STATE OF GEORGIA

 

 

COUNTY OF HENRY

 

 

 

 

The Henry County Board of Commissioners held a regularly scheduled Public Meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 2006, in Conference Room “B,” County Administration Building, 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:

 

            Jason T. Harper, Chairman, presiding

            Gerry Adams, Vice-Chairman, District IV Commissioner

            Warren E. Holder, District I Commissioner

            Elizabeth (“B.J.”) Mathis, District II Commissioner

            Randy Stamey, District III Commissioner

            Lee Holman, District V Commissioner

 

Also attending were Rob Magnaghi, County Manager; Patrick Jaugstetter, County Attorney; Shay Mathis, County Clerk; Michael F. Turner, Deputy County Manager and Public Safety Division Director; Terry McMickle, Public Works Division Director; Tommy Smith, Executive Assistant to the Board of Commissioners for Constituent Services; Doug Gilbert, Building Department Director; Ray Gibson, Planning and Zoning Director; Cheri Hobson-Matthews, Planning and Zoning Assistant Director; Steve Schafer, Development Plan Review Director; Julie Hoover-Ernst, Communications Director; and others.

 

(NOTE: An audio of this meeting is available with the County Clerk in the Board of Commissioners’ Office and will be retained for a period no less than twelve (12) months from the date of this meeting.)

 

Chairman Harper called the meeting to order and asked for an Acceptance of the Agenda with the addition of Item XI-A, which is a Personnel Policy Procedure Review. Commissioner Mathis made the motion to approve the amended Agenda; Commissioner Adams seconded.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

 

 

PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION:

 

Public Hearing to Abandon a Portion of Whitesand Bay Drive.

 

WHEREAS, Henry County Department of Transportation, has filed with the Board of Commissioners of Henry County, a Petition for Partial Abandonment of a portion of a public road known as Whitesand Bay Drive, located in Land Lots 8 of the 12th District of Henry County, Georgia; and 

 

WHEREAS, that portion of said road sought to be abandoned is shown on a drawing which is attached to the said Petition, marked Exhibits “A;” and

 

WHEREAS, after due considerations, it appears that the property sought to be abandoned is no longer needed for public road purposes because of changed conditions and because it has ceased to be used by the public to the extent that no substantial public purpose is served by it, and it further appears to be in the best interest of all concerned as well as in the best interest of the public and Henry County, Georgia, to abandon that portion of Whitesand Bay Drive ought to be abandoned by the aforesaid Petitioners.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Henry County, Georgia, at its public meeting duly assembled, that a portion of Whitesand Bay Drive shown marked on a plat which is attached hereto marked Exhibits “A”, and by reference made a part hereof, and a copy of which is on file in the office of this Board, be, and same is hereby abandoned.

 

 

Chairman Harper asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to this request; there was no response.

 

Commissioner Mathis made the motion to approve the resolution to abandon the portion of Whitesand Bay Drive and authorize the County Attorney to dispense according to the County Ordinance; Commissioner Holder seconded.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

 

Request Approval of a Resolution Pertaining to Intersection Improvements and Signalization of S.R. 20 and Westridge Parkway.

 

            WHEREAS, Henry County Board of Commissioners, at their October 19, 1999 meeting, approved Hudgins Communities, of Stockbridge, request for zoning (RZ-99-60) of Westridge Development with the following condition:

                       

            WHEREAS, condition #12 stated “The developer shall contribute up to $60,000.00 per intersection on Highway 20 within the Westridge Frontage where traffic warrants justify signalization.  Signals shall be designed for pedestrian movements and shall be calibrated for bicycle traffic;” and

            WHEREAS, the intersection has met the required warrants for signalization as shown by a traffic study done by PBSJ; and

 

            WHEREAS, Hudgins Communities has provided the following breakdown on the cost of the improvements, including invoices:

 

                        Turn Lanes and Striping                                                          $98,868.50

                        Engineering (including design & Traffic studies)                    $12,470.00

                        Pedestrian Improvements                                                        $14,529.02

                        Traffic Light Equipment and Installation                               $100,641.00

                                                                                                Total              $226,508.52

 

            WHEREAS, Hudgins Communities requests Henry County to pay $144,008.52 towards the signalization with Hudgins contribution of $60,000.00 and other landowners located at the intersection contributing $22,500.00.

 

                        Hudgins                                                                                   $60,000.00

                        Henry County                                                                        $144,008.52

                        Other Contributions                                                                 $22,500.00

                                                                                                Total              $226,508.52

 

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Henry County Board of Commissioners authorizes reimbursement of $144,008.52 to Hudgins Communities for intersection improvement and signalization of Westridge Parkway and State Route 20 and approves budget amendment/transfer for said amount.

 

 

Mr. McMickle, Public Works Division Director, said in 1999, there was a zoning request that stated when the signal was installed, the applicant at that time would contribute $60,000 toward the installation of that signal.  He said the signal is in place, and copies of the asphalt work, traffic study, and engineering work have been submitted, and the total of this is approximately $227,000. Also, there were some additional contributions from some landowners for $22,500; therefore, the remaining responsibility from the Board is shown above.

 

Commissioner Mathis made the motion to approve the resolution authorizing reimbursement of $144,008.52 to Hudgins Community and to approve the budget amendment or transfer for the set amount; Commissioner Holder seconded.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION:

 

Appeal to a Decision to Deny a Variance Request by the Zoning Advisory Board – Sylvester and Logia Pierce – VR-05-32 – District I.

 

WHEREAS, Sylvester and Logia Pierce of Stockbridge, Georgia, applied for a variance request (VR-05-32) from Section 3-7-143, RA: Residential and Agricultural District, to reduce the minimum lot width of 175 feet to 167.12 feet, and from Section 3-7-53, Road Frontage, to eliminate the road frontage requirement, to construct a single-family residence on New Hope Drive, south of Keys Ferry Road (Parcel ID # 169-01-036-000), in Land Lots 206 and 207 of the 8th District, consisting of 2.5+/- acres; and

 

WHEREAS, all County and State requirements for legal advertisement and a public hearing have been met; and

 

WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Staff for Henry County has reviewed the request and submitted a report that is part of the public record; and

 

WHEREAS, the Henry County Zoning Advisory Board reviewed and denied the variance requests to reduce the minimum lot width of 175 feet to 167.12 feet and eliminate the road frontage requirement for RA (Residential Agricultural) lots on January 26, 2006.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners upholds the denial of the Zoning Advisory Board;

 

OR

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners overturns the denial and approves the aforementioned applicant’s variance requests.

 

 

Mr. Ray Gibson, Planning and Zoning Director, said the applicants purchased this property directly in front of the subject property in 2000 from Ms. Lula Belle Williams, who is now deceased, and the applicants did not know at that time Ms. Williams had also deeded this property to another individual, including the lot frontage.  Mr. Gibson said the applicants have filed a civil suit against the estate of Ms. Williams, and the settlement of the suit involves this 2.5 acres, which currently does not have road frontage and only has a lot width of 167.12 feet (requires 175 feet).  Therefore, the applicant is here requesting two (2) Variances; one for lot width and one for access, which currently is land-locked, and it requires thirty (30’) feet of access along New Hope Road.  

