought to reinvest in
people. And those that are not willing to reinvest in neighborhoods, then the City should
take a second look at where we house our money. If they’re not willing to invest to
house people, then we should take a look at where we house those dollars. We have
payroll, we have sales tax money, we have investment monies, we got a whole lot of
money in this town that we house in the name of the City of Augusta, and somebody
should start working with it. And I’m not going to get on the soap box about that, but I
think it’s a deplorable situation with all the money we got that when we started talking
about link deposit, we only had two institutions out of every bank, and I’m not going to
20
embarrass them by calling their names today, but only two of them even responded -- not
pulled out -- only two responded to want to even know what the program was about. And
that’s a shame. So one house, one situation, pilot program. Mr. Beard, I’m willing to
vote for that, to work on that. Maybe that will get some folk off square one. Then some
of those that could be saved to do something with it. But as long as we continue to put up
money and we allow folk not to invest in any of these programs, then you’re going to
constantly so those neighborhoods continue to deteriorate, and the bottom line in it is
going to have to be investment. And that’s what it boils down to.
Mr. Pittman: Can I address two quick issues?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Pittman.
Mr. Pittman: I totally agree with you, Commissioner Mays. What we would like
to see as a board, and I think City Administrator Kolb is working in that direction, is for
everyone to sit down and come up with a plan of what can be saved in Bethlehem and
what should be saved in Bethlehem, so that the Historic Preservation Board is not the one
saying we should save this one or that one. And then of course, as you say
Commissioner Mays, to find the funding to do that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Does anyone on the Commission have any
opposition to the amendment? Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the
sign of voting.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item is 36.
36. Approve resolution in support of the concept of the Pedestrian Bridge.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and
members of the Commission,I’d ask that we postpone the resolution on the
pedestrian bridge until the next meeting of the full Commission.
I would be happy to
discuss it if you’d like me to do so at this time or we can wait until the discussion period.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion on the floor to --
Mr. Shepard: To postpone until next time.
21
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: -- to the next meeting. There is a motion and second.
Discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think this is an
exciting symbol or development for our community, but I know that we’ve been working
long and hard and have passed several resolutions of support for various projects,
th
including railroad relocation, which also has a feature of re-use of the trestle at 6 Street
for a pedestrian way. So I would like to see that we utilize the two weeks to coordinate
these two projects and not have them competing for funds or competing for support. So I
think that could be worked out and I’d ask to have that opportunity. This has not ever
been before the Railroad Trains and Traffic Committee, and that’s fine, but I think we
could have that done in the next two weeks, and that’s the purpose of what I’m doing,
gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
42. Z-03-26 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to deny a petition by C. O. Edwards requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1A (Single-family Residential) to Zone P-1
(Professional) affecting property known under the present numbering system as
3420 Peach Orchard Road and containing .65 acres (Tax Map 133-1 Parcel 5)
DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is the applicant in the house? Your name and address, sir?
Mr. Edwards: My name is Dick Edwards, and my home address is 2202
Silverdale Road, Augusta. And I operate an insurance agency at 1928 Kissingbower
Road. I’ve been doing it for 25 years. And 12 years ago I bought another agency. I have
relocated now to 3374 Peach Orchard Road. Both of these agencies are in a private
residence, residential area, not private. And out of all these years, we’ve had no
complaints of anyone in reference to our operations or even our upkeep of property. And
now we’re in the process of trying to combine these two agencies, and we want to put it
in that location, which is 3420 Peach Orchard Road, which is property that I happen to
own. And on February 5 I came down and talked to Mr. Patty about the zoning, because
two years ago it came up before the board and it was denied, and Mr. Patty told me it was
B-1 at the time, and when I talked to Mr. Patty, he said I don’t think you’ve got a chance
to go B-1, he said, but I do think you have a chance to go with Professional-1. I said that
would be fine with me because all I wanted was an insurance agency there. But we went
22
before the panel and it was denied. I have to admit I didn’t present it very well to the
panel, and when Mr. Patty was asked he told that it had come up two years ago and it was
denied and he didn’t know of any change in the property since that time. There have
been no changes in the property that I know of, but as far as the zoning, B-1 is a more
restrictive zoning, and there’s been a lot of changes in south Augusta. We have got to the
point where we are making progress and I think progress is very good because we’re
going in different directions and new things and even stretching our utilities out. We’ve
had a lot of bad media from the press in our locations. As a matter of fact, we have been
treated in the past like we were unwanted, red-headed step-children. But now we do get a
positive reading occasionally. And I would like -- I have some things here I’d like you to
take a look at. Here are pictures here [inaudible]. I have attended both of these meetings
in the past. I think the one two years ago and also the one at the Planning Commission
the other day, and the only complaints that I’ve heard is that traffic congestion, parking
on the street, and used car lots. Well, the traffic we get in the business, we don’t have
that much traffic, but with traffic we get, it will be coming off of Peach Orchard Road
onto Elizabeth Drive, up a Elizabeth Drive about 90 feet, and then we’re going into a
parking area where we plan on, from the front of the building there to Peach Orchard
Road, we plan on making a parking area out of it. Paved parking area. And we have
room enough, sufficient room there for all the parking. So there will be no problem about
parking on the street. And traffic congestion there is, I think, none because most all the
traffic on Peach Orchard Road that goes in to patronize these businesses, they come off of
Peach Orchard Road and then right back on Peach Orchard Road. 99% of them. They
[inaudible] side street. Now I live out in that area and I know that to be a fact because the
end of my street, Silverdale, is all commercial, so we have no problem. Mr. Cheek lives
out in that area and I think he’ll verify that for you [inaudible] concerns. I certainly
appreciate your taking into consideration the longevity we have with no problems, and
that we are trying to move to a better place. The place we’re in now, you come off of
Peach Orchard Road and it’s am embankment and you have go downhill and it’s rather
hazardous. Fortunately, been there 12 years with no accidents, but it is still dangerous.
And if you would, we would appreciate your giving us this zoning. This is Gloria
Martin, who has been working with me for 12 years. Done a good job. And she will be
the manager of this. And I’d like for her to just give you a brief description of the day-to-
day operations and show you that we will be in no way detrimental to this area. As a
matter of fact, I think we’ll be an asset to it. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Martin? Name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Martin: Gloria Martin, at 2150, Augusta, Georgia 30906, now working at
3374 Peach Orchard Road. I just got up to say everything that Mr. Edwards has already
said, but I wanted to assure the neighbors, that they was concerned about children
playing, that they been in the neighborhood for so long, that we’re usually open from 9
until 6. And where we’ve been now for 12 years. We haven’t had any complaints from
the neighbors. If anything, we have acquired about 15% of our business from the
neighbors that’s behind us. And most of our traffic come from Peach Orchard Road.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, ma’am. Gentlemen?
23
Mr. Beard: I’d like to hear from Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: In 2000, the long-time owner of this property applied for P-1 zoning to
sell it. He had a situation where someone was deceased, and it was turned down for
several reasons. One, there were objectors who wanted to keep the neighborhood the
way it was. And we went out, we observed a high proportion of home ownership, private
ownership, about 20 houses that stretch from the commercial node at Phinizy Road,
Highway 25, and Rosier Road, between there and commercial node that starts up at
Bobby Jones Expressway and Highway 25. And we observed high speed traffic coming
up the hill and we frankly think if you approve one rezoning in there, the others will
follow. You’ve got relatively narrow lots. They’re probably 100 feet wide. If you had a
driveway every 80 feet or every 75 feet through there, I think you’d have a real serious
safety problem. Be very similar to what you’ve got in Vineland on Washington Road.
We think it’s contrary to the plan and we recognize that probably this one applicant
wouldn’t be seriously detrimental to the neighborhood, but we think the cumulative effect
of all that property being commercial would and we think you should deny.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty, a question for you. On Peach Orchard Road,
those houses out there, the big 8’ wooden fence, what are they zoned as? There’s three of
them right there in a row. Going toward [inaudible].
Mr. Patty: If they’re in this general area, they’re zoned residential. There are
some houses down south of this, down toward Rosier. If you want me to pull the map
out, I’ll bring it to you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a house, I know there is one house on Peach
Orchard with an 8’ wooden fence there and he takes a panel out of it and sticks a car
[inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: Straight across Elizabeth from this property.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Straight across the street from this, where this gentleman --
Mr. Patty: It’s not zoned commercial, I can tell you that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, then why -- is it zoned to have an 8’ fence out there?
Mr. Patty: No. He’s either been to the Board of Zoning Appeals or he’s in
violation. Or it predates the ordinance, which is unlikely.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, it don’t predate the ordinance cause that was put up
since I been down here.
Mr. Patty: Prior to ’63.
24
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: After ’63.
Mr. Patty: Rob Sherman says he went to the Appeals Board and that was
approved.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So what kind of zoning is that, Rob?
Mr. Patty: It’s R-1 zoning. It’s residential zoning. Any homeowner has got the
right to go to the Appeals Board and then [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Does that also include auto dealership?
Mr. Patty: No. No.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Just to add to that. That house with
the fence, you have a residence and then you have another house that is called a residence
that has also been dealing a bunch of cars out there, too, and there’s some other dubious
activities that go on in that particular segment. I’m amazed that someone what get an
exception to have an 8’ fence on a main thoroughfare like that. All of us live in that same
area and are very concerned about protecting our neighborhoods and our community.
One of the things of note of this particular situation is that that area of Peach Orchard
Road, many of the residents along Peach Orchard Road, in that segment of homes, are
reaching either retirement or beyond retirement and will be seeking to at some point in
time liquidate that property. Peach Orchard Road, like Washington Road -- a few years
ago when I was a child I remember a great number of residences on that road. If not
now, at some point in the near future we’re going to have to look at the appropriate
commercial development for that corridor. The question is do we want something like
the Wooden Barrel that we deal with on Silverdale Road, or do we want a professional
business that closes its doors when all of us are coming home from work, that has
promised to be a good neighbor? Looking at the businesses that this gentleman has run in
the different areas, and the good neighbor reputation he’s established in those areas, I
would be inclined to support this petition based on those criteria and the P-1 zoning,
which I think is preferable in this particular area to business zoning, which would open
the door for a lot of other things that would have people there longer hours and so forth
and have a greater impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So is that in the form of --
Mr. Cheek: Do we have objectors present?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No objectors.
Mr. Cheek: I wanted to hear from them if there were. I’m going to go ahead
and make a motion to approve this zoning change.
25
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any further discussions?
Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting. Those
opposed, likewise.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
44. Appeal Hearing for Mr. Bradley Alexander Cameron, Sr. regarding the HPC
denial of his request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the purpose of
constructing a new single-family home at 824 Milledge Road.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Whose item was this?
Mr. Curry: My name is Steve Curry. I’m an attorney here on behalf of the
petitioner.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. You have five minutes.
Mr. Curry: This is Mr. Brad Cameron, whose petition is before the Commission
at this time. If it please the Commission, this is an application for review of the denial of
a certificate of appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission for a new
dwelling at 824 Milledge Road. And to help orient you to where we’re talking about,
going up the hill on Walton Way, get to the top of the hill where Milledge Road is, there
is a new, antebellum-looking home to your left. To your right is what’s known as
Gould’s Corner. And behind Gould’s Corner are some condominiums associated with it.
Then as you turn right onto Milledge Road, there is the -- I think it’s called Magnolia
Villa condominiums on your left. And as you travel down that road, the next lot past
Gould’s Corner is the lot we’re talking about. My client proposes to build this structure.
This is a replication of the Johnny Mercer house in Savannah. If you ever read the book
Midnight -- whatever it is --
Mr. Shepard: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.
