|
|
Full Minutes August 16, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4043 SOUTH BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes for
August 16, 2007
Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Walter Anderson, Bernie Cohen, Debbie Guthrie, and Tom Kitchens
City Attorney and Associate: Dick Carothers and Amy Cowan
City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present- 21
CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 7:30 at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.
I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved as is except that the special guest speaker is not able to attend this meeting. It was decided to add “decision regarding Safety Check program” as (i) under new business.
II. MINUTES of June 21st, 2007, July 19th, 2007, July 30th 2007 and August 6th, 2007
Cohen questioned whether a vote should be taken about the June 21, 2007, minutes since there has been some controversy over those minutes and Sipe, one of the council members involved in that controversy, is not in attendance at this meeting.
Guthrie stated that a vote should be taken since these minutes have already been postponed once and if we wait another month they will be three months old.
Anderson motioned to postpone consideration of June 21st minutes to next meeting. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes of July 19th. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes of July 30th. Kitchens seconded the motion. Cohen Abstained. Guthrie, Anderson and Kitchens were in favor. The motion passed.
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes of August 6th. Anderson seconded the motion. Cohen abstained. Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in favor. The motion passed.
III. REPORTS
i. Police
Salter noted that there was nothing for the police to report this month.
ii. July 2007 Financial Statements
Guthrie motioned to accept the unaudited version of the July 31st financial statements. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
iii. Ordinance Enforcement Officer
Salter noted that there is no OEO report this month.
iv. 2006 Audit
Salter reported that the City Auditor met with the City Treasurer, those members of council who chose to attend, and the mayor.
Kitchens motioned to accept the 2006 audit. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
V. MAYOR’S MESSAGE TO COUNCIL
Salter noted distribution of the following written report to be incorporated into the minutes:
A statement was made at our last meeting by one of our council members (quoting here from the minutes) “that the county has a 150-foot right-of-way along the Chattahoochee River that anyone can walk along. It is for a sewer line along the Chattahoochee River, which means that if people can access it without trespassing, they can walk along the river there.” I agreed at that meeting to inform River District about the easement. Before I did so, I felt it best to check the validity of this assertion. When I did, I found it to be in error. Carothers says sewer easements are subsurface and the property owner retains all rights to the ground above. The 150’ buffer from the river restricts development but doesn’t allow the public to walk along it at will. Additionally Leigh called the county and found that there is a 20-foot Sanitary Sewer Easement within the 150 foot buffer area from the edge of the river. The woman she spoke with in Land Acquisitions stated that sewer easements are reserved for the county to have access to maintain, repair or replace the sewer line, but they do not give license for anyone to walk through them.
In my message to council last month I reported that at Council’s request I had contacted the Gwinnett DOT to ask one of their traffic safety engineers to survey Lakeshore Drive and assess any need they might find for guardrails. They agreed to look into that for us. It was suggested by a council member at that meeting that I review the sequence of events from a few years ago regarding decisions made then about guardrails. I have done so, and wish to restate it here in hopes of greater clarity. As you will recall, a couple of years ago Marcie Zielazienski in leading Public Works surveyed Lakeshore carefully and found no need for guardrails except near Nick Lore’s house. She reported to Council that “this is an approved suggestion from the head of Gwinnett County traffic engineering.” Hopefully they will come and review it again.
Here is an update on our public works projects: We have paid Farmer and finished with that project entirely. Site Engineering has completed all the punch list items that Rich submitted to them. We are withholding final payment until they submit various closeout documents that Rich is requiring to protect the City, i.e. lien waivers for their subcontractors, as-built documents, and a written warranty of their work. We have kept 10% of each payment as “retainage” until everything is completely concluded to our satisfaction. Site Engineering has completed the Miramont work but they’ve not sent a bill for that. Council also asked me to get an estimate from Rich for what he would charge to survey for possible guardrails. That estimate is $17,500. Randy Kirkus has met with representatives of Gwinnett DOT and Tom Woosley of the Safe Dams Agency to discuss the BL Rd. sidewalk plans. The county’s design team will be doing a survey of the dam. If they cannot design the sidewalk in a manner that ensures that the toe of the dam and the toe drain will not be impacted, then a bridge will be considered. Woosley has not yet responded to our question about any possible effect on the dam if the lake increased in size.
The Chapel is planning their Fall Fun Run for Sept. 15th and I have asked Doug to have our officers assist in the usual way. The Chapel will be paying for 2 officers and 2 others will be on our regular police hours.