 

Chairman Harper asked for public comment in opposition to this request; there was response. 

 

Ms. Mary McClendon, 210 New Hope Drive, stated she built a house in 2004 on her two (2) acres of land, two doors down from where the subject easement is located. She wanted to build two (2) houses on her land, and when she met with the Planning and Zoning Department, she brought in the plat showing how she wanted to place the two houses on her land, and the P&Z Department told her she could not do it that way, because she only had a thirty (30’) foot easement.  She said she did not feel it should be granted for someone else to do the same thing she had requested. 

 

Chairman Harper asked the applicant to come forward.

 

Mr. Allen Bodiford, Attorney representing the applicant, stated basically Ms. Williams sold this property to two (2) individuals. He said the Pierce Family did not record their deed in Superior Court records.  He said when they visited the site, someone else had built a home on the piece of property they had bought on New Hope Road.  He said a law suit was filed by Mr. Crumbley and his firm, and they reached a settlement where Mr. & Mrs. Pierce would take the 2+/- acres off of the other section of property that was in the estate.  Mr. Bodiford stated it was discovered they did not have road frontage. He said they worked out a deal in the pending law suit that this property would be conveyed to them based upon obtaining Variances. He stated Mr. Carnell is present tonight, and he is the owner of the easement, and he is agreeable to allow the easement for the Pierce Family to have access to their property, and water is available to this property.  Mr. Bodiford asked the Board to reverse the denial and grant the Variances in reference to the Pierce Family being able to build on this property and waive the requirement for the frontage on the road.  

 

Mr. Tony Carnell said he has talked to the heirs of the estate of Ms. Williams, and they indicated the issues they were up against.  He said it has been determined it would be in the best interest for everyone involved to grant the easement, and Mr. Carnell is in agreement to signing the proper documents. 

 

Mr. Bodiford stated he and Mr. Buddy Welch, who represents the estate, had worked out the easement, and the only thing needed is to have Mr. Carnell execute the documents for approval, and this could be made as a condition if the request is granted.

 

Commissioner Adams asked if this would be a permanent easement.

 

Mr. Bodiford said it would run with the land.

 

Commissioner Holder directed his statement to Ms. McClendon; “the reason you were not granted your request is because your land was not land-locked.  This is an unfortunate set of circumstances that has occurred, and nobody is here to answer for it, because Ms. Williams is deceased. This is an avenue we can use to allow the Pierce Family to get to their property. Are there rules on the thirty (30’) foot? You had two (2) acres with thirty (30’) feet and you could not have but one driveway on it.  Absolutely; and I will stand firm on that. This is where we are trying to allow the Pierce Family access to their property, and it is not the same set of circumstances.”

 

Commissioner Holder made the motion to overturn the Zoning Advisory Board’s decision for denial, and to approve the request and grant the Variance from the 175 foot requirement to the 167.12 feet and to allow by easement on the subject property across Mr. Tony Carnell’s property to access the Pierce property; Commissioner Adams seconded.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

 

REZONINGS:

 

Jeff Grant – RZ-05-50 – District IV.

 

            WHEREAS, Jeff Grant of Stockbridge, GA (RZ-05-50) applied for a rezoning from RA (Residential Agricultural) to R-2 (Single-Family Residence) for the development of a conservation subdivision, for property identified by Parcel ID number 085-02-018-000.  The property is located on the south side of Hemphill Road, east of Highway 138 and west of Moseley Road, in Land Lots 61, 62, and 68 of the 11th District, containing 273.03+/- acres; and

 

WHEREAS, all County and State requirements for legal advertisement and a public hearing have been met; and

 

WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Staff for Henry County has reviewed the request and submitted a report that is part of the public record; and

 

WHEREAS, the Henry County Zoning Advisory Board reviewed and recommended denial of the rezoning request from RA (Residential Agricultural) to R-2 (Single-Family Residence) on March 23, 2006.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners denies the rezoning request.

 

 

Ms. Jessica Guinn, Planner II, stated the applicant is requesting to rezone the property located at Hemphill and Moseley Roads.  She said the property is currently zoned RA; however, the Future Land Use Map designates the area for transportation, communications, and utility uses.  Ms. Guinn stated the request is to rezone the property to R-2, which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map designation for the property.  She stated the proposed development is a 299-lot conservation subdivision with a minimum lot size of 10,890 square feet and a net density of 1.78 dwelling units per acre, with 152.27+/- acres designated for greenspace.  Ms. Guinn said access to the property will be proposed from two (2) entrances on Moseley Road, one (1) entrance on Hemphill Road, and one (1) entrance on Highway 138 by way of a neighboring parcel.  She said the zoning application was submitted prior to the adoption of the new Conservation Subdivision Ordinance, and at the time of submission, the Ordinance called for a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet; this site plan depicts a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet.  However, the Minutes of the Zoning Advisory Board Meeting indicate the applicant has indicated a willingness to adhere to the new Conservation Subdivision Ordinance Requirements. The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates the development of the property for residential uses is a possibility, as the airstrip at the location is not useable, due to non-conforming selling status.

 

Chairman Harper asked the applicant to come forward.

 

Mr. Jeff Grant asked for a show of hands in the audience of the individuals in favor of this conservation subdivision. He said the biggest opposition he has heard is in relation to the size of the lots, but he stated he is willing to compromise and develop straight R-2 with conditions, that he has agreed to in the past.

 

Mr. Grant said he would reserve the rest of his time until after individuals have spoken in favor or in opposition to the request.

 

Chairman Harper asked for public comments in opposition to the request.

 

Mr. Thomas Crowe, who lives directly across the street from the subject property, said they have had three (3) Town Hall Meetings, and none of the people who raised their hands in favor of the request were in attendance at the meetings, and they do not live on Moseley Road, because Mr. Crowe has lived there for 30 years.  He said nothing has been resolved, because it is diametrically opposed to the Land Use Plan in the area.  He said there are two subdivisions, one on Moseley Road and one on Hemphill Road, and everything that has been developed has been RA.  Mr. Crowe said if Mr. Grant’s request is approved, it will open up the entire north part of the County.  He said the neighborhood has invited the Commissioners to visit this area, and this piece of property deserves better than what Mr. Grant is proposing. 

 

Mr. Chuck Lane, 65 Bennington Court, said he agreed with Mr. Crowe that the people who raised their hands in favor of the request are not residents of this area. Mr. Lane asked for the members of the audience to clap who were in opposition to this request as presented.  He said no one in the area is in favor of this proposed development, and the road congestion will be a problem. “If this subdivision goes in, it will open up North Henry to DeKalb County so much, just because of the type of person that wants to buy in an area like this.  Mr. Grant has said over and over that people do not want yard maintenance; well, let the yards lay natural.  Everything around there should be on a minimum of 3/4ths of an acre lot. To come in and put 3 or 4 houses on a one (1) acre lot is absurd.”

