STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF HENRY
The Henry County Board of Commissioners held a regularly scheduled Public Meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 1, 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; LaTonya Wiley, Deputy County Attorney; Peggy L. Malcolm, Deputy County Clerk; Janine Robertson, Deputy County Clerk; Michael F. Turner, Deputy County Manager and Public Safety Division Director; Michael Harris, Planning and Development Division Director; Terry McMickle, Public Works Division Director; Angie Bailey, Interim Administration Division Director; Ray Gibson, Planning and Zoning Director; Cheri Hobson-Matthews, Planning and Zoning Assistant Director; Michael Sabine, Assistant to the County Manager; Steve Schafer, Development Plan Review Director; Becky Zebe, Human Resources Director; Gerri Dueringer, Animal Control Director; Tommy Smith, Executive Assistant to the Board of Commissioners for Constituent Services; 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 following amended additions to the Agenda: Item XI-A - Resolution Pertaining to the Installation of an HVAC System, Item XI-B - Resolution Accepting an Appropriation from the General Assembly through a Grant of Local Assistance Administered by Georgia DCA, and Item XI-C - Resolution Pertaining to the Paving of Davis Road. Commissioner Holman made the motion to approve the amended Agenda; Commissioner Mathis seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION:
Public Hearing: Potentially Dangerous Dog Classification.
Ms. Andre Mitchell is requesting a hearing regarding her dog, a golden retriever, being classified as potentially dangerous.
Mr. Patrick Jaugstetter, County Attorney, said one of the roles of the Board of Commissioners is the Henry County Animal Control Board and to hear appeals of dog owners relating to a find by the Animal Control Director that their dog is a dangerous dog or potentially a dangerous dog. He said Ms. Gerri Dueringer, Director of Animal Control, has determined Ms. Andre Mitchell’s golden retriever is a ‘potentially dangerous dog.’ The Code defines a ‘potentially dangerous dog’ as any dog that without provocation bites a human being on public or private property at any time after March 31, 1989. The Board is to vote on whether to uphold or reverse Ms. Dueringer’s classification.
Mr. Jaugstetter stated a ‘potentially dangerous dog’ has to be kept within a proper enclosure, which is either a fence or a kennel, and there has to be a sign posted to indicate there is a dangerous dog on the premise. Also, there is an annual fee of $100, and if the dog gets out of it’s enclosure, it has to be on a leash and muzzled.
Ms. Gerri Dueringer made her presentation; “On June 26, 2006, a golden retriever dog named “Chopper” owned by Ms. Andre Mitchell entered the property of Tim and Christine Johnson on three separate times. The first time, it was aggressive toward Ms. Johnson as she walked to her mail box. The second time, Chopper tried to fight the Johnson’s miniature dashaund. Both times, Mr. Johnson was able to run the dog out of his yard without incident. On the third occasion, Mr. Johnson was unable to get there in time, and the dog bit 11 year old Troy Johnson on the left ankle, as he was running away from the dog and toward his father for safety. Mr. Johnson had a camera with him at the time and made photos of the scene. (Ms. Dueringer passed out photos to the Board.) An Animal Control Officer was dispatched to the scene, issued a citation to Ms. Mitchell, and impounded the dog for a mandatory ten (10) day rabies quarantine. Ms. Mitchell stated she did not want the dog back post quarantine and signed ownership over to Animal Control. However, Ms. Mitchell apparently changed her mind, and on July 5, 2006 came to the shelter, reclaimed the dog, and returned it to her residence. On July 6, 2006 her case was adjudicated in Magistrate Court, where Ms. Mitchell pled ‘No-lo Contendere’ and received a substantial fine.”
Ms. Dueringer continued, “prior to the incident, Ms. Mitchell had received three (3) written warnings from Henry County Animal Control Officers, advising her of County Ordinances regarding dogs running at large; therefore, Ms. Mitchell was well aware she was required to keep her dogs restrained on her property. Because of the unprovoked bite inflicted on Troy Johnson, coupled with Ms. Mitchell’s history of disregarding Henry County’s Animal Restraint Ordinances, I classified Ms. Mitchell’s dog as ‘potentially dangerous,’ and on July 7, 2006, I notified Ms. Mitchell of my decision personally (notification was sent via certified and regular mail).”
