The Invocation was given by Antwan Slaughter, Pastor, Victorious Life Ministries, 6043 North Henry Boulevard, Stockbridge, GA.

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 23 STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF HENRY The Henry County Board of Commissioners held a Regular Public Meeting at 6:30 p.m., on Tuesday, April 18, 2017, in the Community Room, County Administration Building, at 140 Henry Parkway, McDonough, Georgia. Notice of this meeting was posted in the entrance foyer of the County Administration Building. The Daily Herald was notified of this meeting. Those present were: Johnny Wilson, District I Commissioner Dee Clemmons, District II Commissioner Gary Barham, District III Commissioner Blake Prince, District IV Commissioner/Vice-Chair Bruce Holmes, District V Commissioner Also attending was: Cheri Hobson-Matthews, County Manager; Brad Johnson, Assistant County Manager; Patrick Jaugstetter, Attorney for the County; and Stephanie Braun, County Clerk. Absent: June Wood, Chair INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Antwan Slaughter, Pastor, Victorious Life Ministries, 6043 North Henry Boulevard, Stockbridge, GA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance is recited. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairman Blake Prince, District IV Commissioner, called the Regular Public Meeting of the Henry County Board of Commissioners for 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 18, 2017, to order. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA Dee Clemmons, District II Commissioner, asked that an amendment to the Agenda be made, to recognize the Georgia Elite Sports Academy at the meeting. There being no further changes, Bruce Holmes, District V Commissioner made a motion to accept the Agenda, as amended; Gary Barham, District III Commissioner, seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of GEORGIA ELITE SPORTS ACADEMY (ADDED AGENDA ITEM) Melissa Robinson, Communications Director, explained that there is a Certificate of Achievement for the Georgia Elite football team, to be joined by the founder of the organization, Tyron Williams. She read the Certificate into the record, as follows:

2 Page 2 of 23 This certificate is awarded to GEORGIA ELITE FOOTBALL TEAM, with the GEORGIA ELITE SPORTS ACADEMY, in recognition of the GEORGIA ELITE FOOTBALL TEAM for their outstanding commitment in participating in the PRO BOWL NFL FLAG NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS and proudly representing the Atlanta Falcons on January 26-30, Tyron Williams, Chairman of the Board, Georgia Elite Sports Academy, approached and thanked the Commissioners, especially the District II Commissioner, for supporting the organization in Henry County and in celebrating the team members and their achievements. He gave a brief background on the organization and the purposes for the youth involved in this organization. Mr. Williams announced that the Atlanta Falcons, the grantors for the program, has decided to host the first-ever NFL Flag Tournament for the Southeast Region, to be held in McDonough (Avalon Park) on May 20, PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN PROCLAMATION - SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH Ms. Robinson read the following Proclamation into the record. A representative from the Southern Crescent Sexual Assault and Child Advocacy Center in Hampton, GA, was present to receive same. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL AS SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH WHEREAS, in an effort to bring awareness and support across the country, state and county, April is recognized as Sexual Assault Prevention Month ; and WHEREAS, sexual abuse impacts and affects men, women and children in our community and around the world, with studies showing that one (1) in five (5) women, and one (1) in seventy-one (71) men will be brutally assaulted at some point in their lives; and WHEREAS, young people experience heightened rates of sexual violence, and on campuses, one (1) in five (5) women, and one (1) in sixteen (16) men are assaulted during their time in college; and WHEREAS, precautionary measures must be established and supported to protect the victims of this abuse and prevent violence through advocacy, prevention, intervention and education; and WHEREAS, Henry County stands with organizations, such as the Southern Crescent Sexual Assault and Child Advocacy Center in their outreach and supporting programs to help establish a supportive community, by working together to strengthen the lives impacted by this abuse. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Henry County Board of Commissioners that the month of April is designated as Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Henry County, and we encourage all citizens to support programs and initiatives that work to prevent assault and abuse, and focus on making a positive difference in our community.