 

Ms. Paula Stewart, 691 Hemphill Road, said Moseley Road is less than one-quarter of a mile from Hwy. 138, and to put a road between Moseley Road and Hwy. 138 is going to be terribly hazardous to everybody on Hemphill, Hwy. 138, and Moseley Road. She said there is no red light at the location, and there are three (3) new schools coming to Moseley Road, less than one (1) mile from this planned development. Ms. Stewart said there is no possible exit, unless they make the primary exit on Hwy. 138, and if they plan the primary exit on Hwy. 138, she would then have no objection.  “To have even one (1) exit on Hemphill Road is going to be deadly; people will die there.”

 

Mr. Tim Barnhart, 125 Bennington Drive, said he moved to Henry County in 1995, and his family has fallen in love with Henry County.  He said when they saw the plan, there were a tremendous amount of homes going onto some acreage, that just will not fit in with what the other neighborhoods look like or what the people were looking for when they moved into this part of Henry County. “We want to keep Henry County very much the way it is, and we know it will grow, but we need to let it grow in such a way that it is conducive to families, traffic, and schools.”

 

Mr. James Stewart, said this issue has been discussed several times, and it has been voted, “no.”  He asked if the Board votes “no” tonight, will the residents be back again. 

 

Chairman Harper said if the request is denied tonight, the request cannot be brought back before the Board again until after one (1) year. 

 

Ms. Linda Thomasson, who lives on Hemphill Road across from the subject property, said she agreed with Ms. Stewart’s statement about the traffic situation and dangers on Hemphill Road.  She said when the three (3) new schools open, she does not know what she is going to do, because she cannot get out of her driveway as it is now. 

 

Mr. David Clark, who lives on Highway 155, said he has property along Cotton Indian Creek, and the County has approached him about an easement to serve the sewer line across the creek.  He thinks this zoning depends on that sewer line being in place; he said at the present, he is still negotiating with the County on the easement.  Mr. Clark thinks it is premature to vote for the zoning at the moment, and he recommended the Board to deny the request. 

 

Chairman Harper stated the Water Authority is an independent authority that has the power to acquire land to run water lines; “if we grant an R-2 zoning tonight, and if there is no sewer, R-2 zoning without sewer means it has to be built on a septic tank, and you have to build a 30,000 square foot lot.  If we grant R-2 and sewer comes to the property, by operation of law, whoever owns the property can build an 18,000 square foot lot.  It does not have anything to do with the condition of zoning.  You will not find any zoning conditioned upon sewer.”

 

Mr. Jerry Agan, 1170 Moseley Road, said the area has water problems now, and when construction starts with this development, there will be more problems.  He said no one is giving any answers to some of the biggest questions, such as “what are you going to do with our school traffic? Where are you going to put all of this traffic? You are going to add 300 more homes; we are just not hearing any answers.”

 

Mr. Grant stated GDOT has plans of performing the reconstruction at the intersection of Highway 138 and Hemphill Road. Mr. Grant said he does realize there is a problem at that intersection, and they want to help. He stated that is why they are donating $2,000 per lot to be earmarked specifically for that design and for the reconstruction of the intersection and to install a red light.  Mr. Grant said he had a list of 22 conditions, and most of the people are objecting to the size of the lots.  He said he would compromise and go to a half acre average, and there will be a sewer line brought into the property in the future.  Mr. Grant’s list of conditions is as follows:

 

1.     The average lot size for the development shall be 22,000 feet in addition to a minimum lot size of 18,000 square feet.

 

2.     Street trees shall be planted and maintained every thirty-five (35’) feet as approved by the Development Plan Review Administrator.

 

3.     The developer shall install grass island sidewalks on both sides of the street.

 

4.     Yards shall be sodded to the rear drip line of the houses.

 

5.     Heated floor area shall be a minimum of 2,500 square feet.

 

6.     The exterior of this development shall consist of craftsman-style or three and four-sided brick, stone or combination of the two.  Vinyl is prohibited except for the gables, eaves, soffits and trim. There shall be no modular units allowed.

 

7.     Two-car, side entry garages shall be standard. Front entry garages shall be allowed subject to the Development Plan Review Department’s review due to hardships caused by the buildings’ lot shape (if deemed necessary).

 

8.     Underground utilities and streetlights shall be installed by the developer.

 

9.     The development shall have uniform mailboxes throughout.

 

10.  All existing homes, if any, shall be removed to maintain consistency in the development.

 

11.  The retention area shall be landscaped for aesthetic appeal subject to approval by the Development Plan Review Department.

 

12.  A fifty (50’) foot undisturbed buffer shall be provided along all streams with an additional twenty-five (25’) foot impervious buffer.  Buffer shall be measured for top of bank.

 

13.  A mandatory HOA shall be established and maintained.

 

14.  All privacy fencing shall be maintained by a mandatory HOA.

 

15.  Greenspace shall be maintained by a mandatory HOA.

 

16.  The subdivision entrance signage shall be constructed of material reflective of the architectural design of the homes of the project.  Such signage shall be maintained by a mandatory HOA.

 

17.  Acceleration and/or declaration lanes shall be required at all subdivision entrances.

 

18.  No building permit shall be issued until the sewer services are available at the proposed site.

 

19.  A minimum of a fifty (50’) foot planted or undisturbed buffer shall be maintained on lots along any existing subdivision(s) or home(s) that presently adjoin the property and on proposed lots along the right-of-way of Moseley Road.  The proposed buffer shall be included within the lot areas.

 

20.  The gross density shall not exceed 1.25 units per acre.

 

21.  A donation fee of $2,000 per lot shall be paid to the County for specific use towards the redesign and development of the intersection located at Highway 138 and Hemphill Road.

 

22.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, no zoning conditions imposed herein shall be interpreted or applied in such a manner as to require any violation of any existing building, development, stormwater and/or any other applicable codes.

 

 

Mr. McMickle said the County has the design underway, and the County has authorization to do right-of-way purchase.  He said with the additional funding, the County could go ahead and put that intersection in and not have to wait on GDOT. The County would have to obtain a permit from GDOT, and if they approve signalization, then the County could proceed. Mr. McMickle said the plan is to do a re-alignment, a signalization, and turn lanes.

 

Mr. Grant stated there will be one road exiting Highway 138, but for safety reasons and according to the measurements, anything over 60 houses has to have a secondary entrance, and there will be access onto Moseley Road as well.

 

Commissioner Holder recognized the gross density shall not exceed 1.25 units per acre; he asked for the net density.

 

Mr. Grant said the net density would be no more than 1.75 units per acre.

 

Commissioner Holder asked for the number of lots, since the applicant has gone from a conservation subdivision to R-2 (conservation showed 299 lots).

 

Mr. Grant replied, “if you multiply 1.25 times the acreage, it comes to 330; that is the most that ever could be done.”

 

Commissioner Adams asked for the acreage of the greenspace.

 

Mr. Grant said it would be close to 70 acres.

 

Commissioner Stamey asked for the selling price of the homes.

 

Mr. Grant said the homes would start at $275,000 and run to $400,000.  Mr. Grant read the 22 conditions for this proposed development.