We will soon be electing a mayor and 2 council members, each to serve a 4-year term beginning January 1, 2008. The terms for me and Council Members Cohen and Sipe will expire on December 31, 2007. The election will be held from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on November 6, 2007, at the Chapel. Advanced voting will also be available per state law. The qualification period runs from Monday, August 27, 2007, through Thursday, August 30, 2007, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day at City Hall. Qualification fees are $27 for council member and $150 for mayor. The last day to register and be eligible to vote in the general municipal election is October 9, 2007. Information on voter registration may be obtained through the Chief Registrar of Gwinnett County, but you can get a form to register in City Hall and mail it in to the county.
Leigh and I have met with our city engineer and a planner from Clark Patterson to begin work on our comprehensive plan. You will recall that in negotiating a very much cheaper cost for our comp. plan than other estimates, I promised CPA that we would minimize their involvement as much as possible and do whatever tasks we could on our own. I have been doing some of the work myself on the organizational side of this, and would welcome assistance from any council member who may have a particular interest in it and available time.
I have met with the principal of Berkeley Lake Elementary to discuss the status of the school and how it might be improved. The principal has promised me that she will make sure the school system’s dumpster removal will not create noise problems which I’ve complained about several times before. I also explained my concerns about mosquitoes and how the pond behind the school could be treated with altosid, which she agreed to do. Issues specific to student performance at the school are too lengthy to relate here, but anyone interested may contact me. As you know, there is a local interest group led by Patty Thumann of Berkeley Walk, and in the last Mayor’s Message I urged anyone concerned about the school to contact Patty for further information. To be quite frank, Patty is experiencing the same problems that we have had with this issue in the past: basically that although some people are interested in complaining about the school, so far no one seems to be interested in contributing their efforts to make things better. Anyone who is willing to help can contact me or Patty. I have also discussed related concerns with Bert Nasuti, our County Commissioner.
Last night the Executive Board of GwiMA on which I serve met to formulate a job description for the position of Managing Director. If you know someone who might be interested in that position, please see me.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
a.) Decision re Christa property problems
Carothers circulated an email from Ms. Christa’s new attorney stating that they are going to appeal the judgment entered against her. She’s been to Gwinnett Environmental Health and they have said that if she restores the old lot line, they will grandfather both of the lots for her to have septic approval on each. In addition, she is meeting with an architect and demolition experts to figure out how to rectify the problem of the new house straddling the lot line. It is her desire to avoid further conflict with the city.
Carol Christa, 828 Valley View Lane, reported that she has the name of the demolition man, Dennis Tremonte, as well as the architect and engineer. She noted that she is developing plans to remove 1/3 of the house so that the lot lines can be restored which will allow her to apply for septic and building permits.
Christa stated that citations at this point won’t benefit anyone, and would only slow her down by giving her something else that she would have to deal with. It is to everyone’s benefit that she finish this house as soon as possible. At next month’s council meeting she intends to bring a schedule to complete everything, including a move-in date.
Kitchens asked if the demolition as planned will result in the building meeting all the city’s setback requirements. Christa stated that she thought a 5-foot variance would be required. She had a meeting scheduled with Bob Herb for Wednesday but it was cancelled due to her architect changing the meeting schedule. The intent of that meeting was to try to determine if P&Z would grant a 6-foot side setback variance. Kitchens asked which side. Christa said that it is the side between her two properties.
Anderson asked if she would also need a front setback variance. Christa said that she thought that was correct, and that she would need to determine what other variances may be necessary.
Salter asked if she had been cited and taken before municipal court.
Threadgill stated that she had been to court in June of this year for violations to Chapter 39 under invalid use permit and that she had been found guilty and the fine had been suspended. Salter asked if this was a sufficient conclusion to the citation issue.
Carothers said that she could be cited again. Council could direct that she be cited again and Carothers thought that was the direction after the last meeting.
Threadgill stated that she had not understood that an additional citation was needed since Christa had been to court in June under zoning violations. She stated that she would have no problem to direct the Ordinance Enforcement Officer to cite her again if that was the direction from council.
Cohen stated that there are other problems with the zoning requirements, it doesn’t meet the 15% maximum lot coverage requirement and the rear setback is problematic.
Christa stated that 1/3 of the house will be torn down. Cohen asked if that would satisfy all the zoning requirements, including the front and rear setbacks.
Christa stated that the rear setback was in compliance and that the front setback had been granted a variance previously and she is hopeful that P&Z will agree to give a variance for that again.
Kitchens stated that it would be important to know whether P&Z would grant the variances that are required.
Anderson asked about the minimum time between citation and the court date. Carothers stated that there is no minimum nor maximum that is required between the citation and the court date.
Threadgill stated that the municipal court meets every three months and the next scheduled court would be September 12th.