3 Page 3 of 23 This 18 th day of April, 2017 By: Blake Prince, Vice-Chair Attest: Stephanie Braun, Clerk, Henry County SUPERIOR COURT PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN Resolution approving support of additional Judge to the Flint Judicial Circuit. Exhibit #1 The Honorable Arch W. McGarity, Judge, Henry County Superior Court, introduced The Honorable Brian Amero, Judge, Henry County Superior Court and The Honorable Wade M. Crumbley, Judge, Henry County Superior Court, who are in support of this Resolution. He also introduced Darius Pattillo, District Attorney, Henry County and Barbara Harrison, Clerk, Henry County Superior Court, with Will Simmons, 6th District Court Administrator, Henry County. Judge McGarity gave a brief history on the process of getting an additional Judge approved, which has to go through the House and the Senate, and signed off by the Governor. The process before that time is when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sends a letter to every Circuit within the State (to the Chief Judges) asking if they want another judgeship study or a Circuit split (study). A response is either given or not. If support is present, Judge McGarity responds in the affirmative. The study is then conducted and reported back to the Judicial Council. Qualifications are based on a program which has been in place for several years. With the population increased over the years, the need for an additional Judge is here. As the county becomes more urban, there is more noticeable crime and criminal element (i.e., murder, gang activity, etc.). Judge McGarity continued with the visual presentation by displaying the Judicial Circuit rankings over the past few years when new Judges came in. He pointed out areas throughout the state where the population is huge and the need is great, but they also have a larger tax base from the local support received. When the Judge concluded his remarks, Vice-Chairman Prince asked if any Commissioner had any questions for Judge McGarity. There being none, Commissioner Holmes made a motion to approve; Commissioner Barham seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried by a vote of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Purchase Orders Resolution authorizing the Henry County Purchasing Department to process Change Orders to Purchase Orders for the CDBG Program up to the 25% authorized as Administrative amendments in the Citizens Participation Plan. Exhibit #2 Shannan Sagnot, CDBG Director, gave a brief explanation of the details outlined in the Executive Summary for the Board. There being no questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Clemmons made a motion to approve; Johnny Wilson, District I Commissioner, seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried by a vote of

4 Page 4 of 23 Public Hearing This is to receive comments on the proposed amendments to the CDBG 2016 Annual Action Plan and request for the Board of Commissioners to consider approval of the proposed amendment. Exhibit #3 Ms. Sagnot explained that additional funds has been requested from the City of Stockbridge, which is utilizing CDBG funds for improvements to two parks within the city - Memorial Park and Clark Park. The scope of work has changed and an amendment is requested in the amount of $37,500 for funding to the City of Stockbridge in the completion of the improvements to these parks. Another $100,000 is also requested to assist Henry County residents who are in need of septic tank repair/replacement. These requests have been made to Henry County Code Enforcement, Stormwater and the Georgia Public Health Department. A representative from Code Enforcement is also present if there are questions for her on findings. The money will assist Low-to-Moderate Income property owners in Henry County who are experiencing problems with their residential septic tanks. Ms. Sagnot explained that this will be an Intergovernmental Agreement between the CDBG Program and Code Enforcement, and individual households will apply to the county for assistance; and CDBG will also work through the Georgia Public Health Department. Commissioner Holmes asked, on the application process, what type of things will be measured; Ms. Sagnot responded that inspectors will be utilized who specialize in septic tanks, to go and evaluate the properties; the households will submit documentation to the county regarding to the number of persons in said household as well as income. The District V Commissioner asked if this would apply to abandoned homes; Ms. Sagnot said that septic tanks on abandoned home properties will not be included. In those cases, there is a demolition program in connection with Code Enforcement, separate from these particular funds requested. Commissioner Wilson asked how many septic tanks are included in this repair funding; Ms. Sagnot responded that there is not a set number, but she understands that the cost for repair/replacement of a septic tank will vary, dependent upon the condition of the tank to be repaired/replaced. Commissioner Clemmons asked about the source of the $100,000 funding and how much is funded by the county, if any; Ms. Sagnot responded that the CDBG Program will reimburse the $100,000, under the Housing Rehab for Homeowners. The funds will be fronted by the county, then reimbursement will be processed from the state back to the county, from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development. The District II Commissioner added that this is funding which has been granted by the federal government. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Vice-Chairman Prince opened the floor up for Public Comments on this matter. Anyone wishing to make comment in opposition of this request will have a total of ten (10) minutes and should approach now. Seeing no one approaching, Vice-Chairman Prince then opened the floor up for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request, allowing a total of ten (10) minutes to make comment. Seeing no one approaching, Vice-Chairman Prince closed the Public Hearing and called for motion.

5 Page 5 of 23 Commissioner Holmes made a motion to approve; Commissioner Clemmons seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion to approve Resolution was carried by a vote of DOT Resolution awarding a bid for the purchase of Liquid Asphalt Emulsion for the Henry County Department of Transportation. Exhibit #4 Wade Stroud, Director of Transportation, gave a brief explanation of the details outlined in the Executive Summary for the Board. There being no questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Barham made a motion to approve; Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried by a vote of FINANCE DEPARTMENT Resolution approving revisions to Henry County s Travel Policy. Exhibit #5 Lori Lynn Robinson, Assistant Finance Director, explained that the last amendment to this policy was in Some of the changes include price for lodging, in-state and out-of-state; meals, instate and out-of-state (itemized receipts will have to be submitted). County vehicle use is encouraged. Using personal vehicles will be allowed if a county vehicle is not available, or if there is no room for spouse and/or family members in said county vehicle. Standard mileage rate, set by the IRS, will be used. Airline, bus, train or other conveyance of transportation usage will be utilized under Economy Class fare (as stated in the policy). There being no questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Holmes made a motion to approve; Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried by a vote of AIRPORT Resolution authorizing an official name change of the Henry County Airport. Exhibit #6 Michael Toney, Airport Manager, explained that on February 23, 2013, the Board of Commissioners changed the name of the airport from Atlanta South Regional Airport to its current name, Henry County Airport, with the associated city name changed from Atlanta to Hampton (Resolution 13-30). The County Manager reserved the 3-letter identifier, HMP, for future uses when approved by the FAA and GDOT. In September 2016, the official name, associated city and 3-letter identifier then changed to Henry County Airport, Hampton, and HMP and was placed in the FAA publications. Today, the request is to change the name, the associated city and the 3-letter identifier, to Atlanta Speedway Airport, Atlanta and ASA, subject to FAA and GDOT approval. Commissioner Clemmons asked about the research on the airports which reside next to neighboring speedways and how it impacts the airports economically with those nearby locations; Mr. Toney responded that Daytona s focus is the speedway itself. In speaking with a member of their Economic Development team, the airport thrives with its placement near the Daytona Speedway. Another