Mr. Curry. Anyway, that’s the famous house. This is a replication of that house.
And the guidelines at issue are two fold and they’re pretty simple. First of all is setback.
This house meets the setback requirement. The second requirement is side-to-side setoff.
The distance between the houses, the spacing of the houses. This particular house, this
will be the new house, the street would be at the bottom of my hand, the back of the lot is
here. This house meets the setback requirement and it meets the setoff requirement. I
26
think Mr. Patty is here and could certainly address that if need be, and so the remaining
question is spacing. This house is 40’ wide plus 4’ of chimneys, 2’ on each side. So 44’
total width. And here’s the circumstance. A previous home on this site, this lot, was
approved by the HPC for a 50’ house for this same landowner. Previous to that, in 1997,
another -- I misspoke. The distance was 48’. I’m sorry. Earlier than that, in 1997, on the
same site for a different owner, a 50’ wide house was approved for this same location.
The only difference between the present denial and the previous two approvals is how far
forward the proposed house is to be sited. But yet, as I said, the siting of the house is
well back from and not even on the line of the minimum setback. So if we met the setoff
side-to-side, we meet the setback back-to-front, this is over a million dollar project of a
traditional house in a traditional neighborhood. Now the issue may come up as to
whether this house kind of fits the rhythm of the neighborhood, just kind of fits in it. Is it
appropriate for the neighborhood? Is putting this house in this location something that
looks to be a shoehorn house? I guess to think about that, we really need to look at the
neighborhood. I just want to show you an example of Milledge Road. Within blocks of
this same location. We’re not talking about Milledge and Harrisburg area. We’re talking
about the other direction. That’s one. That’s at 803, 807, Milledge and Cumming. This
one is at 1111 Milledge Road and 1119 Milledge Road. Similar situations. And these are
smaller photographs of houses even closer in location, 703 and 705 Milledge Road, right
down the block. And then finally, here’s an example of what can be done in the
neighborhood by putting a nice house in. If you’re placing my client’s lot at 824, to the
right is Gould’s Corner, right across Walton Way at the very next lot, this house here has
been built very recently. Just been completely. A beautiful home that is a great addition
to the neighborhood, an example of what can be done with the application of proper
planning and proper money. I would note that this house is not set as far back as my
client proposes to set his, even though this one does meet the minimum setback
requirements. I also have schematics from two prior homes. This is a schematic of the
1997 home that was approved by the HPC. You will note this house is situated that much
differently, if we can overlook in the tear, with the present house, but it extends far back,
back down the lot, a very unusual-shaped house. This is the side elevation of the very
same house and shows, to be honest, not a very attractive residence to the put in the
neighborhood, but yet that was approved. And then finally, this is the site plan for the
previous home. Milledge Road at the bottom. Approved for this same homeowner.
What we suggest to the Commission is simply this. I don’t think there is a voice in this
room that opposes the commendable work by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Augusta is an historic city. We are fortunate to live here. And we need an organization
like this. This is a dispute among like-minded people. My clients certainly do not
oppose the efforts of the Commission. But we have a traditional house that suits the
neighborhood, in a location that has been substantially approved before by the same
people, but on a slight change of location, bringing it some feet further forward but yet
well behind the setback, it has been denied. We respectfully suggest to the Commission
that this is a situation that merits rectifying and my clients’ application for a certificate of
appropriateness should be granted. Do you have any questions we can respond to?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
27
Mr. Cheek: What’s the difference in the setback from, I guess, the one that was
approved versus the current site plan?
Mr. Curry: Between 130 and 50. It was further back than this application, is the
answer, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: I guess 130 to 50, that’s the difference?
Mr. Curry: Yes, sir. Between his first plan that was approved and the present
plan. But again, the 50 is still further back than the setback requirement. Other
questions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Like to hear from the Historic Preservation, the HPC.
Mr. Bush: I’m George Bush. I’m here to speak to this issue. And first, as a
preliminary matter, we do not oppose building beautiful homes at all. It has to do with
the location of this proposed new structure that we need to address. [inaudible] This is a
layout of the buildings that exist where this proposed new construction is planned is
they’re asking you to allow them to build. And this is the particular lot right here in the
green. And I would ask that everybody take a look at this because what the guidelines
call for is that you have a cohesive mass and scale, which is what I’ve given you, as far as
to what is recommended and not recommended. Clearly the building footprint is not in
keeping with the integrity of this particular street, and as everyone knows -- and I’ve got
some photographs -- I only have one copy and I’m going to ask that those be passed
down. The photographs may, I think you’ve already got the photos, the photographs will
show you where this is. This is an extremely important road in Augusta. The building
that would be most impacted is the Paine house, and the reason why that is is because this
building would be encroaching upon their house and it would not be in uniformity or
keeping with this layout of the street. This was a unanimous vote from the Historic
Preservation Commission. We had many objectors, which were noted for the record, and
many of which were heard in opposition to this application. According to our guidelines,
due to the spacing and the scale and the mass of this proposed structure, this proposal is
not in keeping with the ordinance. It is clearly not appropriate for this street, and we
would certainly ask that you uphold our decision in denying this proposal. I don’t know
if anybody wants to take a closer look at this. this is a good picture in letting you see
exactly how big this proposed new construction is.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. George, what I didn’t see on Mr.
Curry’s second exhibit was the side, the houses on each side of the subject property. And
that’s been supplied by your exhibit here. But what I don’t see is any representation
graphically of where the new house would be built when it was proposed a few years ago.
Mr. Bush: Okay. We’ve got that in --
28
Mr. Shepard: Just a second. I see that apparently there’s a 50’ setback, I guess,
from Milledge Road to a dotted line that’s colored yellow, but then where was it going to
be built a few years ago when it was approved? Are you trying to tell us it’s further back
on the lot? Further to the east basically?
Mr. Bush: Mr. Shepard, [inaudible] ’97 photograph? There. Mr. Shepard, here
you go. This is the setback that was approved in the ’97 plan. This would be the front --
no, this would be the, this is the Paine house, I believe, and I’ve got it turned around.
This would be the new construction and this is the Paine house and it was this far back as
opposed to being up near the front of the lot. That’s what I see.
Mr. Shepard: Well, this [inaudible]?
Mr. Bush: Right. Correct.
Mr. Shepard: Could y’all do that for the benefit of the full Commission? I think I
see it, but it’s not on a composite exhibit.
Mr. Bush: [inaudible] setback [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Further back. And that’s not illustrated on this here yet?
Mr. Bush: Correct. This is the current, the yellow line is where the front of the
property, the new construction would be, and that was [inaudible] George Patty.
Mr. Shepard: And you might want to present that to the other half of the bench
here.
Mr. Bush: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: They have equal dignity with this side, don’t they? Probably more.
(Talking among Commissioners; inaudible)
Mr. Bush: [inaudible] what I’m talking about. And at this point, I would ask that
the objectors please signify by standing up for this proposal.
(14 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: How many of the objectors live in the immediate area?
Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
29
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I would like to hear from -- thank you, Mr. Bush. I’d
like to hear from Mr. Patty, if I could. Because he’s -- I’d like to hear about the other two
plans. I’m confused on those.
Mr. Patty: This property has actually been petitioned four times since 1997. I’ve
got some notes. ’97 was Whitney O’Keeffe, who wanted to essentially add on to the
front of the structure, not as the present applicant wants to do, which is, what the present
applicant wants to do, which is build a breezeway and essentially build a new home in
front of the old home. I think that’s a fair characterization. And the result of the addition
to the front in 1997 was that there would be 100’ setback from the right-of-way of
Milledge Road. In ’99, the owner at that time requested a small rear addition, which was
approved. In 2001, Mr. Cameron, the present owner, wanted to move the existing house
to the rear and build essentially on the present -- the location of the present house and
then the current application. There have been four applications. I guess my thought is
that there are a lot of other ways to do what he wants to do. And also, you know, as far
as the setbacks I stick to that. The required setback on this block, as any other block in
the City, is the average of the block not to exceed 50’. And so in this area, the average
front setback on this block face is 103’. And so even though, you know, the proposed
setback would be 50’ it would be legal from a zoning standpoint. The only other note I
have is that the average side setback, counting both sides in this block face, which only
includes four or five houses, the average side setback is 55’. And the applicant, the plan
of the applicant, the side setbacks would be 10’, which would be legal, because that’s the
required setback in an R-1 zone, but it would not be similar to the other homes on the
block.
Mr. Curry: If I may, Mr. Ross Snellings, who is knowledgeable about this
property, as well as this particular area, would like to speak to us just a moment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on just a second. Are you finished, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: At this time, yes, sir. Just a moment. Thank you. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask a question on, not on the ’97 or
the ’99, but on the 2001 application, I noticed that that one was approved, and if I’m
reading correctly in here, too. I guess Mr. Bush, that was the one to move the home to
the rear and to construct a new home. On the 2001 one, would the -- I guess what I’m
looking at, since that was the one that was approved, would the 2003 -- and I’m just
asking the question now. Would the 2003 proposal of the same, of the home that’s being
proposed now, would the 2003 proposal work if it was adapted to the 2001 proposal that
was approved?
Mr. Bush: That was set back further.
Mr. Mays: With the, I think the 100’ requirement?
30
Mr. Bush: That would certainly be something we could look at and might -- I
mean I can’t prejudge it, as you know, but that would certainly be something we would
consider. We just think that with the proposed new construction it certainly does not help
the neighborhood, does not contribute to the neighborhood, and in fact, detracts from the
integrity of the neighborhood, as I’ve already stated.
Mr. Mays: And Mr. Mayor, my last question at this time probably would be to
Mr. Curry. If the 2001 applicant and the 2003 applicant are the same and if a
compromise was trying to be reached in dealing with this, what stopped the -- I mean
obviously a person can opt not to do something that they want to do. That’s America.
But if the 2001 one got approved, what in this scenario that stopped the 2001 one from
proceeding since it was approved? Was it just by choice to abandon it? I mean you don’t
have to go into any detail, but what I’m looking at is that I think if you, if you’ve got
anything different that would probably be presented to HPC or to the neighborhood, it
would seem like to me it would be in dealing with the 2001 application that was approved
and that that might be in the spirit of compromise if you were looking at it and dealing
with the 100+’ setback that’s in there. Because the neighborhood or HPC did not
propose the application in 2001. The applicant made the application in 2001. So it seem
like to me that it was the choice of the person to make the application who actually did it
in 2001. And that was what was approved, so I’m just trying to get to what stopped that
at that point since that one seemingly did not meet the type of objection that 2003 is
bringing into the picture.
Mr. Curry: Mr. Mays, first of all, there are some engineering and logistical
difficulties in moving this fairly sizeable residence that’s already there. And the client
has already invested a considerable amount of money in that residence as part of a two
step process of hopefully putting a house added to the front of it. But part of that answer
is logistical difficulties. In moving the house, you have to literally put beams and what-
not under there. Would have to encroach upon the neighbors’ property in order to do that
create some disruption of the landscape and trees and so forth. That was the reason, as I
understand it, that the applicant changed his mind and went to the expense of having the
re-engineering and architectural work done again.
Mr. Mays: That answers me, Mr. Colclough. I was just looking at -- sometimes
it’s hard to just tell, Steve, from drawings.
Mr. Curry: I understand.
Mr. Mays: I’m looking at this and they tease me all the time up here cause I
know less about building than anybody else. But I was just looking at where it’s sitting
on the lot and it seemed like to me that as far as getting to it -- if I’m looking at what’s on
this particular proposal if that’s, if that’s an existing structure that’s on there, that it’s
probably sitting on the widest portion of the property that’s there as far as access to
getting to it. And it narrows as it gets closer to Milledge Road. So I mean as far as
having working room to do anything, it would seem like to me that if you are going to get
into the encroaching side of it, you going to get, you going to get to working close to
31
other folks’ property the closer you get to Milledge Road than you are getting away from
Milledge Road. Just on the map. And I could be wrong. I can’t build a chicken coop,
but I know just looking at what’s here, if this is what’s describing it, then it’s, you get
wider or you get at least as wide as you move to the rear.