Ms. Andre Mitchell, owner of Chopper, stated, “this animal has never shown any signs of aggression; he has been to training classes, and the dog has been around children his entire life. I got him as a puppy, and he will be two (2) years old this October. He is around my children, and we have taken him to ball games, and Chopper has never shown any signs of aggression. In his training class, his trainer had nothing but good things to say about him; the dog obeys. The Director said I have received numerous warnings; I have only received one (1) warning about one of my animals being off of his leash, which was questionable to me. I received another warning about not having a rabies dog tag on my dog, and I did not receive anything else until after this incident happened, I received a warning saying I was treating my dogs in an inhumane way. I have been in Court twice; the first time was about this rabies shot, which I tried to contact Animal Control, but was not able to get in touch with them to reconcile the situation. The notice I received was taped to my door, and it did not have my correct address on it, so I did not know if it was for me. My animals have had their rabies shots.”
Ms. Mitchell said, “regarding this incident, my dog went out of my house after I had turned around to go to the bathroom; but each time Animal Control came to my house, they gave statements to the Judge that I kept my dogs under restraint. There have been questionable instances where the dog collar has been broken, and at the time they impounded my dog, it was questionable to me how the collar was broken. I pled guilty to this incidence, because I turned my back, and the dog went out of my house. I had to go to the bathroom, because I have a bladder problem. I feel the dog did not have time to do what Mr. Johnson has claimed. This dog is a very playful dog; he is a golden retriever, and he has had all of his shots. The dog shows no aggression when he goes to the Vet, and the doctor is able to pet him. He plays with visitors who come to my house, and there are no signs of aggression whatsoever. My two sons are very passionate about this dog, and because of his playful nature, I feel putting this ‘potentially dangerous’ title on him would interfere with my dog’s playfulness, having to have him muzzled every time he has to go outside. One thing my kids like to do with Chopper is throw and receive. I do not want to say the Johnsons are lying about what happened to their son. I feel when a dog goes to someone else’s yard and that person does not welcome the dog, then yes, I feel my dog was a nuisance in that sense. But to say this dog bit Mr. Johnson’s son……………… When we visited the dog at Animal Control, Ms. Dueringer’s staff told me the dog was very friendly, and if I did not want the dog, Animal Rescue wanted him. One of the trustees working at Animal Control told a staff member if Animal Rescue could not take the dog, he would check with his family to take the dog. Because I have three (3) children, I would not want a vicious dog around them. I have the papers here today where he went for training and attended a professional class at PetSmart and also have physical exams from his doctor, where she states the dog has always been very cooperative and friendly.”
Mr. Michael Head, Jr., Ms. Mitchell’s youngest son (age 14), added, “I spend a lot of my time around the dog, and just to think he was accused of biting Mr. Johnson’s son. In the bottom of my heart I know this dog, and he does not bit. When people visit our home, Chopper runs over to them and starts licking them and is very friendly.”
Commissioner Mathis asked if Ms. Mitchell has a fenced yard.
Ms. Mitchell said she does not have a fenced yard; she has purchased an electrical fence, and she has added a cage outside of her home, where she has two dogs housed. Ms. Mitchell said her dogs had been kept in the house and were well fed; the youngest dog slept on her bed, and they had the run of the house. She said because of the abuse complaint, she started leaving the dogs outside, so Animal Control could see that she was not mistreating her dogs. She installed automatic feeders and an automatic water source, because she did not know what else to do. Ms. Mitchell apologized for her dog going into the Johnson’s yard, and said she is doing everything she can do to prevent that from ever happening again.
Ms. Mitchell said the alleged bite occurred on a Saturday, and Mr. Johnson never called her or came over to say Chopper was loose. She stated she approached their son to make sure he was O.K., and he showed her one spot on the back of his heel. Ms. Mitchell offered to pay the doctor bill of the Johnson’s son and offered to pick up any medicine required. She said Mr. Johnson said everything had been taken care of, and then Mr. Johnson called the Police.
Commissioner Adams asked the County Attorney if an electric fence would be deemed sufficient.
Mr. Jaugstetter did not know, but Ms. Dueringer said an electric fence would not be proper enclosure.
Commissioner Holder asked if this dog was classified as a ‘potentially dangerous dog,’ would Ms. Mitchell rather keep the dog and enclose it behind a fence, or would she get rid of the dog.