Guthrie asked Carothers to repeat the citation discussion. Carothers stated that he thought after the last meeting that the direction was to issue a citation. It can be done without the risk of double jeopardy.
Guthrie asked Carothers his opinion about whether we should cite her again. He said that he didn’t think it was a legal decision. He does think she is making a good faith effort to move things forward, and if he were sitting in council’s shoes, he’d probably give her another 30 days. He acknowledged that this has been a difficult situation for everyone concerned. He stated that from what she’s outlined, she’ll either be able to make the house to fit the lot with variances, or she’s not.
Carothers doesn’t think that another citation would be enough to resolve the situation. He can seek an injunction from Gwinnett Superior Court that enjoins her from violation of any zoning ordinances or other City of Berkeley Lake ordinances, which is totally separate from our municipal court process because it is a civil remedy.
Anderson stated that it doesn’t sound like there is a need to issue a citation at this point, but we will need steps moving forward.
Kitchens asked if there are any other issues.
Salter stated that we don’t know that until we review the other plans. Kitchens would agree to allow an additional 30 days, but at the end of that time then there should be no other unresolved issues.
There was further discussion about what would be required to be finalized at the end of 30 days. It was noted that P&Z’s ability to meet to accommodate the timeframe outlined would be difficult, especially considering the advertising requirements.
Kitchens asked if Christa would need another building permit. It was stated that she would.
Anderson asked when the plans would be available. Christa stated that the plans would be ready tomorrow at 4 p.m. and that she would then schedule the meeting with Bob Herb to go over those new plans.
Cohen stated that we’re now seeing what we requested four months ago.
Guthrie asked if Christa could issue a report in two weeks on her progress.
Anderson stated that he would prefer that she would let council know when the plans have been submitted and when the meeting with Bob Herb has occurred. It was decided that she would communicate with the City Administrator when those things had occurred.
Salter asked if anyone on council did support a citation being issued at this time. No one did.
b.) City Hall
Barbara Carroll, 3430 Kingsland Circle, stated that our designated person who worked with us on our RFQ for the Architect and Engineering services scheduled a project information meeting for interested firms to discuss the RFP. Six of the 15 companies have responded to attend a meeting at the Berkeley Walk Clubhouse on Tuesday, August 21st, 2007.
Cohen asked what time the meeting would be. Threadgill stated that it was at 4 p.m.
Salter stated that this isn’t a council meeting, but that Salter, Threadgill and Carroll were designated by Council to attend these meetings.
Carroll stated that she would be out of town.
Salter added that the RFQ has been advertised on the website.
Guthrie asked if the RFQ was circulated to people who had previously expressed an interest directly to the City. Carroll confirmed that it had been.
c.) O-48-07 Chapter 4-103 Occupation Taxes (for poss. adoption)
d.) O-47-07 Chapter 32-101 Regulatory Fees (for poss. adoption)
Salter stated that a lot of information has surfaced in the past couple of days regarding these ordinances and asked if these needed to be postponed.
Guthrie stated that there is a question for Carothers about whether these ordinances have to be separate. He stated that he doesn’t mind combining the application. He doesn’t want to combine the two ordinances because they have two different purposes, occupation taxes is money and regulatory fees is regulation. He stated that one is a revenue generation device and the other is a regulatory device. Guthrie asked if we can leave them separate but both under Chapter 32. Carothers said that he didn’t mind them being in the same chapter, but he did advise to keep the ordinances separate.
Salter asked if there are any questions about this tonight. Salter instructed council to email any questions shortly.
Anderson asked about certificate requirements, or if that can be left as an administrative task. Carothers stated that it could be handled administratively.
Guthrie motioned to postpone occupation taxes until the next council meeting. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed
Guthrie motioned to postpone regulatory fees until the next council meeting. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
e.) O-57-07 Chapter 20, Streets, Curbs and Sidewalks (for poss. 2nd read)
Guthrie motioned to adopt Chapter 20 Streets, Curbs and Sidewalks. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
f.) O-58-07 – Chapter 43, Building and Building Regulations (for poss. 2nd read)
Guthrie motioned to put on second read and adopt Building and Building Regulations, Renumbering Chapter 43 to Chapter 46. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
g.) O-59-07 – Chapter 47, Unfit Building (for poss. 2nd read)
Guthrie asked if this ordinance simply mirrors state code. Carothers stated that this is pretty much dictated by state code.
Anderson motioned to put on second read and adopt O-59-07, Chapter 47, Unfit Buildings. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
h.) Discussion about the direction of staff and attorney by individual council members
Salter noted that the next four items (h-k) were resurrected from the last meeting since there was some debate about whether consensus had been reached. Salter stated that based on the class that she took in Savannah she thought that she could have consensus decision making.