Mr. Curry: I think Mr. Snellings can address some of those questions, Mr. Mays,
and he is a past member, in fact I think he was Chairman of the HPC, if he’d be allowed
to address the Commission briefly.
Mr. Mays: And I was just curious. I’m just trying to [inaudible].
Mr. Curry: Appreciate it.
Mr. Snellings: Mr. Cameron asked me to come down this afternoon to provide
some --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Excuse me. Would you give us your name and address for
the record?
Mr. Snellings: I’m Ross Snellings. My office is at 2935 Walton Way. I’m a real
estate broker, Sand Hills Properties. Mr. Cameron asked me to come down this afternoon
to provide some background information on his purchase of this property inasmuch as I
was the real estate broker involved in the transaction. Mr. Cameron and I worked
together for a good while, looked at lot of houses in Summerville. He was keenly
interested in finding one of two things, either an interesting old home in Summerville to
restore or else a building lot somewhere in Summerville where he could build an
architecturally-appropriate house that would be in keeping with the historic district.
When this lot on Milledge became available, we both were keenly interest in it. It was
widely known based on the approval from 1997 that this specific lot had been previously
approved to have a two-story house constructed on it, and I was at that meeting when that
happened, and at that time there was very little opposition to the idea of a house being
constructed there. I think we had one issue regarding some artificial siding, but without
the issue of the artificial siding that application was approved. Brad asked me if I
thought it would be possible for him to build a house on this same lot, and based on my
knowledge of it, having been previously approved, I felt fairly secure in telling him that I
thought, that I did not see any reason why that would be denied if he presented a plan that
the setbacks were in keeping with the zoning ordinance and something that was of an
appropriate historic character and not too much of a departure from what had already
been approved. As things have turned out, I’m glad I did not warrant that representation
to him. Well, understandably since, Mr. Cameron has come back to me and asked me
why I thought perhaps he was not approved. And I’ve taken a look at his plan, this recent
plan and his plan for 2001, and I looked back at the plan from 1997 that was approved,
and I’ve thought about it a good bit, and I’ve looked through them and I decided I would
come up with a list of the similarities between the 1997 plan and the current 2003 plan,
and I see we’ve got, of course, the exact same lot on the exact same street. We’ve got
roughly the same width, two-story house. Roughly identical side setbacks. As far as the
32
front setback, Mr. Cameron’s recent plan is further forward on the lot than the one from
1997, but it is still within the zoning ordinance for the setbacks. And in fact, you know,
you could argue that his current plan is in more close conformity because it is closer to
the block face of the two adjacent houses than his previous plan was, so you really could
argue that either way as to what would be more appropriate. I see both proposals, the
1997 proposal and Mr. Cameron’s 2003 proposal, both feature attractive, historic houses,
modeled on historic houses, both of them clearly in compliance with the guidelines just
on the basis of their architectural design. Both are good looking, fit with historic
character. I believe we’ve got the same historic ordinance in place as we had in 1997.
May have been a couple of modifications to it. We’ve got our same Summerville District
guidelines in place now that we had in place in 1997. so that left me to consider what are
the differences, what are the differences between Mr. Cameron’s recent plan and the plan
from 1997? And as I’ve already noted, we have a difference in the front setback,
although the current plan is still in compliance with the zoning regulations. And then I
had to look further than that. I couldn’t believe that could be the only thing that could
account for this disparate decision. And I noted in the 1997 plan, you had a long-time
Augustan, a former bank president moving back to Augusta, making that application,
while Mr. Cameron is new to town, has come here from North Carolina. I saw that the
architect, a fine architect on the 1997 application, lives on the very same block where this
application was proposed for. And I see that Mr. Cameron’s architect is from Atlanta.
Those are really the biggest differences I’ve seen. I’ve also seen folks that appear to be
new, stringent supporters of the historic preservation ordinance that were wholly absent
at that 1997 meeting. I tell you, as much time and effort as I devoted to trying to support
the preservation ordinance, it pains me to see a decision that could be viewed as maybe
arbitrary, maybe capricious or maybe even based on some factors that shouldn’t have
even been appropriately considered. I believe that once this lot was first approved for a
new house back in ’97, regardless of anyone’s personal objections, you have to resign
yourself to the fact that someone at some point is going to build a house on this lot. And
someone comes along willing to invest almost a million dollars in a house and one that’s
going to be architecturally and historically appropriate to the district, you probably
should seize upon that. I think if this lot was going to be maintained with the just the
small cottage as it is, I would have liked to have seen these folks out at the meeting in
1997 to oppose that plan. But once you’ve approved two plans to build a two-story
house, I just, I wasn’t able to give Mr. Cameron a good answer as to why his wasn’t
approved this time around. If anybody’s got any questions, I’ll be glad to answer.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. Ross, the current plan is materially
different from the ’97 plan in terms of where the building line is, I mean clearly --
Mr. Snellings: You mean as far as the front setback?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. But where the front wall of the house is going to located
is closer to Milledge Road than it was in ’97 in those plans; is that correct?
33
Mr. Snellings: That’s true.
Mr. Shepard: And the difference, have you calculated that difference? Is it --
Mr. Snellings: I had understood that the front of the current proposal was going
to be exactly flush with the Paine house, Highgate, immediately to the left. The setback
was going to be the same as the house to the left.
Mr. Shepard: Earlier, in ’97, was going to be more than it is in this current
proposal?
Mr. Snellings: Correct. Correct. It would be about midway of the house to the
left, while this one is flush with the front façade of the house to the left. That’s my
understanding.
Mr. Shepard: And when you were on the Commission, there was this site design
criteria with spacing; was that in the guidelines at that time?
Mr. Snellings: It was the same.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. And I wanted to ask one other question of Mr. Bush.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Of this gentleman, I don’t know if anybody else wants to.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Does anybody else have any questions for the gentleman at
the podium? Thank you, sir.
Mr. Snellings: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. George, are you basing the decision,
the HPC, on the site design criteria, is that the spacing criteria?
Mr. Bush: Yes, sir. The scale, the side setbacks, which you’ve got, and the mass
and the -- basically the spacing of the neighborhood, how the whole street is designed and
the neighboring buildings and how this building would interfere with what we have now.
Originally, the lot we’re talking about today was a cut-off of a larger lot. This is a -- the
existing cottage was an outbuilding to one of the main houses which are currently in
existence. So we’re not talking about a lot that was ever designed to accommodate a
building such as the applicant is proposing or the mass and scale of the building that the
applicant is proposing to construct. We’re just not dealing with that kind of lot on this
street.
34
Mr. Shepard: Well, when you talk about spacing, is that his business of it not
being consistent in the eyes of the HPC with the rhythm of the street; is that what we’re
talking about?
Mr. Bush: Correct. That’s a very good way of saying it, Commissioner Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: We’ll, I’m quoting the guidelines, Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bush: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And then when you say the mass and the footprint, I mean are you
saying the house is too big for the small lot?
Mr. Bush: For where they’re trying to put it, yes, sir. Bottom line. And I would
like to state for the record that the Summerville Neighborhood Association does object to
this. We have a representative here. I know y’all have been very patient, but she would
like to be heard briefly. We also, Historic Augusta objects to this proposed construction,
and they have a representative who does really wish to be heard but who can verify that
they do not want this proposed construction to go forward. And I’d also ask that the
Commission please listen briefly to Kate Paine, who would be the most impacted by this
new construction.
Mr. Shepard: That’s all the questions. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a moment. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Did I understand you to say if the setback were increased that you
would still be opposed to this?
Mr. Bush: If the setback were increased, that would be a new application which
would have to be voted upon by our Commission and as I said, we would certainly -- who
the applicant is has got nothing to do with this decision. I didn’t even want to respond to
all of that suggestion and innuendo, but I feel like you’ve given me the opportunity. But
in any event, we consider every application on the facts of the case and we would be
happy -- if he wanted to move this house back and lessen and soften the impact to the
Paine building, we would certainly entertain that, but apparently they have decided to go
forward with this proposal and that’s where we’re at.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I spoke Friday
with Mr. Cameron and that was before we had received our agenda packages a little bit
later, and I had not seen, I had no information at all when I talked to him. I attend church
at Woodlawn, right across the street from the Gould house, opposite corner, and I didn’t
realize there was even -- when we talked about a house on a lot, I didn’t realize there was
already a house on that lot. Even though it’s much, much smaller. As you go by, and so
35
I went by Saturday and looked at it and I went back by again on Sunday and just for
satisfaction I went back by again before I came down here at one o’clock. I’m just kind
of curious, in the ’01 application that was approved, why -- I guess someone else had
brought that point up a few minutes ago about why that was kind of forgotten about, or
not done, and then we come back and make another application. I’m a little bit, a little
bit lost on that, on what we’re trying to do there.
Mr. Cameron: Basically the --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sir, give us your name.
Mr. Cameron: Forgive me. I’m sorry. I’m Brad Cameron. I’m the owner of the
property at 824 Milledge Road. The reason that -- you’re asking me the reason we did
not proceed with those plans; is that what I’m understanding?
Mr. Boyles: Well, to rephrase it, I didn’t realize there was a house already there.
Mr. Cameron: Right, sir.
Mr. Boyles: I thought it was a vacant lot and I was trying to define in my own
mind where that vacant lot was going down Milledge Road about four times a week to
church from where I live, and I didn’t remember a lot being there. I thought maybe the
house that’s there now was a part of the Gould house or something. I just had never
followed it that close. But I’m wondering why, if a plan was approved in ’01, why
another one was submitted to take a chance on in ’03.
Mr. Cameron: Well, at the time when we submitted these plans, we had property
in North Carolina that we needed to sell in order to proceed with the plans. And at the
time when our architect came to Augusta to visit the property, even with us being
sensitive to the issue of the street, our architect stated to us at that time that by placing the
house back as far as that ’01 request was, it would not be in keeping with the block and
strongly urged us at that time to bring the house forward to a 50’ setback. And being that
we had to sell property in North Carolina before we started these plans, that more or less
fell on the back burner until this current request to do this new home. And after revisiting
the situation with Mr. Baker, who is an Atlanta architect, again he strongly urged this
house to be, to really comply with rhythm, if you will, that the house should be brought
forward and be at a 50’ setback, which is in compliance with the ordinance, of the
setback. And that’s how we came from the ’01 to the current request.
Mr. Boyles: Well, I’m just looking at what was given to us, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
I think the Paine house next door, am I correct in saying that? Is that correct? I would --
Mr. Paine: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’d just like to clarify. It’s
not the Paine house, it’s Highgate. It was built in 1810. We’ve been fortunate to live
there for the last 20 years.
36
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Give us your name.
Mr. Paine: Excuse me. I’m Trav Paine. We’ve been fortunate enough to live
there for the last 20 years, but I feel like the house belongs to Augusta. It certainly
doesn’t belong to us. We worked very carefully with Whitney O’Keeffe in the design of
his plan in 1997, and we were pleased with what Whitney wanted to do before it was
approved. That has not been the case currently with our neighbor. I’m friends with my
neighbor and don’t have any opposition to him building a grand, fine house. But the way
that’s it’s been presented has been less than forthcoming to us and the neighborhood, and
all I’ve got to say is if you go up and down Milledge Road, if you’re over at Woodlawn
Methodist Church, you’ve got a sight line view of our house, and if you’re coming in the
other direction you’ve got a sight line view of Gould’s Corner. You’ll lose that. You’ll
lose that with a house being built 50’ from the setback, front setback line. All I’m saying
is the citizens of Augusta should consider that. Not the impact that it has on the Paine
house, because it’s Highgate. It has the historic significance, and Gould’s Corner has the
historic significance, that need protecting. Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. I apologize for calling it the Paine house. Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: I was just wondering, since it seems like on the diagram that we
were given here, that that house, Highgate is 65’ from the setback.