Ms. Mitchell said she and her kids would do everything necessary to keep the dog.
Commissioner Holder made the motion to uphold the Animal Control’s position and determination that this dog be classified as a ‘potentially dangerous animal;’ Commissioner Holman seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holder asked the County Attorney when Ms. Mitchell would have to be in compliance or when would this classification take effect.
Ms. Dueringer said ten (10) days; Mr. Jaugstetter said the determination is immediate, but he felt the Animal Control Officers would be reasonable in the enforcement of it. He said it might be hard to hire a fence company to install a fence within ten (10) days.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION:
Public Hearing: License to Sell Alcoholic Beverages.
WHEREAS, Geir S. Kilen, owner of Palm Beach Restaurant to be built at 2180 Hwy 20 West, McDonough, Georgia, request a license to sell beer, wine, and distilled spirits from this location; and
WHEREAS, Geir S. Kilen, owner of Palm Beach Restaurant has met the required specifications set forth in the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Henry County Board of Commissioners grants said license.
Commissioner Mathis made the motion to approve the applicant’s request; Commissioner Holman seconded. The motion carried 4-0-0 with Commissioners Mathis, Holman, Adams, and Stamey voting in favor. Commissioner Holder was absent for the vote.
Presentation: Comprehensive Transportation Plan Project Update.
Ms. Cheri Hobson-Matthews, Planning and Zoning Assistant Director, said in September, 2005, the Parsons & Brinckerhoff Team began its work assisting the County and the Cities in developing the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), since they have critical transportation needs that must be addressed soon. “From time to time, the project team has briefed the Commissioners and the Cities on the progress of the plan as well as holding public workshops and other meetings and events to discuss the planned development process and issues of concern to Henry County and its communities. On August 1, 2006, the PB Team is prepared to update the Board of County Commissioners and the Mayors on the progress of the project, including the results of the second round of public workshops and the initial results of the transportation analysis for the plan. It is envisioned that in late September, 2006, the PB Team will be prepared again to brief the Commissioners and the Mayors on the initial plan recommendations, including a list of proposed transportation projects. The plan and project listing can ultimately be used by Henry County and the Cities to make funding requests for projects as part of the Atlanta Regional Commission’s “Call for Projects” which is expected to occur in the October 2006 timeframe.”
Ms. Jamie Cochran, Parsons & Brinckerhoff’s Project Manager, stated, “we spent the early part of this year in Community Visioning Meetings in cooperation with your Comprehensive Plan Team, and we received a lot of community input from citizens and stakeholders within the County and the Cities. From there, we moved into the goals and objectives phase, and we have developed five (5) basic transportation goals that will guide the plan. We started developing the transportation analysis, considering what the future land uses might be, and started looking at what the future transportation needs would be in Henry County and the Cities. We are in the process of completing that, hopefully by the end of August or the first part of September, where the final documentation will be ready by the end of the year. In developing the transportation plan, we have talked to all of the affective parties, both on the public sector side and the private sector side, in trying to receive input on the transportation needs. We have talked to the School District, Water and Sewerage Authority, the Development Authority, the Chamber of Commerce, Quality Growth Council, and even adjacent counties to get a feel for what is happening. We have used all of the input to develop strong citizen-oriented transportation goals and objectives. We do have two (2) committees working with us on a continuous basis; a group of technical experts from all the various transportation planning agencies and also a Public Involvement Advisory Committee to help guide the plan. A few of the issues we heard from the citizens and stakeholders:
§ Add turn lanes and traffic lights;
§ Transportation and development must be better coordinated;
§ Please do something about I-75 and S.R. 42;
§ Build more east/west and north/south routes;
§ We need more sidewalks and trails;
§ Coordinate school and road construction.”
“We are looking at road and highway needs, public transportation needs, bicycle, trail and pedestrian needs, and all kinds of settings in very developed areas, highly commercial areas, lower density areas, and rural areas. It is very difficult for us as planners to predict exactly how growth and development will happen in the future. We are looking at five (5) different concepts for how new growth might happen in the County. (Ms. Cochran displayed the five scenarios on the screen for review.) We feel we have a really sound technical basis for the transportation project list that will be coming to you by September. We have taken the analysis from the five concepts, melted them into a ‘hybrid scenario,’ and that will become the basis for your Comprehensive Transportation Plan. We have worked closely with the Planning and Zoning Department and the Comp Plan individuals to arrive at some population and employment projections for 2030, which is the horizon year of our plan. We are looking at approximately 429,360 individuals living here, which is about 70,000 more than ARC is currently projecting, and about 120,369 jobs.”