6 Page 6 of 23 example is Talladega, with another airport located near a speedway in the State of Iowa, though that area is a little more rural. Any improvements that were done at these airports were generally the result of nearness to the speedway, and the type of traffic traveling to the airports. Commissioner Holmes asked the manager to speak on what is being done to make the airport more of a revenue generator for Henry County; Mr. Toney responded that the partnership with Atlanta Motor Speedway will help generate more revenue, if people will realize that there are more things that can be done at the airport (i.e., more fuel sales, or hangar fees). The District V Commissioner asked him to name some types of aircraft that come to the airport now; Mr. Toney responded that this year, a lot more activity was seen, such as seven (7) jets this year that were not handled last year. One was from a particular racing charter team, and the airport handled six (6) out of those seven (7) planes. Milder weather this year was beneficial on approaches to the airport as well. Commissioner Barham indicated that the District II Commissioner has been aggressively working to get things done at the airport. He asked for an update on the FBO and sewer line; Mr. Toney responded that with the name change, there will also be a timeline associated with that. Currently, a road relocation project is underway (300 days) and should be completed around January This will enable the next step, which is the removal of the displaced threshold that is currently on Runway #24, which prohibits landing closer than four hundred and ninety (490 ) feet past the end of that runway. Once the road relocation is done, then the displaced threshold will be removed, which will involve restriping the runway and improving the end of the runway, its protection zone and making safety area improvements. Phase I of the sewer project, bringing in the main trunk line to provide connection for the internal sewer, is scheduled for completion by the end of this calendar year. A kickoff meeting for Phase II (internal airport sewer) will be held next Tuesday, which is a 45-day design to be put out to bid or done as a change order with the existing contractor. On the FBO, the first preliminary site plan was sent in March. When the sewer main trunk line is finished, the internal airport sewer would start in conjunction with the FBO. It should be done no later than two years from now, with a brand new terminal building and a sewer-ready airport infrastructure. Commissioner Clemmons clarified that this is a jewel of an airport in Henry County. It is making approximately $6,000 a year, which is unacceptable at this time; and efforts are being made to move the airport forward and turn it into an economic engine, generating enough funds to be selfsupportive. The name change is in line with the marketing aspect and to highlight the partnership with Atlanta Motor Speedway. When pilots fly into that airport, drivers for Uber and taxis will wait to take them out of Henry County. By having this partnership, the Speedway is granting space in the condos where pilots can spend the night in Henry County, along with meeting facilities that can be utilized. This is the closest airport to Hartsfield-Jackson Airport. Commissioner Holmes congratulated the District II Commissioner for bringing innovative ideas to the table with regards to Nash Farm and the airport. He recognized her hard work on turning them around to make them revenue generators. Vice-Chairman Prince stated that he is proud to be from Henry County. Having been in the military and traveled around the country, when he would tell people that he is from Henry County, it was met with them not knowing where it is; but when he d say he was from Atlanta Motor Speedway, the immediate response would be that he is from Hampton. He also thanked the District II Commissioner for making strides in moving this venue forward.