Mr. Bush: 67’ is what Mr. Patty told me.
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: So Mr. Cameron’s plan is to go to within 56’ or 53’?
Mr. Bush: That’s correct.
Mr. Boyles: Architecturally in the building of a house, what would happen if it
went back to 65’ to be equal to the distance on the Paine house -- excuse me, Trav, on the
Highgate house? I mean is that what was included before in the ’97 plan or ’99 plan?
Mr. Bush: In ’97 the setback was going to be 100’, Commissioner Boyles.
Which would be, has a much less of an impact at 100’ than even at 67’. So I mean that
would be two different things, to look at the ’67 or ’65 setback as opposed to the ’97.
And the 50’ is what they’re asking for now.
Mr. Boyles: So has there been an effort to sit down and work out something with
both parties involved to see if something compatible to both? It’s not been?
37
Mr. Bush: As I’ve indicated on previously -- [inaudible] this plan that they’ve got
now, there’s never been an offer to compromise or discussion in pertaining to this. We
were given the site plan and we were asked to vote on it. And by unanimous vote, you
know, we found that it was not appropriate and we denied their request for a certificate.
And as I indicated before, the neighborhood is against it and so is Historic Augusta. And
we still, if the Commission would want to hear, we’ve got a representative from the
Summerville Neighborhood Association who will be very brief in indicating that the
neighborhood does oppose this request.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll concede to that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I wanted the Summerville Association person to speak and then I’d
like to make a motion.
Mr. Bush: This is Harriett Haltermann.
Ms. Spear: I’m Harriett Spear on behalf of the Summerville Association. And
part of the Historic Preservation Committee. And we just would like to state that we do
support the neighbors and it seems like the setback is one of the major issues here. And
also, Highgate is oriented with that porch that goes toward the side of the proposed
house, as opposed to houses that have a front porch, normally facing Milledge Road. So
I think that enters into it also. But we do support the neighbors.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. In light of what’s been discussed about the sight line
and other matters, I’m going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that we uphold the
decision of the HPC.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just have a couple of question. One to Mr. Patty. They do meet all
the ordinance requirements?
Mr. Patty: Setbacks conform to the zoning requirements, yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: Okay. I can understand both sides and I can really sympathize with
them. I would like to ask Trav, have you had the opportunity to sit down and talk with
this, with the petitioner here?
Mr. Paine: Mr. Beard, we’d be glad to do that, as we did with Mr. O’Keeffe. But
I’ve told Brad, let’s compromise this thing, let’s move the house back, let’s go back to
38
the drawing board. But he, he won’t to consider it. He wants to come all the way
forward to 50’ setback from Milledge Road, which is not his argument but it’s his
architect’s argument from Atlanta. [inaudible] from Atlanta knows less about the
neighborhood than you guys do.
Mr. Beard:
You know, what I’m looking at now is some communication,
because I think -- I can understand your position there. I wouldn’t want my house
blocked off, either. But if they’re willing to do this, to sit down and talk with the
I would make a substitute motion that you do that.
neighborhood there, But it’s no
Mr.
need for me to make that motion unless you’re willing to do some compromise here.
Mayor, I’m going to make a substitute motion that the petitioner and the
neighborhood get together and try to work out some compromise on this and move
forward on that.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a substitute motion and second on the floor. Any
discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I’ve heard, and I think everybody up here wants to try
and see that everything is protected legally and that we try and make the best offers that
won’t infringe upon anybody’s rights that they do have. But you know, I’m hearing in all
fairness to the substitute motion, I’m hearing Mr. Paine on one hand saying that they
were willing to compromise and to talk and to at least do that, but in terms of
compromising, to talk, to talk, but before I vote for the substitute motion, I think in all
fairness if one side says they’re willing to talk about that, then that does not necessarily
speak for the HPC, it speaks for one of the closest property owners, standing next to it.
But I think we need to maybe find out from Mr. Curry or form the petitioner whether
they’re willing to --
Mr. Beard: He acknowledged that.
Mr. Mays: Okay, I didn’t hear anybody come to the mike and say that. And I
apologize. From where I’m sitting, the only thing I heard was your motion, which was in
the spirit of compromise, but I didn’t see that acknowledge to come forward and to make
that, cause I was going to say if one side is willing to talk and another side is not willing
to talk, there is no need to send them back there to compromise, cause that’s over before
you start. That’s what I was just -- the point.
Mr. Beard: He acknowledged that, and that’s why I waited until the party
acknowledged that, that they were willing to talk.
Mr. Curry: I would add, Mr. Mays, that sending us back for some discussion, if it
mean a negotiation between us and Paines, however that works out, the negotiation
between us and the HPC, what are the Commission’s instructions? That would help us to
know.
39
Mr. Bush: We would just put it back down on the agenda and we would look at it
again. However, we would have given the applicant the opportunity to do that at the
regular meeting. But if they want to look at it now --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Bush: I understand.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a substitute motion. Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, the only thing, I’ll finish with, and not recognizing and
not seeing Mr. Curry when he acknowledged that. I don’t have a problem voting for the
substitute, but I want to make it clear as far as one Commissioner voting on it, I would
hope and would want to see something different in terms of the application of
compromise before it comes back to us before I would be willing to consider us doing
this. I mean if they get back and we dealing with the same thing all over again, then I
think then that from my standpoint that the board decision would have to be sustained, in
all fairness, in terms of coming back. If they are going to accomplish something out of
that, then in terms of fairness of talking, then fine. I don’t like to send a made-up-mind
message, but I think in terms of the setback, and that’s what kept gnawing at me that was
in here, on this 50’ deal, that that just was, one side was going to end up with some
irreparable harm. At the same time, you don’t want to, as a government official, I don’t
think lose a million dollar structure and investment in a city if you can help to not do that.
In fact, I would welcome -- if they don’t, I’ve got a bunch of places you can sure put that
million dollar house, but we won’t get into that today. But you know, I think if they’re
going to do that I can support your substitute motion, Mr. Beard, but I want to make it
clear that if that’s not something different that we’re going to see, then I would be
inclined to vote to sustain the action of the Board.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Shepard, then we’re going to go ahead and
[inaudible] motion.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Colclough, could we have some -- as we always say -- time
line to have this back to the Commission? I mean one meeting or could we have some
point to work to?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Can y’all do it for the next meeting, or we can extend it longer.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The next Commission meeting?
Mr. Bush: I don’t have a date, but it’s the last Thursday of every month, so it
would be the last Thursday in April. I mean March.
40
The Clerk: First meeting in April.
Mr. Beard: Okay, I would agree to that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The first meeting in April. Okay. We do --
Mr. Bush: I would like to state for the record --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, sir, we’re going to carry this motion now. We have a
substitute motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting. All opposed, likewise.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hear this again the first meeting in April. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I would ask that y’all take up item number 52, which is with the
refunding of the Development Authority bonds. We have just taken bids and I think I’m
supposed to let them know by four o’clock whether the Commission approved it. You do
not have this -- you have the resolution but it has blanks because we took the bids today.
The interest rate is 2.56% for bonds for the years 2004 through 2010. That represents a
net present value savings of $413,000 on a $4.1 million issuance, 10% savings, and I
would ask that you approve the execution of this resolution and authorize the sale to
Bank of America, the low bidder.
52A Resolution to approve, authorize and provide for the execution and
.
delivery of that certain intergovernmental lease, dated as of March 1, 2003, by and
between Augusta, Georgia and the Downtown Development Authority of the City of
Augusta; to authorize the execution and delivery of a placement agreement in
connection with the sale to certain accredited investors of the Downtown
Development Authority of the City of Augusta refunding revenue bonds (Augusta
Parking Facilities Project), Series 2003; and for other purposes.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Mays: Lot of money.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by
the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
41
Mr. Wall: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
44a. Appeal Hearing for David B. Harley regarding the HPC no decision vote on
their request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the purpose of
converting the existing “storefront” type façade to an “office” type façade affecting
property located at 718 Broad Street.
Mr. Kuhlke:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I read this correctly, there was a 4-4 vote on
I
this, so it pretty much puts it in the hands of this Commission to make a decision, and
move that we go against the -- well, that we approve the COA for this application.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Kuhlke: You don’t need to say anything.
(Laughter)
Mr. Harley: Thank you very much.
The Clerk: We’re at items 43 and 50. We’ll take them together.
43. ZA-R-157 – A petition to amend Title 6, Chapter I of the Augusta-
Richmond County Code which regulates adult entertainment establishments, and
also an amendment to Section 28-C of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County which regulates the location of adult entertainment
establishments (ZA-R-156). (Deferred by the Commission to the March 18th
meeting).
50. Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Title 6,
Chapter 1 to provide Adult Entertainment Regulations.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Revell?
Mr. Revell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Gentleman, as you remember, I
need to remind everyone where we stand right now in terms of the status of the adult
entertainment ordinance and the ability of the County to enforce it. The lawsuit that was
filed last summer by Augusta Video resulted in an order from the District Court enjoining
42
the Commission from enforcing what’s commonly known as the adult entertainment
ordinance. That ordinance had been amended last summer a couple of times, the last
being August of last year. The zoning ordinance that carries the locational requirements
verbatim from the adult entertainment ordinance are verbatim in the zoning ordinance.
That ordinance is in force and is enforceable, that has the zoning L-1, the distance
requirements and so forth. The trial court, Judge Bowen, ruled that when this
Commission amended the adult entertainment ordinance in August, that because it has a
zoning component, the zoning procedures law was required to have been followed, that
being the public notice, the public hearing through the Planning Commission, and then to
this Commission. Our position of the litigation is the entertainment ordinance is a
licensing regulation, not a zoning ordinance, and therefore the zoning procedures laws
were inapplicable. The Judge ruled otherwise, and in doing so he did not reach the
Constitutionality of the adult entertainment ordinance. He simply ruled that procedurally
in August it was not enacted properly according to the zoning procedures law, therefore
is void and unenforceable. So in response to that order, what we have before you today is
to amend that ordinance again. Substantively, it is essentially the same adult
entertainment ordinance that this body passed last August. There are couple of small,
minor changes that I’ll highlight for you, but in part and parcel it’s the same ordinance
that we had passed and amended last August that we are presently unable to enforce
because it did not go through the zoning procedures law. At this moment, it has complied
with all the zoning procedures laws, public notice of the hearing, adopted by the Planning
Commission at its last meeting two weeks ago, and so the so-called zoning procedures
law we believe had been fully complied with. Just so you’ll know, the changes from the
ordinance as it was adopted here last summer in August, we provided a better definition
for the term “government building or site.” That term was in there and we provided a
definition for that, as well as the “gateway corridors.” We provided distance and
locational definitions for that. In terms of the time for review of the location
requirements by the License & Inspection Department, under the August ordinance that
allowed 60 days. That’s now reduced to 30 days. In Section 6-1-13, the time allowed for
the Commission to investigate the applicant, last August provided 30 days. Now that’s
reduced to 14 days to act on it. One of the provisions last summer said that the building
must meet all applicable laws and that the issuance of a permit would not violate any
laws. That provision has been deleted. We added an automatic issuance of a permit if
the Commission simply failed to render a decision from any denial from Licensing
Department within 14 days. A provision was deleted that prohibited a permit being
issued to anyone who hadn’t paid business or property taxes at the location. In 6-1-18,
we inserted an automatic reversal and issuance of a permit if the Commission failed to
render another appeal decision. And lastly, we deleted the automatic sealing of the
premises with the License & Inspection Director found unsanitary conditions. It now
requires that a Court order be sought before the premises are sealed. So those are the
only changes to the adult entertainment ordinance that was passed last August, and I
submit they’re not -- they are some procedural changes, but substantively it’s basically
the same ordinance that was enacted. One of the other things that we believe is required
is to present the Commission some evidence today for the need of an adult entertainment
ordinance like the one proposed. Last December, excuse me, December of ’94, I should
say, is when this more comprehensive adult entertainment ordinance was first enacted,
43
and those of you who were here at that time will remember certain studies were presented
and made a part of the record. The District Attorney and the Sheriff at that time
presented evidence to the Commission of the need for regulation of so-called adult
entertainment ordinances and the impact that those particular businesses may have on the
crime rates, property values, and community blight. After consolidation, an ordinance
was re-adopted as part of a new codification for Augusta, Georgia, after consolidation.