“We looked at congestion from a number of different ways, and we know traffic congestion on the County’s existing road system is the #1 concern in the community. We looked at congestion on a daily level for a 24-hour period, and we looked at detailed numbers on how congestion was during the afternoon peak hour or afternoon commute period, which is typically the worst. The morning is usually less severe compared to the afternoon, and we looked at the duration of the congestion as to whether it lasted one hour, two hours, or eight hours. Boiling down all of the analysis, the transportation corridors that exist now (I-75, Ga. 155, Ga. 42, Airline Rd., Ga. 20, and US 19/41) are the ones having the most difficulty. Other areas of difficulty, but not as severe, are Turner Drive, Ga. 81, Ga. 138, Patrick Henry Blvd., and Hampton-Locust Grove Road.”
“We had some public workshops in the mid to latter part of July with a lot of good input; the citizens suggested we add the S.R. 81 corridor and the Peeksville Road corridor to the map as well. (Ms. Cochran showed in her slide presentation the contrast between how many commute trips are originating in Henry County and going to work in places outside Henry versus those that are originating outside Henry and coming into jobs in Henry County.) There are much fewer trips of individuals commuting outside of Henry and coming to jobs in Henry County, and much more making the reverse. This tells us as the County grows and develops, it acquires more jobs and there will be more opportunities for people to commute to work inside the County, which will improve the transportation system. Some of the potential solutions we are reviewing are wider arterial roads, alternative routes by improving road connections, improve intersection designs, add turn lanes and signals, expand commuter-oriented transit service, introduce limited transit circulator services to connect cities, and manage access (driveways).”
“The majority of the funding is allocated in the planning period between 2012 and 2020; a vast majority is on roadway improvement as opposed to public transportation. We identified the amount of money available from your SPLOST funding, as well as from your impact fees. We will have a financial element as part of the transportation plan to try and address suitable funding sources for all of the transportation needs. We have monitored and gathered information about the non-SPLOST transportation expenditures by the County, and we gathered information on the money the Cities are spending also, but it is relatively a small amount.”
“Our last round of public workshops is scheduled for September, and we will be back to you with a proposed project list, hopefully on September 25th; that information, if agreeable with the County and Cities, will be transmitted to the ARC in October, and finalize the plan by the end of the year.”
Commissioner Holder suggested, “if more kids were either allowed to or made to ride buses (the buses the taxpayers are paying for already) when they go to school, rather than having their parents take them to school, the transportation issue would relieve itself to a degree.”
Ms. Cochran said there is a need to get all of the ‘players’ together on a regular basis, that are involved in these issues so that the planning on all sides could improve. She said there is a potential of establishing a transportation roundtable made up of the School District, the Water & Sewerage Authority, Development Authority, etc. to discuss periodically about the transportation issues.
Chairman Harper thanked Ms. Cochran for coming and giving the Board the updated presentation of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Project.
Modification to a Zoning Condition:
Charles Dobbins of Fayetteville, Ga. – MC-06-06 – District II.
WHEREAS, Charles Dobbins c/o Grey Ivey of Fayetteville, Georgia (MC-06-06) applied for a modification to zoning conditions regarding property rezoned by the Board of Commissioners on November 3, 2003 (RZ-03-44), for property located between Steele Drive and State Route 3, within the Steele Forest subdivision (Parcel ID Number 020F-01-050-000), in Land Lots 198 and 199 of the 6th District, consisting of 47.26 +/- 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, conditions number 8 and 9 (RZ-03-44) read as follows:
WHEREAS, the Henry County Zoning Advisory Board has reviewed and recommended approval of the request to modify zoning conditions number 8 and 9 on June 22, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners approves the request to modify conditions number 8 and 9 as follows:
Mr. Ray Gibson, Planning and Zoning Director, stated the subdivision is currently known as Steele Forest Subdivision. He said the two (2) conditions are regarding the reduction of open space from 57% to 55%; he said one of the lots (lot 50) was approved with an existing house to be on septic, where the remainder of the subdivision is on sewer. He stated in trying to get the 57%, the applicant created a plat which narrowed this existing lot down to .45 acres in size. Mr. Gibson said when it was reviewed for septic, it was discovered the drainage area needed to be enlarged. He said this is before the Board today to enlarge this lot, which would cut into the 2% of open space. The Zoning Advisory Board recommended approval of this request.