7 Page 7 of 23 Commissioner Wilson also thanked the District II Commissioner for her work on these venues. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Clemmons made a motion to approve; Commissioner Holmes seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion to approve Resolution was carried by a vote of SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT Vice-Chairman Prince advised that Planning & Zoning Agenda Item, regarding a Public Hearing on COMP-AM-15-04, as well as RZ (listed on the Agenda) have been postponed at the request of Raco Greenwood Park (applicant) and will not be heard at this meeting. PLANNING & ZONING Public Hearing (ULDC-AM-17-03) An Ordinance by Henry County, Georgia, to amend Chapter 12 of the Henry County Uniformed Land Development Code to add Section (I)(5) limiting the number of Special Events per year. Countywide. Exhibit #7 Daunté Gibbs, Planning & Zoning Director, explained that this is staff-initiated regarding the Special Events Code Section. There are regulatory inadequacies in the ULDC specific to this Section and staff proposes to limit the number of event facility-related Special Events in the RA (Residential- Agricultural) zoning district (per year) as well as requiring an approved Conditional Use and Special Events Permit. Currently, event facility-related Special Events in the RA (Residential-Agricultural) zoning district has no limit per year. It is proposed to limit the number of Special Events to five (5) per year, with no more than one (1) per month during that year. Commissioner Clemmons asked how this amendment would affect the movie/film industry trying to use event facilities within the county; Mr. Gibbs responded that certain uses specific to event facilities are allowed in the Commercial zoned districts. When it comes to filming, it would be dependent on location to be filmed. All applicable Departments are coordinated in their efforts to initiate any process of event facility filming. If filming is done on a county-owned property, there is an extra step taken through the Communications Department, to fulfill legal requirements. This Resolution is specific to Residential-Agricultural zoned properties with event facility type uses. Commissioner Wilson asked what steps are taken by a resident to file for a Special Events Permit; Mr. Gibbs responded that an application for Conditional Use would be submitted through Planning & Zoning. The application goes to the Zoning Advisory Board after first meeting the requirements, such as public advertisement in the paper and the posting on the subject property. The ZAB is the deciding body on Conditional Uses. If a property is zoned RA (Residential-Agricultural), there must be an approved Conditional Use as well as a Special Events Permit. That application does not go to the ZAB but it goes through Planning & Zoning and must meet the application s requirements. When all pertinent zoning and Code requirements are met, then the Permit is granted. The District I Commissioner asked if there are times that these are shut down; Mr. Gibbs explained that is dependent on the applicant s answers during the meeting regarding the permit application, parameters are set forth involving noise ordinance, limitations with respect to how long the noise can be heard, whether or not it is on private property and that there are no violations to be addressed by either the Police Department or Code Enforcement. In most cases, any violations committed are found out through citizen complaints received into the departments. The Commissioner asked if there are Special Events allowed to occur for a

8 Page 8 of 23 time period of twenty-four (24) hours; Mr. Gibbs responded that there is currently no provision for that time span, but yet there is nothing cited to prohibit same at this time. Commissioner Clemmons clarified that there are several Special Use permits for event facilities in the county pending. She asked if this would apply to any events that are already booked; Mr. Gibbs responded that those special events which have received their permits, they are vested prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. The effective date for future events would be as of the adoption of this Ordinance. Vice-Chairman Prince pointed out that there should be a timeline of placing this in force, suggesting three (3) months or six (6) months, in an effort to give applications pending ample time to come into compliance with the Ordinance - particularly applying to upcoming weddings. There being no questions or comments from the Board, Vice-Chairman Prince declared a Public Hearing to receive public comment. Anyone wishing to make comment in opposition of this request will have a total of ten (10) minutes to speak; likewise, anyone wishing to make comment in favor of this request will also have a total of ten (10) minutes to speak. Larry Morey The Chair called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this request to come forward. Mr. Morey approached and stated that if this proceeds, there should be a form detailing requirements of what the applicant must meet, with a timeline for due process of the application for permit. Connie Ramsey Ms. Ramsey approached and remarked that she is a parent in a wedding scheduled as an event in Henry County, and that she agrees on the limitations, but believes that there should be a grace period established for this Ordinance to go into effect. A final call was made for anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this request to approach. Seeing no one else approach, the Chair then called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to come forward. Linda Gresham, 340 Rocky Creek Drive Ms. Gresham explained that she has a neighbor who is running a special events venue, McCrite s Cottonwood Estates. Her property abuts to that property in the back. She stated that the venue has hosted numerous special events over the past year and a half and the noise disturbs the neighbors as well as her husband and herself. She believes this Ordinance will limit exposure to these functions at the nearby venue. Frank Austin Mr. Austin states he has been a resident of Henry County for over thirty years. He is in support of the limitations for the Special Events. He believes that these types of event facilities ruin a neighborhood zoned RA (Residential-Agricultural). He believes that these events are disruptive to the quiet neighborhood settings. He does not want to put any venues out of business, but believes that