There was an amendment July 18 and then another amendment August 6 that I mentioned
a moment ago. We have made a part of the record, and I have here, if anyone would care
to see them, five -- excuse me, four studies dealing with the subject of adult
entertainment and its effect on community crime and disorder, and those are the studies
for the city of St. Mary’s, Georgia, the city of Austin, Texas, a Tucson, Arizona, police
memorandum, and a file [inaudible] city of Garden Grove, California. And just for
purposes of the record today, I want to take just a couple of minutes and read into the
record some of the language found in the study. And the one I’m reading from, to the
city of St. Mary’s, Georgia, which in part incorporates in that study other studies. And
the Courts have found that each and every city that adopts an adult entertainment
ordinance need not commission its own study to determine whether there is secondary,
negative secondary effects, but they can rely upon other studies done, and that’s what the
city of St. Mary’s did. And it quoted from a study from the state of Minnesota in 1989
where that study found that dramatic increases in crime rates were directly associated
with introduction of adult-oriented businesses into any community study. Evidence was
articulated that indicated that property crimes were 40% to 50% higher and sex-related
crimes were found to be 70% to as much as 500% higher, depending on the municipality.
A study from the city of Garden Grove found extensive statistical analysis applied to ten
years of reported crime data, and that analysis showed that crime rises whenever an adult
business opens or operates or expands its operations, and that the change in those crimes
is statistically significant. Notably that study found when adult businesses opened within
1,000 of a tavern, the impact of adult businesses on crime is further aggravated
substantially and statistically significantly. The results of survey data show that residents
who live near such businesses, as well as those who live further away, associate adult
business with increased crime and other negative impacts on the quality of the
neighborhood. Many women respondents expressed an overwhelming fear for their
safety and the safety of their children. More than one in five respondents reported a
specific negative or criminal incident related to the operation of an adult business. That
study also referenced the city of Phoenix, Arizona 1979 study that found, specifically
showed that there is a higher amount of sex offenses committed in neighborhoods
containing adult businesses, as opposed to those without them. The study postulates that
there appears to be a significantly greater difference between the study area where there
are adult businesses and the controlled areas where there are no adult businesses, for sex
crimes than for either property or violent crimes. The report, they reported an increase of
about 40% in property crimes, 4% in violent crimes, and 606% in sex-related crimes.
They also reference a city of Tucson, Arizona study in 1990 where the investigating
officers found that many of the employees of adult-oriented businesses were prostitutes
who were offering private shows where they could, for a price, the customer could
observe them performing live sex acts. And those studies go on and on to make the case,
I submit, that these businesses need to be regulated. And this Commission had regulated
44
them consistently since the 80’s and up until the time when the current ordinance was
found to have been procedurally not enacted properly. And again, I want to reiterate the
zoning aspect of this is in place, is enforceable as we sit here today. And the only change
there is again, one of those definitional terms for, the two terms being “government
building or site” and the “gateway corridors” are two defined terms. Also, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem, I’d like to call on Greg Smith from the Sheriff’s Department to speak very
briefly about the Sheriff’s Department’s perspective on this, for purposes of the records,
and then Mike Carlson from the District Attorney’s office, from the prosecuting elected
official for this Circuit, and then I’ll return to the podium.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Good afternoon. What I want to do is just share some reasons with
you or reasons we’d like for you to at least take into consideration while you make this
decision today. When we’re talking about crime in adult entertainment areas, we’re
talking about secondary crime primarily. And by secondary, I mean crimes that are
committed in the general area of that location, not necessarily taking place in the location.
Some of the problems that we’ve experienced over the years in the adult entertainment
districts have been, have ranged from disorderly conducts to thefts from vehicles,
damaged properties. We’ve had robberies, such as muggings and things of that nature.
Most of those occur late at night. Prostitution is a problem in our adult entertainment
areas. Again, we’re not saying this is necessarily attributable directly to the locations, but
it definitely takes place in the general vicinity and there’s not question about that. That’s
one of the reasons we actually have people patrolling certain areas more heavily on the
night shift. At the present time, we don’t have an enforceable ordinance that we can
enforce. I mean it’s pretty cut-and-dried on that. What we feel like is you adopt these
changes, at least it gives us some say as to where these locations can open up. We have a
way to regulate where they’re at so they can’t open up just anywhere. We feel like that’s
important. While I think the Courts protect that type of business and we’re certainly not
trying to prevent anybody from opening, I do think the general public, or at least a
portion of the general public, would agree that they need to be regulated in this manner so
that we can pick where these locations will be. And what we’re trying to do is just create
an environment so that these businesses can co-exist with the community at large. We’re
not trying to put anybody out of business by what we’re doing. We’re certainly not going
to prevent anybody from opening one of these businesses, and I don’t think that’s the
intent of these changes that are being made. My understanding is basically what they’re
doing is addressing the concerns of the Court. One of the issues that came up was
background checks. Essentially on that, if somebody had a criminal history, depending
on what it was, I mean we’re not here to tell people who they can and cannot hire.
However, we do want to prevent people from working in these locations that may have
convictions of moral turpitude, those types of crimes. Prostitution, sex offenders, things
of that nature. Somebody gets a disorderly conduct or gets in a fight and hits somebody
and then is arrested on a misdemeanor, we’re generally not going to have a problem with
that kind of thing. So we’re not really trying to delegate who works in these locations at
all. But there’s obviously some people that don’t need to be in there. And in fairness to
the owners of these locations, they have no earthly idea what the backgrounds of some of
45
these people are that may apply, so I mean while some people say that may be too
restrictive, we feel like we’re actually doing a service to these people that own these
businesses. Again, we feel like to amendments are necessary in order for the community
to co-exist with these businesses that are obviously protected and we want to protect their
rights as we do any other citizens. We don’t feel like these amendments are going to
infringe on anyone’s rights, and we do need some way to at least have some say in how
these businesses are run. Right now, we have absolutely no say in that and we feel like
that’s foolhardy for any type of business along that line, to just be able to operate at will
without some type of oversight. So on behalf of the Sheriff, I would strongly encourage
that these adoptions be made and we certainly support them.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Prosecutor?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes?
Mr. Mays: Can I ask, are we going to go through the whole process of everybody
speaking before we do any questions at all or are we going to do it in each segment? I
just want to understand, caused I called attention to the rules the last time, that’s why we
didn’t have this the last time and we’re doing it today. And I got some rule procedures I
want to ask about, maybe before we go any further with this. I’m not here to champion
anybody’s cause on any side of this, but I think some questions ought to be asked as we
move procedurally along.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to go back to Mr. Smith?
Mr. Mays: Well, probably to Mr. Smith and Mr. Revell, too. You made
reference to 1994. And I guess I’m the only relic, Jim and myself and the attorney, that
probably were around in 1994, but the point is I remember asking the question at that
time -- we had a different Sheriff at that time, but we still have the same department,
same integrity, no difference, but the question was asked, the person who was at that
time, and I forget who may have been representing the department on that day, but
questions came up. I’m a little leery when we start quoting into, into record to build a
case and ask us to make a decision. Decisions based on certain cities. You go over them
in brief form and you stand over them. Yet questions were raised, even as far back as
1994. And the reason why I know them, if we got to go back, and Steve knows how I am
about verbatim minutes. I remember asking the questions in reference to calls that the
Sheriff’s Department was making in reference to in an around adult establishments, as it
related to so-called mainstream clubs, the amount of break-ins, the amount of shootings,
the amount of disorders, and we basically came up with a lot of blank faces. Now I think
if we going to go to 1994, Mr. Mayor, then maybe the whole record doesn’t have to be
read, but whatever was submitted in ’94 ought to be a part of the record now. I can’t
remember it verbatim, but the questions were asked. I don’t think we ought to pick apart
what happened in 1994. Now I, too, agree that businesses, period, ought to be regulated
in some way. Everybody has got to have some rules. But the question was said at that
46
time, and I’m listening to the general statement about these businesses, and we were then
of the opinion, because you said that you didn’t want to violate anybody’s Constitutional
rights. Well, let me just ask this. If that be the case, I move on then to where we are
within the Sheriff’s Department and I go back to what I said two weeks ago. Like a
business or not, like its activities, if we are saying then that we are going to have to deal
with adult establishments or related adult establishments and we need to have rules,
granted, to deal with them, has there been any dialog with operators or potential operators
as you do with any other type of business that may be see a desirable business per se,
from the public standpoint, to talk about what you’re doing? And the main point I’m
getting to, Mr. Mayor, is this. I’m really getting tired of the City spending money over
and over almost like a dog chasing a tire to see how we are going to catch an ordinance
that keeps us regulated. Now it seems as though every time we started with this gateway
deal, we started with zoning, and here we are back again. You know, Steve and some of
us attending that seminar at the National League of Cities in reference to the fact that
we’re not the only city that’s alone, ladies and gentlemen, in what we’re dealing with in
terms of adult entertainment regulations. But I think we ought to at least get to some
point where we talk with the other side and we deal with what’s maybe workable, what’s
not workable, because at this point, what we’re getting into, we’re getting into spending
enormous amounts of dollars in legal money -- no offense to Mr. Wall, it’s his job to
legally represent us in the proper way. But I don’t think every six to seven months when
we come up with a creative idea about what’s a gateway, what’s a governmental building
or somewhere we’re riding down the road, I’ve looked at this thing in the zoning about
light industry and the one in question we just lost, Mr. Mayor, was probably in, in terms
of surroundings, one of in terms of zoning, per se, the worst zoning you can get into.
You had light and heavy industry. You’ve got a [inaudible] right up the street. You’ve
got in one area where several of us as Commissioners went out and saw the actual
dumping of a contractor that we hired, taking contaminants, dumping them next to a
residential area there in Hyde Park. I mean you can’t get any worse than where you put
that in the zoning. Now we lost that case. Do we come up with some other creative idea
that six to eight months from now we’re down the road again, trying to regulate, trying to
bring back some language of something that happened in some part of California or St.