 

Commissioner Stamey stated Condition #23 should be added to read, “a ten (10’) foot strip of property to be donated to the County for the additional right-of-way on Moseley Road.” 

 

Mr. Grant agreed.

 

Commissioner Holman referenced condition #12, and asked Mr. Grant to define an impervious buffer.

 

Mr. Grant stated it is a buffer that is maintained, but no building of any type can be done in that buffer area. 

 

Commissioner Adams made the motion to approve the R-2 zoning request with 23 conditions; Commissioner Stamey seconded.  The vote was 2-3-0 with Commissioners Adams and Stamey voting in favor, and Commissioners Holman, Holder, and Mathis voting against.  The motion failed. 

 

Commissioner Mathis made the motion to deny the applicant’s request; Commissioner Holman seconded.  The motion carried 3-2-0 with Commissioners Mathis, Holman, and Holder voting in favor of the denial, and Commissioners Adams and Stamey voting against.

 

 

 

 

 

Chris L. Adkins, DDS – RZ-06-18 – District II.

 

            WHEREAS, Chris L. Adkins, DDS of Jonesboro, GA (RZ-06-18) applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single-Family Residence) to OI (Office/Institutional) for the development of professional office buildings, for Parcel ID number 033-02-031-000.  The property is located at 1041 Jodeco Road, in Land Lot 43 of the 6th District, containing 3.051+/- acres; and

 

WHEREAS, all County and State requirements for legal advertisement and a public hearing have been met; and

 

WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Staff for Henry County has reviewed the request and submitted a report that is part of the public record; and

 

WHEREAS, the Henry County Zoning Advisory Board reviewed and recommended denial of the rezoning request from R-2 (Single-Family Residence) to OI (Office/Institutional) on May 25, 2006.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners denies the rezoning request to OI (Office/Institutional).

 

 

Chairman Harper called for the applicant to come forward.

 

Ms. Wanda Moore, Attorney representing Dr. Chris Adkins, stated after the May 25th Zoning Advisory Board Meeting, the applicant arranged two (2) Town Hall Meetings. She said at the first meeting, the big objection was the interconnectivity for the drives used to exit the boulevard entrances for Meridian and Summer Leigh Subdivisions, and the residents were concerned about traffic getting lost in their neighborhoods and fearing for the safety of the children.  She stated they also commented on the buffered area between the O/I proposed use and the existing residential use, and it did not seem heavy enough with the detention area located there.  Also, Ms. Moore said on the west side there were existing trees that were shown on the plan to be disturbed. 

 

Ms. Moore stated, “my client asked me to take a second look at the site plan, and we took the two massive scaled buildings and divided them into three smaller units, that would be more comparable in scale with residential units in the area.  We deleted the entrances off the boulevards and spoke with DOT and discussed the access and the possibility of obtaining access off of Jodeco Road.  We beefed up the landscaped buffer between the subject property and the two subdivisions in the rear, but we were still leaving a lot of the existing trees on the west side from being disturbed. We are proposing underground detention and a landscaped buffer that is heaving planted on all sides adjacent to all residentially zoned property. We met with Ms. Sue Price and the HOA Board of Meridian and worked out squeezing these buildings in and actually saving the majority of the trees on the boulevard.  Lastly, we added a buffer, a planted area, and berm and brought the wall out to give the residents across the street a more heavily buffered area.”

 

Chairman Harper asked for public comment in opposition to this request; there was response.

 

Mr. John Cherry, 308 Hayden Court in the Meridian Subdivision, said a proposal was submitted by Dr. Chris Adkins and Steve Bullard, which was in the form of a letter, addressed to all homeowners of the subdivision. He stated there was no Town Hall Meeting held, but there was a meeting held with their Board of Directors, but the homeowners were not invited.  He said Dr. Adkins set out several promises to entice homeowners of the subdivision to withdraw their objections to the above-referenced property being re-zoned.  Mr. Cherry said before they could withdraw their objections, they would need a precise definition of goals in nos. 2 and 3 that were stated in paragraph #4 of page #2 of Dr. Adkins proposal. (Mr. Cherry read that section of the proposal to the Board.)  He stated the residents want to make sure, in goals nos. 2 and 3 of the proposal, that all 77 trees and the natural stand of trees will remain in place as a sight and sound barrier to any buildings placed on the subject property, and the number of trees depicted as sight and sound barriers on the south side of the property will be of the same number as represented on the landscape rendering presented along with Dr. Adkins letter. He stated unless these stipulations are included as part of the rezoning, the residents will remain in opposition to this request. 

 

Mr. John Heintz, 75 Windhaven Court, said his main concern is this would open up a precedent of other matters that have come before the Board, where the Board has agreed the corridor of Jodeco Road west of Hudson Bridge Road should remain a residential area. He said the staff planners and the Zoning Advisory Board have repeatedly endorsed this, and he did not see a compelling reason to amend the Future Land Use Map and go against the recommendations. 

 

Mr. Richard Gillen, 262 Meridian Drive, said this area along Jodeco Road from Hudson Bridge Road to the County Line was wisely designated for residential use.  He did not think this should change; he considered it an intrusion of businesses coming in, and they would over-shadow their homes.

 

Ms. Moore said she would like to use the remainder of her time for anyone who would like to speak in favor of the request.

 

Mr. Roger Allen, 515 Olivia Court in the Summer Leigh Subdivision, said in the beginning he was opposed to the idea of a dentist office being placed on the lot.  He stated over time, the residents of his subdivision met with Dr. Adkins about what was their plan to build at this location.  He said Dr. Adkins has done an exemplary job in working with the residents regarding this request.  Speaking for the Homeowners Association, Mr. Allen said he and the residents do not have any problems with the current proposed plan.

 

Mr. Jay Peno, 40 Summer Leigh Drive, said Dr. Adkins did a good job; he answered all of the residents’ concerns.  He said it would be a nice-looking building and would enhance the neighborhood.

 

Ms. Sue Price, President of the Homeowners’ Association in the Meridian Subdivision, said she represents most of the residents in the subdivision.  She stated after the applicant changed his plans 2 or 3 times to meet the residents’ specifications, she thought it would enhance the subdivision property. “This is a blank area that is full of trash and it acquires more trash all the time, because the landscapers dump behind the trees that we are trying to save.  There are rats that run through the high grass into the back yards of some of the residences, and after meeting with Ms. Moore, she is assured the trees will stay in place.  I only ask when the bulldozer comes, that all will be blocked off, so there is no way the trees would be taken down. I would like to see big trees planted as a buffer in the back, and not little ‘whippets,’ that have to be staked for fear the wind will knock them down. We would rather see a doctor’s building constructed at this location, than to take a chance of something less desirable built on this property.  From Jodeco Road, the buildings will only be one-story; therefore, they will not overwhelm the houses in the subdivisions. From the back side, it will drop down two stories, but you will not see that for the buffer in the rear.  A buffer is designed all around the parking area, and there will be downcast lighting.  I say yes to this project.”

 

Commissioner Mathis thanked the residents for attending this meeting and voicing their opinions about this development.  She thanked Dr. Adkins for taking time to have the community meetings, because it makes everyone’s job easier.