9 Page 9 of 23 Special Events, such as weddings, should be held in an appropriate venue and not in someone s backyard. He believes that the Ordinance, if approved, should take effect immediately without a grace period. More businesses and subdivisions are encroaching upon the RA (Residential-Agricultural) zoned lifestyle and Mr. Austin believes this Ordinance should be approved as a step towards preserving what can be done of this lifestyle for the residents. Pamela Barlow, 205 Rocky Creek Road Ms. Barlow stated she is in support of this Ordinance outlining limitations. She complained that a nearby venue is holding parties almost every weekend. She stated that she hears music from Ludacris and Cyndi Lauper, which is very loud. She lives on ten acres of land near a lake but cannot enjoy the peace there because of the nearby noise. Mark Stevens, 405 Rocky Creek Drive Mr. Stevens stated that he lives far from the event venue, but can still hear the sounds from the music and finds it annoying. There is also a traffic issue and safety issue at the beginning and end of these events at that venue. There is a golf cart which runs up and down Rocky Creek Road for picture taking. He believes that the Ordinance should take immediate effect, if approved. Jean Kesinger, 323 Rocky Creek Road Ms. Kesinger stated that she is in favor of this Ordinance, but also wants it to be effective immediately with no grace period. She complained of strangers going through her backyard and/or driving over her lawn, leaving her property damaged. Her lifestyle and those of her neighbors are being disrupted every time an event is hosted at the nearby venue. She believes that the venue has been illegally operating for the last 2+ years and needs to be stopped. Vice-Chairman Prince asked how long this has been going on at that venue; Ms. Kesinger responded she noticed it over the last 18 months to two years and initially thought they were hosting family parties, not formal/business events. She stated that the owner of the property has 23 permits and was denied the Conditional Use permit. She stated that the nearby residents children and grandchildren cannot go outside when these events are held because the venue is full of strangers and feel it is not safe, especially since alcohol is served on the premises. She believes that her neighbors and she have a right to ask for protection from that kind of noise in their neighborhood. Mike Gresham, 340 Rocky Creek Drive Mr. Gresham stated that he supports this but has reservations. He prefers that there be no Special Events permits or Conditional Use permits allowed because then that property is no longer a residential area; it turns into a commercial venue. With time having expired, Vice-Chairman Prince declared the Public Hearing closed and called the Planning & Zoning Director back to the podium. Commissioner Barham remarked that the Board has been made aware now of the noise at the nearby venue and asked how this can be handled; Mr. Gibbs responded that with respect to the noise issue, residents can report the noise to the Police, who would handle after-hour noise complaints. During normal business hours, residents may notify Code Enforcement for those complaints. Commissioner Barham asked what the hours are for the noise ordinance to be enforced; Mr. Gibbs responded that he

10 Page 10 of 23 does not know what that timeframe is, but during the permit meetings, the applicants are asked for the start date and end date of events. Commissioner Wilson asked if these venues can host the events that have been permitted as of right now in the same manner and frequency; Mr. Gibbs responded that as the Code is currently written, technically, there is no limit to number of events permitted in a one-year time, so long as the current requirements are met during the application process. The District I Commissioner then asked if this is approved, what would happen to the permits that were issued prior to this adoption; Mr. Gibbs responded it is dependent upon the Board of Commissioners issuing a grace period upon adoption. If there is a grace period, then the effective date at the end of the grace period, the limitation will apply. However, between now and that time, the applicants can technically apply for Special Events permit and not be limited to the number. The Commissioner asked if an event facility currently has 20 permits, can they be limited; Mr. Gibbs responded those permits cannot be revoked without infringing upon its constitutional right. The Commissioner asked how many permits have been issued up to this point, prior to the adoption of the amendment to the Ordinance; Mr. Gibbs responded that he does not know, but it would appear to be around 20, based upon what he heard earlier in the meeting. Commissioner Clemmons remarked that if the event facility currently has 20 permits, they would have to use all of those permits by a certain date; Mr. Gibbs clarified that if the venue has 20 permits right now, the venue can hold all twenty of them. However, any submission for a permit after today will result in the enforcement of the limitation set forth in the Ordinance. Depending on when the application meeting was held and the actual permit was written, there is a date of the event on each permit issued. The District II Commissioner asked if a facility goes in and gets 20 permits prior to the effective date of this Ordinance amendment, those permits already have dates on them, even if the dates are after the adoption of this amendment and the venue will still be allowed to hold the events; Mr. Gibbs responded that is correct because applicant has technically rendered proper application prior to the effective date, to the county. The District II Commissioner also heard that the venue was illegal and asked for clarification. She would agree for permits to be pulled from legal venues, but heard that this was illegal. Mr. Gibbs responded that with respect to the allegation of legality, his office received a complaint on events being held, which were revenue-generating. The owner of the venue was called in to bring that business to compliance. The applicant applied for Conditional Use permit and that was denied by the Zoning Advisory Board; the applicant is currently appealing the denial and will return to appeal same before the Board of Commissioners in June. With regard to the septic issue brought up by the District II Commissioner, Mr. Gibbs responded that is an Environmental Health issue which needs to be handled by that agency and if there is a septic leak from that property to another, Environmental Health handles that matter and bring it to compliance. The District II Commissioner asked if something is presently in place, or if something could be added, to reflect that venues which have permits must be legally operating venues. Technically, as long as the venue meets the criteria for the Special Events permit, right now, there are no grounds to cite them for being an illegal venue. But if Environmental Health determines that the septic tank on the property has failed or is not in compliance, then enforcement of that will be effective immediately upon approval of the proposed amendment before the BOC. Commissioner Barham asked if those 20 permits are issued to the one venue, or if there are various locations with these permits throughout Henry County; Mr. Gibbs responded that tonight, the issue is the location at McCrite s Cottonwood Estates, and he will investigate to find out if there are indeed 20 or more permits currently approved for this location. The District III Commissioner asked if this venue already has 20 permits, will it be allowed to have five more during the remainder of this calendar year, once the Ordinance goes into effect; Mr. Gibbs responded that the enforcement of this amendment cannot be retro the 20 permits already issued as this is unconstitutional. After the 20 th event,