Mary’s, Georgia? We’ve got to, I think, identify what is going to happen in Augusta and
decide whether or not, okay, if something is going to exist, and you know it’s going to
exist, then let’s really comprehensively identify the problem, work with what elements
you’ve got, whether you like the people, whether you like what they do or not, I think it’s
based on where you’re dealing with it somewhere in here within the law. Cause we can
keep going back to Court, we can keep spinning our wheels every six, eight, ten months
and changing this, and what we are going end up with soon in the community is that we
are going to get beat down to where we are going to have some places where we don’t
really want them, and then how then do we regulate them once they’ve gotten off the
ground? And I think that should be the key issue of where we’re going with here. I
objected two weeks ago, and I want to ask right now before going further, I notice that
what’s changed in the language of the way this is posted, are we still dealing with an
ordinance change that requires a second reading?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
47
Mr. Mays: Okay. So that still -- what we’re doing here today, if it’s passed
positively, still has to be done again?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Or unless we grant the right to waive?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay. And my reason for doing that is so that we didn’t get bat by
somebody’s rules in Court, we got beat by our own rules in Court. By our own
admission. So we here today because we got whupped by what we drew up. So now if
that’s the case, I think it’s wise that we are here today than two weeks ago, because at
least it has given the appearance of putting into place, of having a fair hearing, from even
a side that may be considered unwanted per se. But it’s there because they have the legal
right to be heard. And just like I say, this is not a champion of causes. It’s a matter of
what’s legal and of what’s right. But I think if you are going to put stuff into the minutes,
then we ought to put everything into the minutes. I think the questions ought to be asked,
and I’ve said this many times over and over, whether it’s about adult entertainment,
whether it was in opposition to where the reports came in, in reference to persons who
were, who were a different sexual orientation that were there on Gordon Highway in
reference to gays being there, that if something is going on wrong, that’s what law
enforcement is for. Undercover, put them. Sting them. Bust them. Take the property.
Seize it. And take everything that they’ve got, if that’s what you’re doing. And enforce
what you put down. But I think to come in with these type of things like we do, to say
something is going on in an area and somebody broke in a car, I mean you get that pretty
much, quite frankly, and I think Mr. Smith would have to agree, every nightclub in
Augusta basically, even with police on the scene. Cars get broke into. Windows get
knocked out. Folks get dealt with with robbery. So I mean you can’t just specifically say
you’re dealing with one place in doing this. And I think you ought to be fair about that,
and I think you ought to say that. Those questions since ’94. I didn’t bring up ’94, Jim.
Mr. Revell brought up ’94 and said what happened in ’94. And if you going to talk about
’94, talk about everything that happened in ’94. Those questions were raised then and
law enforcement could not produce the statistics. So if you are going to put up ’94, put
up all of ’94 that’s in there. Word for word, verbatim. Doesn’t have to be discussed, but
bring it up, what came up during the administration of Sheriff Charlie Webster and what
was there. And the rest of the folk there. And the only question I’d ask is [inaudible],
you’ve known everybody that’s been in the adult entertainment business basically since
’94 because none went into the old county, they’re in into the old city where we are, right
now, to a point of everybody’s in business basically in walking distance of where they
are, that’s in business right now, maybe with the exception give or take [inaudible] with
one club. So if that’s the case then maybe we ought to hear statistics of what’s going on
in those places, what’s happening with those operations, whether or not they’ve got the
type of activity that’s going on. Cause if we going to discuss this, I’m not here to hear
about what somebody’s inventory is in a building. Don’t think it’s even to a point of
48
where we make that decision. That’s a moral decision to be made. We here to talk about
legalities and if folk are being robbed, if you got prostitution going on in a place, then
you bust them. You put in cash money if they’re selling drugs in them, then you bust
them. And not only do you just bust the people that are working there, you take what
they’ve got. And that’s been my position since ’94, it’s been my position prior to ’94,
that you do it. But to keep coming in here, to a point of every six to eight months and we
change the ordinance, we going work it this way, we go to Federal Court and we lose
again, and then we come back, we lose again. We got money we paying Mr. Wall and
we can’t even give raises to some of our folk who work for us who need them, and if
that’s going to be our main issue of conduct that we’re dealing with, I think you need to
do a reality check to a point that if you cannot rid the community of certain types of
businesses, like the business or not, and you’re going to have to co-exist with them, then I
think at some point you sit down with everybody else, then you ought to sit down with
them. It’s a lot cheaper. It would save a lot less headache then going against the waters
of Federal Court and getting this thing thrown back at us every time. I think the
Commission ought to have some better things to do with its time and [inaudible] with this
money than to keep paying this out, Mr. Wall, like we doing. And that’s just my
position.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I make a motion that we approve
Items 43 and 50 as recommended by the Attorney and that the Attorney and the Clerk
make an adequate record to include what parts of the ’94 materials they feel necessary
and available and the current studies.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I think we have some people who want to speak and I would like to
hear them prior to voting on this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right.
Mr. Beard: Attorney Frails.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Frails?
Mr. Frails: Good afternoon. I appreciate you all letting me speak. We’re not on
the agenda but we heard about this [inaudible]. It directly affects my client, Mr. James
Lewis, known as [inaudible]. I’m sure you all are familiar with me. He owns an adult
entertainment establishment. He -- we did not go to Federal Court. We went to Superior
Court. And Superior Court does things a little bit different, primarily because of politics.
However, however, I believe that what occurred in Federal Court concerning the
ordinance also affects my client, Mr. Lewis. The Judge’s order was written to the extent
49
where it just not only applied to Augusta Video or the X-Mart but it also applies to all the
citizens of Richmond County. And basically he threw the ordinance out. And since that
time, Mr. Lewis went ahead and he opened up his establishment on Damascus Road,
which we visited here several -- I’d say about a year-and-a-half ago. He opened and he’s
been operating. Additionally, he applied for a license. The Commission should be aware
of that. I sent a letter to Mr. Wall last week. I also cc’d Ms. Bonner on that letter, and
Ms. Bonner indicated to me that she put that letter in each and every Commissioner’s
box. So the Commission is aware of the fact that he is operating on Damascus Road.
Concerning the setback requirements as they are laid out in this ordinance, he meets all of
those setback requirements. There is some issue concerning item 9, and I believe Mr.
Revell has addressed that, what is defined as a “public building, park or recreational
area.” In other words, he meets all of those requirements, but I believe that that’s a gray
area. And the reason that it’s a gray area is because the golf course sells alcohol, which is
right across the street from him. His building is not within 1,000’ of any building that’s
on the golf course, but certainly all of these other requirements he meets. Additionally,
th
he applied for a license somewhere around about on the 8 of January, 2003. He
submitted his application to the License & Inspection Department. We did not receive an
answer. He went down on several occasions to attempt to get his license and the License
& Inspection Department has yet to respond. Also, sometime in late February, sometime
stnd
in early February, I believe it was around about the 1 or 2 of February, I believe this
gentleman here went to Mr. Lewis’ establishment on Damascus Road and he issued him a
citation. We certainly believe that that citation was issued in error, because there was no
ordinance in place at the time that Mr. Lewis was operating his business. Once this
ordinance is approved, there is another issue that, Mr. Mays, Commissioner Mays, will
take us back to the Court, and that issue is what do you do about people that open their
businesses when no ordinance was in place? How do you address that issue? We submit
that he’s entitled to continue to operate his business because he operated the business
when there was no ordinance in place and he should be grandfathered in just like he was
grandfathered in when he operated his business on Walton Way Extension, on Walton
Way, I’m sorry. And that’s our position. And we certainly don’t feel that this ordinance
can be readily approved without addressing the people that opened their businesses
during open season. Mr. Lewis is the only client of mine that did that. However, I do
have some other bar owners that came to me and talked to me about possibly doing that.
I did not advise them to do that because they weren’t long-time clients. Now what I want
the Commission to really understand is Mr. Lewis just wants to operate his business,
something that he had been doing for years. We came to you all in the earlier meetings,
we argued that the old ordinance was unconstitutional. You all disapproved his business.
As I said, we went to Superior Court, X-Mart came in after us and went to Federal Court,
and had the ordinance kicked out. We want to be a good, taxpaying citizen of Richmond
County. But we also feel like that the Commission should also take into account that he’s
operated this business for years without incident, he’s been operating this business since
early January up on Damascus Road, where he meets the distance requirements, and we
would like for the Commission to address that particular issue. What does the
Commission do about people that opened their business in, for lack of a better word,
during what I would call open season?
50
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Jim, I’ve got a question here. At
any time, did we have an ordinance not in place?
Mr. Wall: We have always had a zoning ordinance in place, and Mr. Lewis’
application did not meet the zoning requirements. That was not ruled unconstitutional by
the Federal Court. It’s still in place. He was told by License & Inspection that he needed
to go to Planning & Zoning and get a zoning change before he would meet the
requirement. There have been -- we are enjoined from enforcing our adult entertainment
ordinance, which regulates how the business operates. But as far as the location of the
business, that zoning provision has been in place and Mr. Lewis does not -- that citation
was issued to him and it’s up to the Court to determine whether or not he’s in violation of
it. The current proposal is to both amend the zoning ordinance to deal specifically with
the couple of changes that Mr. Revell mentioned, as well as the adult entertainment to
regulate the business itself.
Mr. Bridges: So when we, if we pass this ordinance today, then, or whenever we
have the second reading of it, if that’s today or next meeting, from that point on the new
ordinance will take effect, but everything before that is under the existing ordinance; is
that right?
Mr. Wall: It is under -- that’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Frails: May I respond to that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a moment. Mr. Wall? You [inaudible] to say
something?
Mr. Wall: I said what I wanted to.
Mr. Frails: Mr. Lewis’ application was approved by this Zoning Commission
prior to this Commission disapproving it. So as far as Mr. Wall stating that he does not
meet the zoning requirements, it was approved by the full Planning Commission Board at
a meeting here, so he met those zoning requirements that the Planning & Zoning had laid
out and I believe Mr. Patty even recommended approval.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Planning & Zoning is a recommending body. They don’t
approve ordinances. They only recommend to us. They are a recommending body.
Mr. Frails: They were approved by Planning & Zoning.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Recommended. They are recommended. When Planning
& Zoning first opened up, the first thing that they [inaudible] the first statement that is
51
read by the Chairman is to say that we are a recommending body and that any approval
will be made by the full Commission.
Mr. Frails: Mr. Patty’s statement to -- Mr. Wall is the one that indicated it was
not approved by Planning & Zoning. I’m just simply discounting what he said. It was
approved by Planning & Zoning.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Planning & Zoning is a recommending body
for this body. They can’t approve. They can recommend approval.
Mr. Frails: Mr. Mayor, and this body disapproved this. Disapproved his request
to move his club, and then you all ended up in Federal Court with X-Mart, and that’s my
point. You ended up in Federal Court with X-Mart.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Prosecutor?
Mr. Carlson: Mike Carlson from the District Attorney’s office. Mr. Craig is out
of town today, but in front of Planning & Zoning I appeared. Prior to becoming an
Assistant District Attorney, I was a First Amendment lawyer, so to some extent perhaps
both times it’s somewhat fortuitous I can be here. I won’t belabor any of this. What I
will say is having examined the documents from Federal Court, the briefs, the current
ordinance, the issue in Federal Court was whether or not procedurally the matter was
adoptee. The ordinance itself was not struck down as unconstitutional. Obviously with
regard to any constitutional right, restrictions can be placed on the First Amendment,
particularly the First Amendment right of this sort. Remember, First Amendment was
designed to protect primarily political leafleting. This is not The Federalist Papers,
gentlemen, that we’re talking about. However, it is a right that can be exercised but can
be restricted. That’s all we are talking about with this ordinance here. The District
Attorney’s office is in favor of it and believes that it passes Constitutional muster.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Cheek: So just let me clarify a couple of things for myself, and I’m not sure
who should answer this question. We have an operating adult entertainment
establishment operating now outside of the downtown area here?