Chairman Harper asked for public comment in opposition to this request; there was no response.
Chairman Harper asked the applicant to come forward.
Mr. Greg Ivey, the applicant, said their engineering company made a mistake on the calculations regarding the green space; when they turned in the third and final plat, the green space was recalculated and they discovered they were 9% short. He said it was a miscalculation, and they went back and trimmed every lot in the subdivision to the minimum (6,000 sq. ft.), and they had to trim lot 50 also. (Mr. Ivey displayed on the screen how the house on lot 50 was situated.) Mr. Ivey stated the houses in the subdivision would range from $180,000 to $210,000. He said they were trying to make this existing house in a workable situation on the lot.
Commissioner Mathis stated the requirement for open space in a Conservation Subdivision is 40%; therefore, this would exceed the requirement by an additional 15%. She said this property backs up to a chlorine plant, and it fronts on Steele Drive, which is a mobile home community, and this would certainly be a step up from what is in the surrounding area.
Commissioner Mathis made the motion to approve the applicant’s request for the modification; Commissioner Holman seconded.
Commissioner Stamey added in the FHA Bylaws, it states if a sewer is within 100 feet of the existing property, the seller could be required to hook up to sewer system. He said he did not understand why the applicant would not want to go ahead and hook it up, because it would bring value to the property.
Mr. Gibson said, “Commissioner Mathis may note that this is an R-2 Conservation, based on R-3 layout, because we did not have the Conservation Subdivision in place at that time; therefore, this is R-2 with R-3 standards with open space as an addition.”
The vote was taken; the motion carried unanimously.
Luke Contracting, Inc. of McDonough, Ga. – RZ-06-24 – District I.
WHEREAS, Luke Contracting, Inc. c/o Andy Welch (RZ-06-24) applied to rezone the subject property from RA (Residential Agricultural) to R-2 (Single-Family Residence) to develop a single-family residential subdivision. The property is located on the northern side of Snapping Shoals Road, east of Wynn Road (Parcel ID Number 174-01-018-000) in Land Lot 86 of the 8th District, consisting of 40.25+/- 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
WHERAS, the Henry County Zoning Advisory Board reviewed and recommended approval of the rezoning request from RA (Residential Agricultural) to R-2 (Single-Family Residence) on June 22, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henry County Board of Commissioners approves the above rezoning request with the following twelve (12) conditions:
1. All homes shall be built on-site; no modular or manufactured homes shall be allowed.
2. The minimum house size shall be 2,200 square feet of heated space for both single-story homes and two-story homes.
3. All homes shall have standard two-car garages with side-entry where feasible.
4. Underground utilities and streetlights shall be required.
5. Uniform mailboxes shall be required throughout the development.
6. All yards shall be sodded to the rear drip line of the homes.
7. The developer agrees to donate to the Henry County Department of Transportation ten (10) feet of additional right-of-way on Snapping Shoals Road. Developers shall be responsible for installing an acceleration taper and deceleration lane in said right-of-way, as required by Henry County DOT.
8. All homes shall consist of all-sides brick, stone, or any combination thereof. Cement and vinyl-based products may be used as accents in dormers, gables, bay windows, and above the roofline of each house.
9. Developer shall install sidewalks at least four (4’) feet in width on both sides of all interior streets in the proposed development.
10. The net density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per acre.
lots shall front on roads interior to the subdivision. There shall be no lots
having access onto Snapping Shoals Road.
12. 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. Gibson said the Future Land Use Map designates this property for Residential-Agricultural land uses at up to one (1) dwelling unit per acre. He said this area, along Snapping Shoals, has grown as far as R-2 developments, and Snapping Shoals is designated as a minor arterial road. He stated the concept plan, submitted by the applicant, shows thirty-seven (37) lots on approximately 37.01 net acres for a net density of .99 dwelling units per acre. The Zoning Advisory Board recommended approval of this development with twelve (12) zoning conditions. Mr. Gibson said in reference to lot #1, which currently fronts onto Snapping Shoals, the applicant is hoping to front it on Snapping Shoals. He said the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 3-8-75) states, “when a tract fronts on a State highway, major arterial, or minor arterial street, the sub-divider may be required to have all residential lots to be provided with frontage only upon a collector or local street.” He stated in this case, staff recommends all lots to be internal to the subdivision. Mr. Gibson recommended this issue to go before the DPR staff to make the decision. “I recommend, and that would include, removing condition #11 from the request.”