 

Commissioner Mathis made the motion to approve the applicant’s request with the following conditions;

 

1.     The entrance must be off of Jodeco Road.

2.     Downcast Lighting.

3.     Construction will be all brick or stone.

4.     Sidewalks from the subdivision into the complex.

5.     Monument-based sign – consistent with Summer Leigh and Meridian Subdivisions.

6.     Any changes from the site plan must come back to the Board of Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Holman seconded.

 

Ms. Cheri Matthews, Planning and Zoning Assistant Director, referenced Condition #1 regarding access from Jodeco Road, and asked for a sentence to be added, “the access shall be from Jodeco Road and shall be located at a minimum of 125 feet from Meridian Drive and Summer Leigh Drive; any entrance onto Jodeco Road shall meet the minimum intersection site distance for the posted speed limit and shall have a deceleration lane and acceleration taper.”

 

Commissioner Mathis amended her motion to include the addition made by Ms. Matthews; Commissioner Holman amended his second. 

 

Ms. Moore said the applicant is in agreement with all of the conditions.

 

The vote was taken; the motion carried unanimously.

 

 

Marvin Hewatt Enterprises c/o Tracy Billings – RZ-06-23 – District V.

 

            WHEREAS, Marvin Hewatt Enterprises, c/o Tracy Billings of Jonesboro, Ga. (RZ-06-23) applied for a rezoning from RA (Residential Agricultural) to C-2 (General Commercial) for the development of a gas station/convenience store retail development, for property identified by Parcel ID number 026-01-004-000.  The property is located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of East Atlanta Road and Rex Road, in Land Lot 188 of the 12th District, containing 5.538+/- acres; and

 

WHEREAS, all County and State requirements for legal advertisement and a public hearing have been met; and

 

WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Staff for Henry County has reviewed the request and submitted a report that is part of the public record; and

 

WHEREAS, the Henry County Zoning Advisory Board reviewed and recommended denial of the rezoning request from RA (Residential Agricultural) to C-2 (General Commercial) on June 22, 2006.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners denies the rezoning request.

 

Chairman Harper asked the applicant to come forward.

 

Mr. Andy Welch, Attorney representing the applicant, asked the Board to reconsider the request with conditions, even though the Zoning Advisory Board had recommended denial.  He said he would like to reserve the remainder of his time and allow the public to speak.

 

Chairman Harper asked for public comment in opposition to this request.

 

Ms. Teresa Hornsby, 252 Clarkdale Drive, said she opposed the rezoning based on the following factors:

 

·       Within one to four mile radius, there are already five (5) gas stations, three (3) major grocery stores (Kroger, Publix, and Ingles), and two (2) Drug Stores (Wal-Mart and CVS).  This gas station and convenience store do not bring any value or necessity to the community.

 

·       To grant the request would bring more congestion, traffic, and late-night riding through the neighborhood.

 

Mr. David Denton, 1925 Fisher Drive, said the community does not need any more gas stations or convenient stores; he said the last one on Rex Road was in Clayton County, and they closed years ago, because they did not have enough business.  He said this is a residential area; if this request is granted for commercial to be brought into this area, within the next couple of years, the commercial section around East Atlanta and Fairview will come down and crowd the residential area out.  He said this request is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan.  “If you do approve this, if you are going to put commercial in a residential area, let’s make it look residential.  Let’s make the buildings and the landscaping look like residential homes.” 

 

Mr. Walter Tolbert, 144 Ethel Lane, said there is no use in a change of zoning at this time from residential to commercial. 

 

Ms. Erica Moxley, 145 Ethel Lane, said she was at the last meeting and spoke against this request and she is here again tonight to oppose the rezoning.  She said there is no reason to have another gas station in the neighborhood. “Please, do not approve to have this rezoned commercial; it needs to be kept as residential.”

 

Mr. Anthony Grice, 141 Ethel Lane, said the Advisory Board recommended the denial of this request; Mr. Grice stated, “my question is ‘what has changed?’ I would venture to say, ‘nothing.’  I do not want a gas station within 150 yards of my home. Crime and traffic would increase in the neighborhood.”  He asked for the Commission to again deny this request. 

 

Mr. Welch said a list of conditions has been submitted to improve the intersection of Rex and East Atlanta Roads.  He said Mr. Hewatt has several convenience stores throughout Clayton, Henry, and DeKalb Counties, and he has different types of structures, all having various architectural feel to them.  He stated one of the stores has a residential look to it with a front porch, dormers, and columns. 

 

Mr. Welch listed the conditions:

 

1.     The primary building shall be constructed of all-sides brick and/or stone.

 

2.     All signage not attached to a building shall be monument-based and shall have consistent character and design details that reflect the architectural design of the project.

 

3.     An exterior lighting plan shall require all lighting be of moderate brightness and downcast.

 

4.     Dumpster(s) shall be gated and enclosed with a three-sided masonry wall having a façade consistent with the façade of the building.

 

5.     The Development Plan Review Department shall approve the design of all proposed landscape plans prior to the issuance of a building permit.

 

6.     There shall be a forty (40’) foot planted buffer between this property and adjacent residentially zoned properties.

 

7.     The zoning of the property shall be C-1.  However, of the uses permitted under the C-1 zoning district pursuant to 3-7-152(b) of the Henry County Code, the following shall be excluded from the zoning of the property:

 

14.            Dog and cat grooming and supplies

21.            Indoor recreation facilities

24.        Laundromats

38.            Taxi office

**         Tattoo and piercing parlors

                 

8.     Landowner/Applicant agrees to deposit Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) into an escrow account to be used by Henry County for signalization and/or road improvements at the intersection of East Atlanta and Rex Roads.  Henry County shall serve as the beneficiary of said funds for said purpose only. Said funds shall be held in escrow for a period of five (5) years from the date of deposit.  Should said funds not be used within said five (5) year period, all monies shall be refunded to the depositor. Deposit shall occur within ninety (90) days from the date of land disturbance permit issuance.

 

9.     The landowner agrees to dedicate to Henry County the followings rights-of-way along the boundary of the subject property where it adjoins the following roads:

 

a.                sixty (60’) feet measured from the centerline of East

Atlanta Road; and

b.               forty (40’) feet measured from the centerline of the

proposed relocation of Rex Road, as shown on the

attached Exhibit “A.”

 

10.  There shall be two (2) entrances into the site (one each from Rex Road and East Atlanta Road). Each entrance shall have a deceleration lane/acceleration taper designed and constructed to Henry County DOT Standards, providing that the minimum intersection sight distance is met per the posted speed limit of each road.  The entrance locations shall be as far as practically possible from the East Atlanta Road/Rex Road intersection.

 

11.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, no zoning conditions 

Imposed herein shall be interpreted or applied in such a manner as to require any violation of any existing building, development, stormwater and/or any other applicable codes.

 

12.  Operation hours shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven (7) days

a week.