Mr. Wall: Arguably. They, they called -- Mr. Lewis called Greg Smith and
indicated that he had adult entertainment going on. In my opinion, it was obviously
designed to challenge the current -- the situation. When Mr. Smith arrived, there was no
adult entertainment there. I won’t go into the details, but there was an exhibition put on
sufficient to allow him to write the ticket and in order, I think to posture themselves for a
Court challenge. And to our knowledge, we made the decision that we were going to
litigate that case, have the Court rule on the validity of it, and then deal with any other
activities that were going there.
52
Mr. Cheek: I guess as a path forward from here, I think from what I heard, one of
the major things people were concerned about in the last few years was these, these
sprawling or attempted sprawl of adult entertainment throughout the city, not keeping it
confined down to this end of Broad Street. Where do we go from here as far as making
sure that -- where are we on this grandfather situation, as far as adult entertainment being
outside of areas that we’ve approved of?
Mr. Wall: If they’re legally operating as of January, 2003, January 1, 2003, at the
time of the Court order, then they would be grandfathered in for one year, insofar as the
license is concerned. We do not believe that Mr. Lewis is legally operating, so therefore
there would be no grandfathering of him.
Mr. Cheek: Is that on pretty sound legal footing as far as us being able to sustain
a challenge?
Mr. Wall: We believe that it is. That’s the reason we’re waiting on the State
Court to issue its ruling insofar as the citation is concerned. If the Court rules against us
on that, then he would be grandfathered in for a year. We believe we can prevail.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a minute.
Mr. Mays: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes, thank you, Mr. Colclough. I guess I have a couple of questions
and I think -- the first thing I’m saying, I can understand that we need policy and
procedures in operating these clubs. But from what I’ve heard, from the conversations
that have been taken here and discussed, you know, where can an adult entertainment
establishment -- you know, are we trying to prevent adult entertainment establishment
from happening in this city or are we trying to confine it to certain areas? And if we ‘re
going to get into the one where they are talking about, we’re talking about now, Mr.
Lewis, it was my understanding, and I’m not that clear on it, but from what I understand
he met the requirements, if we’re going into his position. He met the requirements and he
was one of those that was grandfathered in along with all the others that were down here
on Broad Street, is my understanding he had a license. He moved, he had to move his
establishment is my understanding, but he still had a license along with the others who
were grandfathered in. And how can we at this point, Jim, make a decision here that if
he’s meeting all the requirements, of zoning requirements --
Mr. Wall: Let -- excuse me.
Mr. Beard: Okay, go on.
53
Mr. Wall: He was grandfathered in insofar as the location on Walton Way. He
had a licensed establishment on Walton Way. His lease was terminated. We were not
involved in that. He then tried to transfer that license to another location. The
Commission refused that transfer. That was under the old ordinance, under the old
zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance at that time allowed it to go into a zoning B-2
category. The Damascus Road location was zoned B-2. Last year, you amended that
ordinance, changed it to light industrial or heavy industrial. There are sites in Richmond
County, numerous sites, where he can go. He is not zoned light industrial or heavy
industrial, and so therefore he is not in a licensed location. So he does not meet the
zoning requirements as they currently exist.
Mr. Beard: Are you saying that his license is good?
Mr. Wall: No, not good.
Mr. Beard: No, no, no. I’m talking about if -- you just said if he moved into
another location somewhere else that he could have used that license.
Mr. Wall: No, sir. The licenses are not transferable. He tried to ask that they be
transferred. But the licenses are not transferable. You’ve got to meet the zoning
requirements of the new location.
Mr. Beard: But if he had met the --
Mr. Wall: If he had met the zoning requirements, then --
Mr. Beard: That’s what I’m saying, then, he could move into any -- if he meets
the zoning requirement he could have moved into any area that met the requirements;
right?
Mr. Wall: If he met the requirements while we did not have an adult
entertainment ordinance that we could enforce subsequent to January 2 of this year, then
he could have opened and adult entertainment establishment because we did not have an
adult entertainment ordinance that regulated him, but he had to meet the zoning
requirements. And he has not met the zoning requirements.
Mr. Beard: Okay. My other point would be you said he had to begin this at the
first of the year, and he is saying that he was open and you are saying that he was not
open?
Mr. Wall: Not open legally if he was open, because he did not meet the zoning
requirements. And that’s the reason that the citation was issued.
Mr. Beard: You know, it just, to me it get to the point wherein, not that I’m
championing for adult entertainment, but I think we’re at a point in this city where this is
going to continue to be a problem, if we make it a problem. I think we’re getting to that
54
point where we are large enough that we are going to have these kinds of places here, and
it appears to me that it’s almost been a concerted effort to block this man from a living.
Really. Because I think that at some point in time, we could have -- if he was
grandfathered in with the rest of these people that are down here inside the city, it appears
to me that we could have worked with him in some way wherein he could continue to
make a living and establish within the zoning requirements and everything else, but it
appears that he’s been blocked on every issue between the Sheriff’s Department and
everybody else, they’ve just blocked it. And you know, I think that’s unfair.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, about to change the complexion just a little bit. One,
I wanted to see this process so if anybody did have objections to where we were going,
they’d have the opportunity to do so, and I think that’s created that particular playing
field. But I need a couple of questions answered. Let me move away cause I didn’t
know we were going to even deal with the case of Mr. Lewis today per se, cause I
thought we were dealing with what was to come on with the ordinance and then if there
was an objection raised by Mr. Lewis’ attorney or anybody else’s attorney, they’d have
the opportunity to do that. I just, I thought we needed to follow our own rules and that
started with the question about how we were following the zoning procedure in terms of
how things came to the Commission on what day and how they were there. But let me
just back up on something that I’m not clear about. When you -- this is, this can be
excluding or including Mr. Lewis’ position -- just in general when you talked about the
grandfathering and what would be in position as of 2003, did I hear right or wrong that
that was good for a year?
Mr. Wall: You were correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay. My follow-up question, Mr. Mayor, then, and I guess Mr. Wall
is the one to answer this. Does it then mean that if say, let’s say existing businesses,
excluding Mr. Lewis, those that are in eyesight from this building, does it mean that
somewhere in the reading of that proposal that it’s saying that their grandfather status
then becomes questionable in 2004, January?
Mr. Wall: Well, this is the non-conforming uses. If he were not properly zoned,
then --
Mr. Mays: Let’s take him out of the picture then. He doesn’t exist hypothetically
for the, just for the purpose of discussion. Take him out of the picture totally. Let’s deal
with those that are in question that hold a license that buy alcohol and come through our
regulatory authority, that are in business right now. Is there a year provision that are on
those? I think that changes this whole discussion a lot, if I’m hearing that. And maybe I
interpreted that wrong.
Mr. Wall: You -- there is a second grandfather provision in here that I’m trying to
find.
55
Mr. Mays: Y’all can have a sidebar if you want to, but I think we better discuss
that real clearly if y’all are fixing to get off on that. Cause I got a real problem, Mr.
Mayor, we’ve been through a whole lot of stuff for two hours. I didn’t know today I was
going to come to deal with a decision of trying to get a million dollar house that I would
have liked to have had somewhere near me and then the rest of the time being spent with
this thing that goes back and forth to Court and we been through with everything else
since three o’clock. And that’s my problem with today’s activities period. And it don’t
look like we are going to be through with it today, going to be through with it some other
time.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] that’s January 1.
Mr. Mays: In 2004?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Okay. And see this gets back, Mr. Mayor, to what I’m talking about,
about this spirit of what we put in writing, or do we talk to people? It further, it further
expands the [inaudible]. I’ve extracted Mr. Frails’ client from the conversation for a
moment, just for the purpose of discussion. And just dealing with who we are regulating.
If, if this is the case and you don’t talk to people, even in so-called undesirable
businesses, if folk have been in business for 15, 20, 30 years or longer, that if you tell me
their businesses, like them or not, could be in question when a year’s time expires, then I
think it becomes incumbent then to at least have had some conversation with, whether it
be County Attorney’s office and those people that are in those businesses, Sheriff’s
Department, and folk who are in those businesses, and the District Attorney’s office, if
they’re in here, they need to be in it, too. So I think you’ve got three arms of government
that’s in here that’s saying they could become questionable in terms of that status in a
year’s time, and yet nobody has raised that with them. And if you have, I, you know, I’d
like to hear it. But I’m sure that if somebody was saying that they had business today and
we could very well wipe them out because of expiration of a term, come January 1, on a
technicality, you’d have other folk here other than Mr. Frails representing clients this
afternoon. So I think that, Mr. Mayor, it’s a whole lot to be discussed because if they
over in there trying to figure out what they written and what they put together, they sure
confused to have [inaudible] and you going to lose one member of this Commission soon
cause this is one that I just think again we’re spending -- that dog is still trying to catch
his tail and we paying for it. Every time the tire turns, we pay. The dog’s not catching
and we back arguing. Somewhere in a room somewhere I think that there should be
some legal discussion between all these great legal minds, the attorneys who represent
these folk, the attorneys you represent us, law enforcement, and also the District
Attorney’s office, as to what parameters can get to be livable in a situation and get us to a
point where we can draw up some laws that even with undesirable businesses in some
categories, that they can be put into a situation of co-existence. And that’s my argument.
And I think it’s just been made [inaudible]. Now if y’all got an answer for me now, you
know, then let’s do it cause obviously folk may read in the morning that they be out of
56
business, so certainly, you know, you are going to get a call with it, and whether
[inaudible] I wish they were out of business, but it’s still, it’s still, whether we like it or
now, it’s still America and folk have certain rights and we said earlier, everybody who
stood up there before that mike has said there was nothing done to abridge anybody’s
right to be in business. So I’m still waiting on that answer. Was I correct in my
interpretation or assumption that the grandfather clause does apply but does expire come
2004?
Mr. Wall: That’s what I’m being told, yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: And that’s [inaudible]?
Mr. Mays: The only thing I say, Mr. Mayor, in closing is that y’all better be -- if
you think you just got sued and you just left Federal Court, you better be real careful,
because we put in the grandfather positions as a government, voted on them, like the
businesses or not we put them in, and if you have now written something that’s contrary
to what’s there, then hey, you ain’t seen the last of lawsuits that you’re going to face.
Our attorneys are going to be the richest folk that we hire or employ.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is there a motion on the floor?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, to approve.
Mr. Bridges: And so really what we need -- I mean I realize we’ve got a
gentleman with business that’s got a separate issue over here with regards to a citation.
Can I just call the question on the motion that’s on the floor then?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, you can. You certainly can.
Mr. Bridges: I call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. And what was the question
on the floor?
The Clerk: To approve items 43 and 50 and to include the 1994 language that Mr.
Mays referenced.
Mr. Shepard: And the studies that Mr. Revell referenced.
The Clerk: And the --
Mr. Shepard: The studies that were referred to by Mr. Revell in his presentation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion --
57
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, as a point of clarification, because the
grandfather provision is in this ordinance that you’re now getting ready to vote for, I want
that known for the record. Yes or no?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Okay, it’s in there. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk:
47. Motion to approve Change Order #3 to Hebbard Electric Company to
complete repairs to the generator sets not included in the original scope of work for
this project. (No recommendation Engineering Services Committee March 12, 2003)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen?
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, gentlemen. We do have business on the floor,
item 47. There is a motion to approve and a second.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk:
58
48. Motion to approve additional funding in the amount of $61,966.08 for work
to be performed on the water main relocation in conjunction with the Georgia
Department of Transportation (GDOT) Deans Bridge Road Intersection
Improvements Project. (No recommendation Engineering Services Committee
March 12, 2003)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
The Clerk: Mr. Cheeks needs to add something for clarification regarding the
agenda item.
Mr. Cheeks: I was asked to put this on the record, that the change order form
needs to be changed. The change order form, the point that you brought to our attention,
Ms. Bonner asked that I bring that up to make sure to let you know that that would be
added. Where it said “decreased” it actually should have been “increased.” Point of
clarification.