11 Page 11 of 23 however, the amendment (if approved) will only allow that venue five more till the end of 2017, along with an approved Conditional Use permit and the Special Events permit. Commissioner Wilson asked if staff could go and personally look at these properties before Special Events permits are issued; Mr. Gibbs responded that on-site visits are conducted, along with spot checking. Various aspects of the venue for these Special Events will have appropriate department personnel come out and inspect same to meet its specific requirements. He added that $50 covers the processing of the permit application. Cheri Hobson-Matthews, County Manager, added that the Planning & Zoning conducts the Special Event hearing but there is a separate fee charged by the Fire Department ($150) for their permitting. If the Fire Department is involved in the Special Events permit processing, they will go out prior to the event. Planning staff will not issue a letter of approval or denial until all agencies have confirmed that the applicant is in compliance. Before the permit is issued, Fire Department approves, along with DOT and then the Environmental Health and the remaining pertinent departments. The District I Commissioner pointed out that if all of these permits are issued for $50, maybe the fee needs to be increased. The Planning & Zoning Director agreed with the County Manager s remarks on the process of granting Special Events permits and the corresponding checkpoints for requirements to be met. Commissioner Clemmons remarked that with this being the present process for permit application, the 20 permits already issued to an alleged illegal facility have already met the requirements. Mr. Gibbs responded that if the venue came through the Special Event permitting process, then technically that venue is in compliance with the Code as currently written. The District II Commissioner persisted in recalling a citizen stating that the venue is illegal and wanted to know if that facility has been visited and approved. Mr. Gibbs responded that if it is illegal, it means it was not permitted by Henry County Planning & Zoning. The Commissioner wanted to know if that venue is permitted for business or not; Mr. Gibbs responded that as of right now, it has Special Events permits, but it has no Conditional Use permit for the event facility per the ULDC requirements. Commissioner Barham asked if the applicant has to post the permit at the property line; Mr. Gibbs responded that it is not required to post the permit. Vice-Chairman Prince explained that it appears that the venue is not sitting on adequate acreage to allow events to occur on the property. There are events held in District IV (Kelleytown), where residents have acres of land to have these events. Stopping this at one venue is unfair if allowing it at another venue. He believes that a blanket is being thrown over the entire county instead of addressing the specific problem at hand. Mr. Gibbs countered that he understands what the Commissioner means and there are options to explore to limit land acreage, which the Commissioner believes would make better sense. Mr. Gibbs explained that this item would then have to be tabled so that it can be revisited, including limitation on land acreage, and then returned before the BOC, at its discretion. The Commissioner asked when this specific address can be addressed, for appeal; Mr. Gibbs responded the appeal will be heard at the second meeting in June. The Commissioner believes that acreage is a vital aspect of whether or not he supports this proposed amendment. After some discussion amongst the Commissioners, Mr. Gibbs suggested another option to be allowing an event facility in an RA (Residential-Agricultural) zoned district must meet a minimum acreage requirement. For example, if the event facility is on 20+ acres, or even 50+ acres, with the approved Conditional Use, it cannot serve as an event facility without limitations. Anything below 20 (or 50) acres would be limited the amount (5/year, 1/month) set forth in the amendment proposal before the Board. Vice-Chairman Prince voiced his support for that option. Having seen the venue in question, the Commissioner agrees with the citizens concerns and that venue location is not adequate for hosting events at that location. Mr. Gibbs explained that the language can be modified, depending on