 

 Mr. Welch referenced the lighting condition and said Mr. Hewatt would be interested in limiting the store hour operations from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and it would be less susceptible to the crime elements associated with convenience stores.  He said the lighting would be low downcast and the owner would turn off the canopy lighting, where the only lighting would be internal and around the building for security reasons after store hours. 

 

Commissioner Holman asked to see different architectural designs. Mr. Welch complied with the request by showing different styles.

 

Mr. McMickle said a traffic study has been completed to review the condition of the intersection, and the report came back today.  He said three of the warrants for signalization were met at that location; therefore, there is a need for a signal.  He said the intersection angle, where those come together, is less than a 60 degree angle, which is a very obtuse angle, and the County would like to straighten that up, and that is why the County asked the applicant to give the necessary right-of-way on the parcel. Mr. McMickle said there have been five (5) accidents at the multi-way stop.

 

Ms. Matthews stated for the record, “the request was originally from RA to C-2, and I understand the applicant’s conditions state they are comfortable with C-1 zoning.”

 

Mr. Welch agreed.

 

Commissioner Holman added Condition #12 to state, “operation hours shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven (7) days a week.”  Also, he asked the County Clerk to change the request from C-2 to C-1.

 

Commissioner Holman made the motion to approve the request to rezone the property from RA (Residential/Agricultural) to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) with the twelve (12) conditions; there was no second. The motion failed for lack of a second.

 

Commissioner Holman made the motion to approve the resolution as stated for denial; Commissioner Stamey seconded.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

Chairman Harper said the applicant’s request is denied.

 

Chairman Harper announced a 5-minute recess.

 

 

                                    (A 5-minute recess was held.)

 

 

Chairman Harper called the meeting to order.

 

 

Elite Lawns – RZ-06-20 – District V.

 

            WHEREAS, Elite Lawns of Stockbridge, GA (RZ-06-20) applied for a rezoning from RA (Residential Agricultural) to C-2 (General Commercial) for a landscaping business.  The property is located 1446 Fairview Road (Parcel ID# 064-02-024-000), in Land Lot 161 of the 12th District, containing 2.2+/- acres; and

 

WHEREAS, all County and State requirements for legal advertisement and a public hearing have been met; and

 

WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Staff for Henry County has reviewed the request and submitted a report that is part of the public record; and

 

WHEREAS, the Henry County Zoning Advisory Board reviewed and recommended denial of the rezoning request from RA (Residential Agricultural) to C-2 (General Commercial) on July 13, 2006.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners denies the rezoning request.

 

 

Mr. Andy Welch, Attorney representing the applicant, said they have attached to this appeal the Conditional Use denial before the Zoning Advisory Board, and the applicant is asking for the operation of the landscaping services in accordance with the Conditional Use allowed under 3-7-153(d)(6).  He said Elite Lawns bought the property out of foreclosure from Heritage Bank in August, 2002.  (Mr. Welch displayed photos at the time the property was purchased.) Mr. Welch said the property was being taxed in 2001 for $119,000 (assessed value), and the residents next door were being assessed in 2001 at $59,000.  He stated the difference was the subject property was being taxed as commercial and the next door property was being assessed as residential.  (Mr. Welch displayed photos of the subject property as it looks today.)  He said Elite Lawns landscaped along the front of the road, added a fence, cleaned up buildings in the back, and removed greenhouses.  Mr. Welch stated businesses are located down Fairview Road from Thurman Road all the way to Hwy. 155 in a mixed-use nature.  (Mr. Welch listed all of the business along Fairview and Thurman and described the commercial uses.) He said there are other properties that have different uses down Fairview Road and are not zoned in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, but the character of Fairview Road is such, that there is a commercial and residential element to it.  Mr. Welch said the subject property is designated for high-density residential, but some of the neighboring properties are designated for future commercial services.

 

Below is a list of conditions submitted by Mr. Welch:

 

1.               The zoning of the property shall be C-2.  However, of the permitted uses allowed under the C-2 district, pursuant to 3-7-153(b) of the Henry County Code, only permitted use #1 (any use permitted in the C-1 district) shall be allowed.  Of the uses permitted under the C-1 zoning district pursuant to 3-7-152(b) of the Henry County Code, the following shall be excluded from the zoning of the property:

 

 2.    automotive service stations                                                                                                                                                                       

15.   drug stores and apothecary shops                                                   

21.   indoor recreation                                                                                     

22.   hardware and appliance stores                                                        

23.   jewelry stores                                                                          

24.   Laundromats                                                               

29.   package (beer and wine) stores                                    

35.   restaurants                                                                      

28.   tax office                                                                                         

 

2.               There shall be no vehicles parked outside the front gate along Fairview Road at any time during the day.

 

3.               There shall be a forty (40’) foot wide buffer along the rear property line as measured from the rrear property line.  Within that forty (40’) foot buffer, there shall be an earthen berm four (4’) feet in height and a six (6’) foot wood privacy fence constructed on top of said berm.  Along the other two (2) boundaries adjoining residentially zoned property, there shall be erected a six (6’) foot wood privacy fence and a twenty (20’) foot planted buffer as measured from the respective side property lines. There shall be no additional landscaping required where the property fronts Fairview Road.

 

4.               All new signage subsequent to zoning shall be monument based and shall have consistent character and design details that reflect the architectural design of the primary building.

 

5.               An exterior lighting plan shall require all lighting to be of moderate brightness and consist of downcast lighting.

 

6.               Any dumpsters shall be constructed with a three-sided wall of materials that are consistent with the façade of the primary building.

 

7.               Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, no zoning conditions imposed herein shall be interpreted or applied in such a manner as to require any violation of any existing building, development, stormwater and/or any other applicable codes.

 

Mr. Welch said the applicant has also asked for, applied for, and now appealing a request for a Conditional Use on the property for landscape services, in essence, to allow the applicant to do what he wishes to do and what the applicant is currently doing. 

 

Mr. Welch asked for the rezoning request to be granted, because the applicant has been at this location since August, 2003.  “However, if it is the impression of the Board, based upon all of the information presented……. we also, as an alternative request, would settle for a C-1 zoning of the property to allow the applicant to have the commercial that is there.  Of course, that would mean they would have to prohibit and stop what they are doing there, and we ask there be a grace period (6 to 9 months) attached to that zoning to allow us to relocate our equipment and move it to a different area, that would be suitable for a C-2 zoning classification.”

 

Chairman Harper called Counsel for the opposition to come forward.

 

Mr. Steve Fincher, Attorney representing the opposition, said neighbors of the subject property came to him and stated there is a business in their neighborhood that is operating illegally, and they could not get it shut down. “I told them they did not need a lawyer to get the County to enforce their Ordinances.  Mr. Welch has demonstrated tonight, with his powerpoint presentation, that apparently on Fairview Road, you do need a lawyer to get the County to enforce their Codes, because he has demonstrated a number of businesses that have been allowed to operate illegally on Fairview Road – some for decades.  (Mr. Fincher displayed a photo of the property, that he took after he was hired as the opposing Attorney in March, showing what his clients have had to tolerate since 1993.)  There is no question the business is operating illegally; the County recognized this back in January and gave the applicant three (3) months to get his affairs in order. Here we are almost into September, and my clients are still faced with the adverse affects of this business, which not only requires a C-2 zoning, but a Conditional Use Permit. I do not know why anybody could suggest that C-2 and Conditional Use permit for heavy equipment operation is appropriate for an area zoned agricultural and single-family homes for miles and miles.  The fact they have been there for 3 years is no excuse to allow them to continue; they should not have gone there to begin with.  For anyone to say they were misled or unable to be fully informed is disingenuous. It is clear, when this business started in 2003, that it was not the success it is today. Over the course of time, his business has become very successful, and in the morning his operation is very loud, very noisy, and disruptive, that these poor people have no peace whatsoever.”