The Clerk: Thank you.
Mr. Cheeks: I’ve got that form with me today.
The Clerk: Okay, good. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk: Item 49 is deleted. Item 51:
ATTORNEY:
51. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing submission of proposal in
response to solicitation for Utility Privatization at Fort Gordon, Georgia - Water
Distribution System and Wastewater Collection System - Solicitation NO. SP0600-
01-R-0119.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Kuhlke?
59
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I’ve just got one question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Max, in this
proposal that you’re going to make -- [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, there’s a motion and second on the floor. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’m trying to -- are we protecting ourselves so that
we are in the loop at this point with this item here, to be on here?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Well, let me just ask this in the formulation of a contract. If we are
proposing to deal with this, and I understand the delicacy right now, particularly with
Fort Gordon and I think it’s probably in our interest in terms of showing as many
concerns as we can to, to be a part of community for it and to deal with that. But what
I’m also looking at is that as this moves further, if it gets into this, this [inaudible], who
and at what point, who will make the decision as to how we move in terms of the
solicitation, in terms of whether it’s RFP’s, whether or not it’s a, it’s a competitive bid
process, whether we will select a firm under the service guise of where we’re going, what
-- just where are we going with this can? I mean this is -- I just don’t want this to take an
automatic life of its own, get opened up, and we’re somewhere in the process of
something, and then when we know it, we’ve got a bunch of contracts with us at the last
moment that need to be signed and that folk are doing business with this City that, getting
to a point that it’s not necessarily been fully discussed in its total entirety. You say a year
away, that bothers me more than it being a month away, because see when you say a year
away, that means sometimes we lose stuff for 11 months, then in the last 30 days it pops
up. Now I don’t have a problem with it and will probably vote for this where we are, but
I just want to kind of know what the rules of the game are going to be as we move with it.
You know, is this something that we plan to deal with in-house per se, or it pops up back
at us? Obviously it’s not going to lie dormant for a year. Somebody is going to be
making some action, taking some steps, and you know, if we put together a resolution we
plan to do something, I’d kind of like to know what are the plans, if there is a plan.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, I would glad to address that. For I guess the last several years,
there had always been that possibility that Fort Gordon would look to privatize their
water and wastewater system. The first attempt of that came back in ’93 or ’94 when the
first round of base realignment and closures took place and there was an effort at that
time to do it. It proceeded to the point that we really were ready to enter into a contract
with them even prior to consolidation of the city and county governments, but then it
became tied up and we had last heard was trying to establish the fair market value of the
system that to be purchased. Well, we never heard any more back from it, but it was
continually on the back burner. When some of our Commissioners would go to
Washington to meet with various folks, they would also meet with folks from the
Department of the Army, inasmuch as Fort Gordon is a vital part of our community, and
they would be told that privatization would be a fact in the future, that it would take
60
place. And we were prepared to make a proposal or we wanted to be prepared to make a
proposal when that time came. The actual notice in the appropriate Federal document
that Fort Gordon was out for privatization water and wastewater occurred -- I think it was
in December, Commissioner Bridges might could reflect to that in that prior to the water
and wastewater, there was a notice that there would be privatization of the electrical
system. His firm that he’s with was one of the ones proposed for that. But we kept
watching and kept watching and finally the water and wastewater came up. Well, when it
came up, it came up in such a way that we had seven weeks to pull together a proposal
that normally communities and interested entities were given seven months to a year to
work up a proposal. So we had to hit the ground running. The proposal is very
comprehensive. We had seven weeks in which to come up with a proposal. The proposal
was initially due tomorrow. We would have been ready had that proposal been due
tomorrow. As it turned out, last week they gave a two-week extension so that the
proposal is now due March -- either March 2 or March 4, but we will be ready.
Mr. Kuhlke: April.
Mr. Hicks: April, excuse me. April 2 or April 4. Thank you. When we would
have to do it. So we will be ready. But Commissioner Mays, in that regard, we did
engage the services of our program mangers for our bond issues, CH2MHILL, who have
been the successful proposers for about three privatization efforts of military installations
in the country already. They knew how to put together such a proposal. We were babes
in the wood. When you see the instructions, the instructions are about two inches thick.
You have to know exactly how to answer every little thing, and we were not familiar with
that, so we brought them on in order to make us familiar with it. Had we had the seven
months to a year, we would have had time to have come to the Commission and gotten
approval and we could have done however the Commission wanted to do it. And if I
took it upon myself erroneously, then so be it. I just felt that it was the desire and intent
of the Commission to go after, as it were, the privatization there for the Fort Gordon
water and wastewater system, and I wanted to get the best team together to give us the
best chance of making the winning proposition and so we did. Now that’s the only thing
that’s been done there. Now there has been assistance from OMI, because they’re also
familiar with operating water and wastewater facilities and have been successful
proposers at other installations. However, everybody realizes that these have to stand on
their own feet. In other words, there is no obligation, there is no tying down of the
Augusta Commission. Now if in fact decisions were to be made that we want to do such-
and-such, then firms would probably -- and I’m going to go ahead and address this --
George, don’t faint -- the firms are probably going to want to be compensated for the
time that they had spent advising and helping us, and that would be a fair thing to do. I’d
have no problem and I don’t think y’all would, either. We put together the team that we
had to put together in order to get what normally would be a seven month to a year
proposal in seven weeks. We made it. It was quite an effort and it’s been rather exciting
to be a part of it, but if we had had to start from scratch with no experience, it would have
taken us seven weeks to know how to do it. So that’s where we are, Commissioner, and
that’s where maybe you’ve heard some of the things of this firm’s involved and that
firm’s involved, and they are. And we have put together a proposal that we are ready to,
61
we will be ready to submit come April. But the operation of that facility is going to be, in
business you’d call it a separate cost center. It’s going to stand on its own and it will be a
pay-your-own-way proposition. The government doesn’t ask Augusta to subsidize it, but
by the same token the government doesn’t want to be subsidizing anything else Augusta
is doing. So they’ve got very definite guidelines on what you can and cannot consider in
what you’re going to charge them for the services you’re going to provide for them in
privatization. But all of that, that’s what, you know, Mr. Wall meant when he said the
actual working of the contract. Once you make your proposal, then they look at it from
the basis of the technical proposal, the past experience, and also the cost. And of those,
the cost bears the least weight, but it does get the most attention, as you can well imagine.
So we want to win on technical merit, on past performance, and on cost. So we’re going
to be very competitive and yet not give away the farm. But we don’t want to make
known today what all of the arrangements are. But we do want to be very competitive
with any, any other proposer. But Commissioner Mays, there’s nothing done that we
won’t want to bring to you, nothing is being done that I’d be ashamed to come before you
and say we did the best for Augusta that we could under this seven week guideline. I
wish that we had had more time. If we had, we could have come to you with proposals of
let’s do this. You might have wanted to go on out with RFP’s and said let’s select this
firm. It may or may not have changed the players in the game, but at least you’d have
had that input. But sir, I did not, we just didn’t have the time. We had to hit the ground
running. We did.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, can I just add one little piece to it?
Mr. Mays: I’ll yield. I yield.
Mr. Kolb: I just want to follow up. Once Fort Gordon makes this decision, if we
are successful, there will be a process. We have to come back to the Commission in
terms of entering in a contract and at that time we’ll lay out how we’re going to operate,
what the certain pieces, what the arrangement will be, etc. Bur right now, the only thing
we’re concerned about is getting a proposal in and competing so we can be the successful
bidder.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Hicks has really thoroughly answered kind of what I
was looking for and given me enough to vote on. And I wasn’t being critical. I mainly
was just seeing an answer to a question, and I think he’s more than adequately done that.
However, I know we do, we end up getting a lot of times pushed against the wall with
making a lot of decisions. But now, in all fairness, as we move, and like I said I have no
problem with us getting in the game, and of qualifying to be there. However, everybody
knows that when you deal with the Federal government, you’re dealing with a lot of
regulations. That comes with the territory. And you know, when you start talking about
it from that standpoint, even though the time may have been short obviously somebody
had to answer the question that’s in there, and that gets me then to my question, you say
you’re going to bring stuff back to us and naturally we wouldn’t want to say, outline
62
everything we’re going to do, but as a person who has to vote on it, and if I’m brought
something that’s here on the agenda today, if it’s not been something that we’ve
thoroughly discussed in committee form or coming in here, and you say well, you picked
up information, it always bothers me under the book that I still plan to write as soon as I
retire, “There are No Courthouse Secrets,” I just don’t like a lot of information that just
comes to me just so. And then I get it here. And that’s not a knock on anybody in any
place. But I do think that one thing that needs to be done, and I think, Mr. Mayor, it
needs to be independently done, regardless of who is dealing with this contract in terms
of where you go from this point. My reason being, consolidation brings me to answer
this, and Mr. Bridges has brought it up more than once, I think there needs to be some, at
some point in here, and maybe y’all have already crossed this to deal with it. Nod your
head if you’ve already done it, don’t need to answer my question. But I think there needs
to be an independent analysis that’s free from anybody that we’re dealing with or doing
business with, to make a total assessment of what situation Fort Gordon system is in and
a complete analysis of that, that doesn’t cross anybody’s boundary, nobody who’s going
to build a tank, dig a hole, lay a pipe, do anything else, that will just independently do
that and tell us what we’ve got. And my reason for saying that, Ulmer, you know where
I’m coming from. We’ve been down this road. That we got told a story to a point when
we had two governments that we had a water system that could basically supply water to
Satan. If he needed it, we could provide it. We found out the only thing [inaudible] with
hell was that it was raggedy as hell and we had to take a ton of money and we had to
repair it and get it in place. And it took us a long time and we spent years behind, as you
know, Mr. Hicks, to a point that we probably could have already had water in south
Richmond County and your head would be a lot darker than what it is now. A whole lot
of prayer that you might could have prayed for some other things [inaudible]. I just think
to a point when we get to that, that there needs to be that independent analysis of what’s
being done there that is no connection with anybody. That’s not an accusation. It’s just
not a tag. But somebody who will deal with that to tell us what we’ve got, cause I don’t
want to see us over in there and somebody comes back later on to tell us well, gentlemen,
you all need X millions of dollars’ worth of money or you’ve got deal with a bond
because this is now the pig in the poke that you’ve got and you’ve got to pay for it. Now
I made that statement on March 18, 2003, Mr. Mayor, at about 11 minutes after whatever
time it is. No, it’s 20 minutes. That clock’s wrong. About 20 minutes after 5. I don’t
want to see this statement basically on us again. I think if we are going to get into it,
even though we’re only at the proposal stage, independent analysis needs to be done to a
point of what we’ve got and if that’s a part of the Federal regs then we can deal with that
and do that, then that needs to be done, but it does not need to be done -- you mentioned
about OMI and [inaudible] and I’ve learned from the Grand Jury, that’s the same set of
twins. They don’t regard them as being two different companies. So we’re dealing with
the same folk. So to a point where that connection is, somewhere there need to be an
independence of what we’re dealing with there in there, what we’re doing. I’m going to
vote for the motion because I think you brought it to us in honesty, you’ve explained
what I wanted to do, but I think on record I want that to be there and I think as we move
forward and hopefully I will not hear this coming to us, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, in 11
th
months, at the 11 hour of where we make this decision on what we do.
63
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor
of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk: That’ it -- legal meeting. Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall:
55. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Discuss real estate matters.
??
Discuss potential and pending litigation.
??
Discuss personnel. (Requested by Commissioner Lee Beard)
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor to go into legal. Second? Motion and
second, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
56. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
64
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 March 18, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
65