Chairman Harper asked if there was public comment in opposition to this request; there was response.
Chairman Harper asked the applicant to come forward.
Mr. Andy Welch, Attorney representing the applicant, said he would reserve his time for the moment, but he requested condition #11 to be removed. Also, he referenced condition #12 and said this would cover all the issues pertaining to lot #1; “it would be the Board’s decision whether lot #1 would stay where it is or be divided up to be internal to the subdivision.” He asked the Board to approve the request of R-2, that the density cap, as specified, be no more than one (1) unit to the acre (consistent with the Future Land Use Map), and the conditions before the Board be approved along with it, with the except of condition #11.
In opposition, Ms. Teresa Delamar, who lives at 171 Maranatha Road, McDonough, said she is present to speak against all R-2 re-zonings outside of the City Limits. She said people do not move outside of the City Limits to live on top of each other. She said if the builders could not make money on one-acre lots in the rural areas…….she said she just did not understand. She attended a Town Hall Meeting a couple of weeks ago in opposition to a subdivision zoned R-2 on N. Ola Road, backing up to Snapping Shoals, and there will be opposition to this as well. She said the schools and the infrastructure in rural areas are not designed for this type of development. Ms. Delamar said a one-acre lot in a rural area is sufficient.
Commissioner Holman asked Mr. Gibson to show him where the entrance would be for lot #1. Mr. Gibson pointed out the entrance on the design; Commissioner Holman said, “that is the significance for striking condition #11.” Mr. Gibson confirmed.
Mr. Gibson said when this goes to Development Plan Review, staff could say either the applicant could have a flagged lot (allowed if there is a unique shape to the property or topographical restraint) or allow the applicant to front onto Snapping Shoals.
Commissioner Adams asked the average size of the lots.
Mr. Gibson did not know the average size. He said there is a mixture because of the layout of the property, but 30,000 square feet is the minimum lot size. He said the net density meets the requirements of the Future Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Holder referenced condition #7 where it states, “developer shall donate…..” He said he has been here along time, and he has just started to see this occur within the last couple of months. He did not think it was enforceable to require someone to do it as a condition of zoning. He said this is something that needs to be negotiated with the developer or the applicant prior to. He said to say the ‘developer shall donate’ makes it a contract, and that is not good. Commissioner Holder said he would like to change condition #7.
Chairman Harper said, “if the applicant agrees to the condition, we should do it; why should the taxpayers have to buy the right-of-way?”
Commissioner Holder said it needs to be discussed and negotiated prior to, and in this case, he changed condition #7 to read, “the developer agrees to donate to the Henry County Department of Transportation ten (10’) feet.”
Mr. Gibson said, “when we start saying ‘shall,’ I think we get into some issues of contract zoning.” Commissioner Holder agreed.
Mr. Patrick Jaugstetter, County Attorney, said if the practical effect is the developer has agreed to do it, it does not matter how the language is worded.
Commissioner Holder made the motion to approve the request with the twelve (12) conditions as presented, with the deletion of condition #11 and change the wording in condition #7 to read, “the developer agrees to donate;” Commissioner Holman seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
COUNTY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Mr. Rob Magnaghi did not have comments.
Resolution Pertaining to the Installation of an HVAC System.
WHEREAS, sealed bids were solicited for the installation of an HVAC system at the County Administration Building; and
WHEREAS, one (1) vendor submitted a bid for this purchase, as indicated; and
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Capital Funds account; and
WHEREAS, HVAC Concept’s bid of $20,857.36 meets requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Henry County Board of Commissioners awards the contract for the installation of an HVAC system to HVAC Concepts at a cost of $20,857.36. The Chairman is authorized to sign all necessary documents to accomplish this purchase.