 

Mr. Fincher said there is no buffer area for this business; the applicant has installed a fence along the property lines of his property.  He said regarding vegetation, the trees are growing on his clients’ properties, and the applicant does not have any buffers, paving, water retention, soil erosion control or landscaping, except in the front.  He said the applicant’s business hours begin at 6:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, where they move equipment and back up equipment, making the beep, beep, beep sounds, and his clients wake up every morning to these sounds. Mr. Fincher said the business stays open until 9:00 p.m. or 9:30 p.m. each night.  He said the only solution is for the Board to deny the applicant’s request to rezone and the Conditional Use permit.

 

Ms. Debra Baccus, 100 Farmbrook Trail, said she lives adjacent to the subject property.  She stated the pictures that Mr. Fincher displayed are exactly how the property looks daily.  She said Mr. Welch did not show the big heavy equipment that goes in and out of the property, and how the applicant parks his equipment in the turn-off lane for the subdivision, so they can get out and lock the gate when they leave (which causes a major traffic hazard).   “Home life, as you would expect it, is not what we leave with; I e-mailed you a couple of weeks ago with my concerns. One thing is the public urination, and when you sit out on your deck and an employee comes to the fence watering your property by urinating, it leaves me to believe they do not have proper bathroom facilities. They do come in before 7:00 a.m. and they return after 7:00 p.m. at night, leaving sometimes after 8:00 p.m.  I ask the Board to consider all of this, because they are totally surrounded by residential neighborhoods. I would think there are other places in the County with the same tax base that would be applicable to relocate based on their type of business.”

 

Mr. John Baccus, 100 Farmbrook Trail, said his family has witnessed urination and beer bottles in the rear of his yard, and complaints were made.  He said with the noise, dirt, and dust, he could not sit on his back deck and drink a cup of coffee. Mr. Baccus was a Construction Superintendent for over 40 years, and he did not have that much equipment on a $25,000,000 building he built.  He said the subject property has too much equipment for a regular landscape operation. 

 

Mr. Richard Russo, 90 Martin Creek Court, said he lives directly behind the landscape operation. He complained about the black smoke, soot, and residue that are left from all of the tractors running every morning; he said sometimes there is a big black cloud that last over the neighborhood up to 9:00 a.m.  He stated when they crank up 15 or 20 trucks and tractors (using the off-road fuel), there is a stench in the neighborhood. 

 

Mr. Welch said it has been his practice not to misrepresent anything to the Board.  He said his slide show was not to misrepresent in any way, but to show the facts over the time period. He said the deed records would show what he said is true.  The applicant did not start any operations on the site until 2003, shown by the County aerial map.  His client started at that time cleaning up the property; he said there were no substantial structures or vehicles on the property in 2003.  Mr. Welch said he did not show buffers on the property on the slides; he said in fact, the buffers are thin and are not on the subject property.  “We have plans to add the forty (40’) foot buffer, and I stated we would put the forty (40’) foot buffer and the twenty (20’) foot buffer along the sides, that are required by the Ordinance. Hence, it is not there now.  The aerial maps show the actual encroachment of the property, beyond what used to be a nursery, has shrunk, and the vegetation has grown in. The surface area of the property, which was used in the past as a nursery, landscaping, and irrigation when it was Fairview Lawn & Garden, has been reduced over time.  All of that trash has been cleaned up, and it has taken time to do that. The conditions submitted are there to increase the buffers, increase the vegetation between the homes, install the fences, and put up the berms.  They say complaints have been made, and I do not doubt that.  But it was three (3) days from the Notice of Violation (3 days before) that Elite Lawns went in to apply for a building permit to put a pole barn on the property to house all of the equipment seen in the photos. The permit went to Planning and Zoning Department, and it was asked if they could issue the permit on the zoning, and they were told, ‘no.’ Three (3) days after that is when the Notice of Violation occurred.  I suggest to you that was the reason why there was a Notice of Violation, and that is why we are here today.”

 

Mr. Welch said they spoke with Chief Joe Kelly in the Fire Department and asked what to do, and he informed them to call someone to come out for the inspection on the tanks to see if they were in violation.  Mr. Welch said they did call and request the inspection, and it was discovered there were no violations with the tanks at the location.  Also, he stated EPD was called to the site; there were no violations.  Mr. Welch said when asked by the neighbors to do something, they have tried to comply. 

 

Commissioner Stamey referenced the alternate plan, which would be C-1, and asked if there would be any conditions with this plan. 

 

Mr. Welch said there would be limitations on the permitted uses, which are stated in the set of conditions provided, but if the Board had additional conditions, they would be glad to entertain them. 

 

Commissioner Adams asked if there was any common ground.  He asked if the C-1 zoning could be granted and ‘tie it down tight’ to avoid any objections. Commissioner Adams asked for Mr. Fincher’s comments.

 

Mr. Fincher said if the Board thinks the property should be zoned C-1, this may be something his clients could live with.  He said if that is the proposal, it would be prudent to send his clients back with those instructions to allow them to design some conditions much the same as the Dentist did tonight.  Mr. Fincher said the existing uses are incompatible, but they could design some C-1 uses that would be compatible, if they were given time to do so. 

 

Commissioner Adams suggested tabling the issue to see if the two parties could work something out.

 

Mr. Welch said it would be a fine suggestion, but the conditions have already been submitted to the opposing Attorney at the Zoning Advisory Board Meeting.  He said he has already offered the C-1 zoning proposal to the opposing Attorney, but there has been no response. 

 

Commissioner Adams asked if the applicant would consider O/I.

 

Mr. Welch said, ‘no.’

 

Mr. Fincher said if the applicant is not willing to consider O/I, then his clients are not prepared to offer a Consent to Table. 

 

Mr. Gibson added the business license is on hold until this matter is settled; therefore, they have not paid for a business license for 2006. 

 

Commissioner Holman said Mr. Russo got his attention in December, 2005, when Mr. Russo shared with him there was a business operating illegally.  He said Mr. Russo gave him enough information, and Mr. Russo thought the property was not zoned properly. Commissioner Holman said that was easy for him to investigate, and he gave the challenge to staff and they returned and said the property was not zoned properly for the business. He said there was a Code Enforcement violation issued, and there were meetings with the County Attorney and the applicant.  Commissioner Holman said he is very sensitive to the Elite Lawn situation, and the neighbors are being affected adversely in the biggest way.  He said he was totally opposed to this.