12 Page 12 of 23 how it is moved for approval - limiting to minimum acreage but not limit acreage to events in the RA (Residential-Agricultural) zoning district, for example. The Commissioner indicated that he does not like making decisions on impulse and would rather postpone this to work toward a more universal resolution. However, Commissioner Clemmons prefers to see if the amendment, as is, would pass on vote tonight. This involves livelihoods and people stressed out because of the noise and disruption at the nearby venue. This opens up room for more permits for the Districts and suggested adding the restriction on acreage in the Ordinance tonight. Patrick Jaugstetter, County Attorney indicated that the Planning & Zoning procedure did not take acreage into account. The Ordinance is separate from the Ordinance which establishes Special Event permit properties. This cannot be amended tonight because the zoning procedure has not come into compliance as of yet for the other Ordinance. Tonight, the Board could adopt this Ordinance, solve the immediate problem and when the other Ordinance is brought forth, reflecting acreage limitation, there may be a burden for a short period of time. This process only applies to event facilities in Residential zoning districts. Language regarding residential property over minimum threshold acreage, and other regulations, like distance from boundary lines, can be added after other zoning requirements are met. Commissioner Barham wondered that if this is tabled, a 45-day moratorium on all Special Events permits can be placed, to keep any new applications from being submitted until this specific one is squared away; Mr. Gibbs responded it could potentially affect the film-movie industry within the county. The County Attorney added that if a moratorium is placed, it has to be effective against everybody, which could create other problems. Mr. Jaugstetter believes that the other amendment to the Ordinance (not yet presented) should be resolved quickly; Mr. Gibbs explained that as long as the 15-day minimum Zoning procedures are required then that can come back before the Board in about a month s time. Vice-Chairman Prince asked how far in advance these Special Events permits are granted; Mr. Gibbs responded that staff asks for two weeks notice, minimum. Sometimes they come in earlier, but have been known to be issued at the eleventh hour. The Commissioner asked, on the permits that are out right now, he asked if the neighboring citizens will still have these same noise and traffic issues six months from now, solely because permits have already been issued in advance to this venue; Mr. Gibbs responded, yes, in light of the permits having already been issued prior to today s meeting. Commissioner Clemmons then made a motion to adopt the Ordinance; Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion to approve Ordinance was carried by a vote of Vice-Chairman Prince voted in opposition. Public Hearing (MC-13-01) Builders Professional Group of Jonesboro, GA, requests a modification to zoning conditions for property located within the Madison Square Subdivision, west of Kendra Drive, in Land Lot 82 of the 6 th District. The request is to modify multiple zoning conditions. District III. Exhibit #8 Mr. Gibbs gave a brief explanation of the details outlined in the Executive Summary for the Board. There are two zoning conditions that the applicant hopes to modify, which were placed on the subject property in He wishes to increase the minimum house size to 2,000 square feet of heated floor space (Condition #4) and to allow the exterior of all homes to consist of fronts which are made from brick and/or stone with Hardiplank type siding, of any slab home, having a brick water table extending two to three (2-3 ) feet, dependent upon the story of the home (1-2 story) (Condition #6). Staff does not object to this request.

13 Page 13 of 23 There being no questions or comments from the Board, Vice-Chairman Prince called the applicant forward. Chris Knight, 118 Whitestone Drive, McDonough GA Mr. Knight stated he is a partner in Builders Professional Group, with office located in Jonesboro. He remarked that half of his employees are Henry County residents. This project was acquired several years ago and the applicant has been exploring the most viable option for the market. About half of the lots in the subdivision are suitable for slab construction, with the other half suitable for basement construction. Of the fourteen (14) existing homes in the community, Mr. Knight believes that only two of them are owner-occupied. One other owner has a Henry County address, but not the address of the residence in the community. Letters were sent out to those homeowners describing the applicant s intent to move forward with the project and requesting the zoning modification, encouraging the homeowners to call with questions or feedback - none were received by Mr. Knight, his partner or his staff at Builders Professional Group. Mr. Knight remarked that the other eleven (11) homes appear to be primarily owned by two larger firms which operate rental properties. The applicant is the declarant of the Homeowners Association and intends to revitalize the entrance to the neighborhood; they request modification to the architecture because style preferences have changed. A subdivision directly north of this community applied for (and received) almost the exact request being made by applicant today. He believes this request will allow them to move forward with building new homes which are complimentary and likened to adjoining subdivisions, as well as make it marketable for incoming residents. There being no questions or comments from the Board, Vice-Chairman Prince declared a Public Hearing to receive public comment. Anyone wishing to make comment in opposition of this request will have a total of ten (10) minutes to speak; likewise, anyone wishing to make comment in favor of this request will also have a total of ten (10) minutes to speak. The Chair called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this request to come forward. Seeing no one, the Vice-Chairman then called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to come forward. Seeing no one, Vice-Chairman Prince declared the Public Hearing closed. There being no questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Barham made a motion to approve these modification changes, as previously stated by the Planning & Zoning Director; Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion to approve Resolution was carried by a vote of Public Hearing (MC-17-01) Adler Properties of Atlanta, GA, requests a modification to an approved development plan for the property located at Towne Center Village Drive near Jonesboro Road, in Land Lots 110 and 115 of the 6 th District. The property consists of /- acres and the request is to update the Master Development Plan from C-3 (Highway Commercial) to RM (Residential Multi-Family) for the development of apartments. District II. Exhibit #9/Exhibit #9 UPDATED