Mr. Michael Sabine, Assistant to the County Manager, stated this resolution pertains to Conference Room “B,” where bids were solicited to install a separate unit to independently control the climate in the conference room. He said ten (10) bid solicitations were sent, and the County received one (1) response from HVAC Concepts. Mr. Sabine said this includes the work required, the installation of the system, and related roofing and electrical components.
Commissioner Holman made the motion to approve the resolution; Commissioner Mathis seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Resolution Accepting an Appropriation from the General Assembly Through a Grant of Local Assistance Administered by Georgia DCA.
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has been appropriated $25,000 for LAG Project 232 (fund archaeological dig at Lovejoy Battlefield) by the General Assembly of Georgia, and the appropriations have been signed into law by Governor Sonny Perdue on May 8, 2006; and
WHEREAS, these appropriated funds are administered by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs as a grant of local assistance; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of these funds by the Board of Commissioners is required as a matter of form.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners that the Board hereby accepts the grant of local assistance resulting from the appropriation of the General Assembly of $25,000 for LAG Project 232 (fund archeological dig at Lovejoy Battlefield), as signed into law by Governor Perdue. The Chairman is authorized to execute the appropriate paperwork to accept this assistance; the County Manager or designee is authorized to execute any other required documentation regarding the administration of this assistance.
Commissioner Mathis made the motion to accept the appropriation; Commissioner Holman seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Resolution Pertaining to the Paving of Davis Road.
WHEREAS, a request was received from a citizen, regarding the paving of Davis Road; and
WHEREAS, SPLOST is in the process of realigning and paving South Ola Road, Singley Drive and a portion of Davis Drive, which would leave approximately twelve hundred feet of Davis Road unpaved; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the materials to pave this portion of Davis Road would be approximately $26,000 and the Henry County Department of Transportation would provide the labor and equipment; and
WHEREAS, it would be in the best interest of the residents of Davis Road to complete the paving of this road and reduce the maintenance cost, dust, and other problems associated with dirt roads.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Henry County Board of Commissioners agrees to pave a portion of Davis Road with any required right-of-way being donated.
Mr. Terry McMickle, Public Works Division Director, said he has calculated an estimate on just the materials, with the County force doing the work (not included on the SPLOST Project), and the rock cost would be approximately $11,100 and the asphalt would cost about $15,500. He said looking at the road, if the County paves the road 22 to 24 feet wide, the County would have to acquire some additional right-of-way. From a DOT standpoint, Mr. McMickle said if we could receive the money for the materials, this would be a way of implementing the project. He said if the County has to include the cost of right-of-way and acquisition, the County may not be able to afford to do the project at this time. He stated if right-of-way is donated to the County, then there would be enough money to complete the project.
Commissioner Holder made the motion to proceed with this request where the County would pay for the material cost and provide the labor; if any additional right-of-way is required, it should be donated for the lack of any additional funding; Commissioner Holman seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
There were no public comments.
8/11/06 Friday 9:00 a.m. Called Meeting to adopt the Millage Rate
8/14/06 Monday 9:00 a.m. Regular Board of Commissioners Meeting
8/15/06 Tuesday 6:30 p.m. Regular Board of Commissioners Meeting
9/04/06 Monday No Meeting – Labor Day Holiday
9/05/06 Tuesday 9:00 a.m. Regular Board of Commissioners Meeting
Commissioner Adams made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session at 10:46 a.m., in accordance with the provisions of O.C.G.A. 50-14-3, and other applicable laws, and pursuant to advice by Patrick Jaugstetter, the County Attorney, for the purposes of discussing the acquisition of real estate, pending and/or potential litigation, and personnel matters; Commissioner Stamey seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Adams made the motion to reconvene into Public Session at 11:48 a.m.; Commissioner Holman seconded. The motion carried 4-0-0 with Commissioners Mathis, Adams, Holman, and Holder voting in favor; Commissioner Stamey was absent for the vote.
Commissioner Mathis made the motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the affidavit of the Executive Session; Commissioner Holman seconded. The motion carried 4-0-0 with Commissioners Mathis, Holman, Adams, and Holder voting in favor; Commissioner Stamey was absent for the vote.
Commissioner Adams made the motion to adjourn; Commissioner Mathis seconded. The motion carried 4-0-0 with Commissioners Adams, Mathis, Holman, and Holder voting in favor; Commissioner Stamey was absent for the vote.
Jason T. Harper, Chairman
Peggy L. Malcolm, Deputy County Clerk