 

Commissioner Holman made the motion to uphold the resolution presented to deny the C-2 zoning with an exception granting a 9-month grace period for the business to be shut down and relocated; Commissioner Mathis seconded.

 

Commissioner Holder said there is enough blame in this to go around that all of us can take a piece of it.  He said Elite Lawns is in violation, and there is no question about that; Fairview Nursery was also in violation, and Henry County has been in violation of its own Ordinance by not enforcing it. Commissioner Holder said before the vote tonight, the Board should look at the entire area, and he asked for the C-1 rezoning to be considered.

 

Chairman Harper said if the Board approves the motion as read, then the applicant’s request would be denied, and they are barred from obtaining a rezoning for 12 months, and Commissioner Holder’s suggestion would not be allowed. He said in order for Commissioner Holder’s suggestion to be considered, the motion on the floor would have to be defeated.

 

Mr. Patrick Jaugstetter, County Attorney, agreed.

 

 The vote was taken; the vote was 1-4-0 with Commissioner Holman voting in favor of the motion, and Commissioners Mathis, Holder, Holman, and Stamey voting against. 

 

Commissioner Holman said he would like to table this request to allow the applicant and the opposition to engage in dialogue before a decision is made. 

 

Commissioner Holman made a subsequent motion to table this issue for two (2) Board Meetings and to consider the time requirement for advertisement.

 

Chairman Harper asked the applicant and the opposition their position on tabling the request.

 

Mr. Welch said he would like for the Board to go ahead and vote on the alternative request. 

 

Mr. Fincher said they would be prepared to meet and try to reach an agreement of reasonable compromise.

 

Chairman Harper asked for a second on Commissioner Holman’s subsequent motion; the motion failed for lack of a second.

 

Commissioner Holman yielded the floor.

 

Commissioner Adams made the motion to approve a C-1 rezoning with the following conditions: 1) everything in a C-1 zoning to be allowed, except automotive service stations, drug stores, apothecary shops, indoor recreation, hardware/appliance stores, jewelry stores, Laundromats, packaged beer/wine stores, restaurants, and tax office; and 2) the applicant shall have 9 months to relocate.

 

Mr. Jaugstetter said, “you are zoning the property to C-1, and the 9 months portion of the motion is instruction preventing your Code Enforcement Officials from citing for violation of the C-1 zoning for a period of 9 months. They will not be compliant even with the conditions.”

 

Mr. Gibson said these conditions are referring to the C-2 request, but the permitted uses as outlined are excluded from the C-1 zoning district.

 

Chairman Harper asked for additional conditions to be read applicable to a C-1 zoning for the area.

 

Mr. Gibson read: 

                             1.  A landscape plan shall be approved by the Development

                                   Plan Review Department.

2.     Primary signage shall be a monument base sign and shall have consistent character and design details that reflect the architectural design of the project not to exceed 15 feet in height.

 

3.     All new construction shall be all brick, stone or glass in

any combination on all sides.

4.     An exterior lighting plan shall require all lighting to be

of shall require all lighting to be of moderate brightness

and consist of downcast lighting.

5.     Any dumpsters shall be constructed with a 3-sided wall

of materials that are consistent with the façade of the

building.

6.     A paved parking area that meets the standards of the

County Ordinance shall be provided.

7.     Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, no

zoning conditions imposed herein shall be interpreted

or applied in such a manner as to require any violation

of any existing building, development, stormwater and/or any other applicable codes.

 

Chairman Harper asked Commissioner Adams if the above nine (9) conditions would be included in his motion.  Commissioner Adams confirmed.  Commissioner Holder seconded.

 

Mr. Magnaghi said operations occurring outside the fence line, prior to the opening of the business in the mornings, were part of the issue on Fairview where cars accumulated to come into the business area, and it caused some line-of-sight issues and visibility problems.  He said even if the Board allows for the 9 months, this should not be allowed based on safety issues.

 

Commissioner Adams amended his motion to add Condition #10, “there shall be no vehicles parked outside the front gate along Fairview Road at any time during the day.”

 

Mr. Gibson said he would like to add Condition #11, “all new and existing buildings shall meet Fire and Building Codes.”

 

Commissioner Adams amended his motion to include the eleven (11) conditions; Commissioner Holder amended his second.  The motion carried 4-1-0 with Commissioners Adams, Holder, Stamey, and Mathis voting in favor, and Commissioner Holman voting against.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL TO A DECISION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST BY THE ZONING ADVISORY BOARD – ELITE LAWNS – CU-06-10 – DISTRICT V.

 

WHEREAS, Elite Lawns of Stockbridge, Georgia, applied for a conditional use (CU-06-10) for a landscaping service on property located at 1446 Fairview Road (Parcel ID # 064-02-024-000), in Land Lot 161 of the 12th District, consisting of 2.2+/- acres; and

 

WHEREAS, all County and State requirements for legal advertisement and a public hearing have been met; and

 

WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Staff for Henry County has reviewed the request and submitted a report that is part of the public record; and

 

WHEREAS, the Henry County Zoning Advisory Board reviewed and denied the request for a conditional use on July 13, 2006.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners upholds the denial of the Zoning Advisory Board.

 

OR

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners overturns the denial and approves the aforementioned applicant’s conditional use request.

 

 

Chairman Harper asked Mr. Welch if he had anything to add before the motion was made; Mr. Welch said he did not have anything to add.

 

Commissioner Holman made the motion to deny the Conditional Use request; Commissioner Adams seconded.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

 

COUNTY MANAGER COMMENTS:

 

Resolution Affirming the Personnel Policy Manual and Incorporating Certain Administrative Policies Therein.

 

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has previously adopted a Personnel Policy Manual to provide for certain policies and procedures to govern personnel administration of County government; and

 

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners desires to incorporate certain administrative policies within the adopted Personnel Policy Manual.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Henry County that the Board hereby affirms the Personnel Policy Manual and incorporates the Henry County Safety Manual, inclusive f Appendixes A, B, and C, into the Henry County Personnel Manual.

 

 

Commissioner Adams made the motion to approve the resolution; Commissioner Stamey seconded.  The motion carried 4-0-0 with Commissioners Adams, Stamey, Mathis, and Holder voting in favor.  Commissioner Holman was absent during the vote.

 

 

 

COUNTY ATTORNEY COMMENTS:

 

Mr. Jaugstetter did not have comments.

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION:

 

No Executive Session was held.

 

 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT(S):

 

There were no public comments.

 

 

 

UPCOMING MEETINGS:

 

9/04/06            Monday                                   No Meeting – Labor Day Holiday

 

9/05/06            Tuesday           9:00 a.m.         Regular Board of Commissioners’ Meeting

 

9/18/06            Monday           9:00 a.m.         Regular Board of Commissioners’ Meeting

 

9/19/06            Tuesday           6:30 p.m.         Regular Board of Commissioners’ Meeting

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Adams made the motion to adjourn at 9:45 p.m.; Commissioner Holder seconded.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

 

                                                            Jason T. Harper, Chairman

 

 

Peggy L. Malcolm, Deputy County Clerk