14 Page 14 of 23 Mr. Gibbs gave a brief explanation of the details outlined in the Executive Summary for the Board. Applicant intends to expand these luxury apartments, seeking to modify zoning conditions #6 and #7 from a previous hearing in He read the conditions, as currently written, into the record: acres on the east boundary of the property, south of the above-mentioned C-2 (General Commercial) property will be zoned C-3 (Highway Commercial). 7. The remaining acres of the property, which is located along the south property line, will be zoned RM, under the RM densities and provisions in effect on March 31, An undisturbed buffer of twenty (20 ) feet shall be located along the southern property line where the RM zoned property abuts property zoned for Single-Family Residential uses. Mr. Gibbs explained that in order for the applicant to achieve what they request, condition #6 must be modified, from acres to acres; and condition #7 must be modified, to-wit: 7. The remaining acres of the property, which is located along the south property line, will be zoned RM. The maximum number of units shall be five hundred and forty (540). An undisturbed buffer of twenty (20 ) feet shall be located along the southern property line where the RM zoned property abuts property zoned for Single-Family Residential uses. Commissioner Clemmons had a question regarding condition #7 (maximum number of units shall be five hundred and forty ). She wanted to know how many are already in place; Mr. Gibbs placed a Site Plan on the overhead for clarification to his response for the Commissioner. Currently there are approximately three hundred (300) units, which means that the limit of units in Mandalay Villas, combined with the potential extension, would be a total of five hundred and forty (540) units, with a difference of maximum allowable units at two hundred and forty (240). Commissioner Clemmons noted that this has been ongoing since 1999; Mr. Gibbs responded that it has, in one way or another, this particular property has been before the BOC in 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, (maybe) 2005 and Commissioner Barham asked, when this property was originally zoned, if it was zoned RM (Residential Multi-Family) at that time; Mr. Gibbs responded that it is more than likely it was a base zoning district and there was a rezoning of same to a multi-family type zoning. Looking to the County Attorney for confirmation, the Planning & Zoning Director stated that there is litigation regarding the surrounding areas of the subject property, which was remanded back to the county, wherein the applicant requested C-3 (Highway Commercial) zoning, but was granted a C-2 (General Commercial) zoning instead, which is its current zoning status. Commissioner Clemmons indicated that she would want to see what the applicant plans to do with this subject property in the future. Commissioner Barham asked if the current zoning is at C-2 (General Commercial); Mr. Gibbs responded that those two particular parcels (pods) are designated currently at C-2. The entire development, however, is zoned PD (Planned Development) which will allow for mixture of uses. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Vice-Chairman Prince asked for the applicant (or the representative) to come forward.

15 Page 15 of 23 G. Douglas Dillard; Pursley, Friese, Torgrimson Mr. Dillard explained he represents the applicant, Tim Jones, who is also present at the meeting. He explained that this has been in litigation and went to the Supreme Court in the late 90s and was approved for a Mixed Use zoning. In 2013, a request was made to zone the parcel as Residential, which was denied. The lawsuit was then filed challenging the denial and is currently pending. The purpose tonight is to come to a resolution which is mutually agreeable. He displayed a visual of the area for public viewing and gave some background on it. The two undeveloped pieces are commercial tracts which have no market. As a result of those market conditions with the residential towards Jonesboro Road, the Mandalay apartments to the rear, applicant believes an extension of comparable properties would be appropriate. He suggests an attached multi-family villa with garages. He pointed out some details in a satellite view map put on display. Tim Jones explained that these villas would be on both sides of the road that goes in to Mandalay, behind Kaiser, Ashley Furniture and other commercial areas. Both sides would be gated and they would have two-story units only; over half of those units will have garages and generally be a high-end apartment complex. He reminded the Board that a local vendor and he built the Mandalay apartments, which is one of the more attractive complexes within Henry County. He expects to present these new units as a Mandalay type product. He went through a few of the examples for public viewing on the overhead. He emphasized the high-end features (pool, clubhouse, grilling areas, etc.) of the units, with a higher rent base to attract professionals who wish to live in a luxury based area, with restaurants and shopping options practically within walking distance. With GDOT planning on construction of the West Connector in the next three years, Mr. Jones recalled trying to put a red light at an affected intersection, but was denied. He later learned that upon completion of the Connector, a red light will be placed at that intersection. Vice-Chairman Prince asked the applicant to state his name for the record; Mr. Jones complied. Tim Jones, 144 Beverly Road, Atlanta, GA After Mr. Jones gave his name for the record, Mr. Dillard explained that there were twenty-eight (28) conditions listed on this zoning and applicant only asks to change two of them - #6 and #7, as read into the record by the Planning & Zoning Director. This will give the applicant additional residential units. Commissioner Prince asked the applicant what zoning he wants on this property that is currently being litigated; Mr. Jaugstetter responded that in zoning litigation, there is no request for a particular zoning - rather, the existing zoning designation is challenged. The existing lawsuit alleges that the Commercial zoning applicable to these properties is unconstitutional. A particular zoning designation is not requested. Mr. Dillard added that in zoning litigation, the property owner has the legal right to use his property for any lawful purpose, and local government can regulate it based on the proper exercise of police power. One of the main issues is whether or not the property has reasonable economic value as it is currently zoned. Applicant submits that the property is undeveloped and vacant and has been so for over fifteen (15) years and has no reasonable economic use as currently zoned. Applicant also asks for modifications of conditions #6 and #7. Vice-Chairman Prince asked the Planning & Zoning Director to return to the podium, as the District II Commissioner has questions for him. Commissioner Clemmons remarked that this goes back almost twenty years. The twenty-eight (28) conditions presently listed cannot be amended because they have already been approved for this area. However, there are 540 units approved; if 300 have already been developed, she wanted to know where the other 240 are supposed to be on the property. Mr. Gibbs responded that the applicant asks to amend condition #7 to limit the total combined number of units to