Cohen asked if we should proceed with this without Sipe present at the meeting.
Salter stated that she wanted to decide how council wanted to handle consensus to have this clarified.
Guthrie stated, for the benefit of the audience, that these are back on the agenda to determine if these were handled appropriately at the last meeting.
Salter asked if consensus had to include a polling of the council members. Carothers stated that he didn’t think that polling was necessary, but if there is some confusion, then he believes you could go ahead and put these to a vote in the form of a motion. Carothers doesn’t think a vote is necessary on every item. If a consensus is asked for and no one objects, then Carothers thinks consensus was reached.
Guthrie noted that at the last meeting Salter had repeatedly asked for consensus on each item now in question and there was no negative response, so therefore consensus was reached.
Guthrie stated that if consensus was reached at the last meeting, then shouldn’t that be enough and we wouldn’t have to go back through them.
Carothers noted that the minutes reflecting consensus on those items had already been approved.
Carothers stated that if anyone had concern about an item, they should call for discussion and a vote. If there is silence, Salter asked if that is agreement from everyone. If no one says anything, then there is a consensus.
If we’ve approved the minutes that shows consensus was reached, then he doesn’t think that these need to be voted on again.
Anderson stated that he doesn’t want anyone to have lost the chance to express concerns. Is there any council member who wishes to raise any of these four issues again? Cohen stated that he wanted to raise (h).
Salter stated that the consensus that had been reached was that no council member would task the attorney without notifying each other they were doing so. Kitchens asked if Cohen didn’t agree with that. If it’s just to get general advice or direction from the attorney, then Cohen said he doesn’t agree with it.
Guthrie stated that we needed to vote because the whole intent of the discussion was that no individual would task the attorney without letting the whole council know about it. It is an issue of fiduciary responsibility and the attorney only has limited time to spend on the city and he would have trouble setting priorities.
Cohen stated that he doesn’t believe anyone on council is irresponsible and goes to Carothers about nonsense and that Carothers doesn’t respond if it is nonsense. He also disagrees that Carothers is overburdened by questions from council. He doesn’t think that we’re spending tons of money on this. He doesn’t think there is a need to be so restrictive about this.
Kitchens asked Carothers if individual inquiries from council members were excessive. Carothers stated that he doesn’t think it’s a problem here. He stated that he has very, very few individual inquiries from council members. There have been times with other cities when that has been a problem, but he doesn’t believe it’s a problem in the City of Berkeley Lake.
Kitchens stated that he has called the attorney twice after having spoken to the Mayor about doing so. Carothers stated that it just doesn’t happen a lot.
Guthrie asked why it’s a big deal that we try to copy each other. It shouldn’t be a problem. It has come up before. A couple of years ago, Carothers was asked to do a substantial amount of work regarding the closure of Lakeshore Drive that the whole of council didn’t know anything about until the bills started coming in and the bills were, to her recollection, in the four figures.
Guthrie stated that if any of us need to go to the attorney it is common sense to copy each other about that.
Salter stated that council should decide how to handle this. She thought it was decided last meeting. We need to know how to proceed.
Guthrie stated that we need a policy, a code of conduct that we use when we exercise different things that we do. It’s really an administrative policy.
Anderson asked if we had a body of administrative policies. Guthrie responded no, but this can be a one sentence policy if we want it to be.
Guthrie motioned that city council have a policy that council members notify the mayor and council on tasks to the city attorney. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Kitchens stated that doing this should not prolong the amount of time it takes for a council member to get legal information from the attorney. He questioned whether or not the subject matter of the request should be stated.
Guthrie stated that it’s not required to get permission from council before seeking advice from the city attorney – this is a notification process only.
Guthrie amended the motion as follows: city council adopt a policy that council members notify the mayor and council on tasks or requests to the city attorney and that the tasks or requests be specified. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Cohen stated that this will leave an unnecessary paper trail. There will be things that we don’t want paper trails on. If we disclose what we ask, then that leaves a paper trail. He stated that some of it is fodder in a law suit.
Guthrie asked Carothers to comment. Carothers said that it would depend on the specificity, but it could be a problem. He would urge them all to make notifications very, very general because they are open records.
Guthrie stated that if it’s that highly confidential and would fall under executive session, then it can be done by phone call to avoid the paper trail.
Kitchens asked if we would potentially expose what may be discussed at executive session because of this resolution. Carothers stated that he thought Guthrie was saying that you should use common sense about when to use the phone and when to use email, which would create a paper trail.
Kitchens doesn’t want to expose the city or other council members by doing this. If this resolution would do this, then he has some concerns.
There was further discussion.
Carothers stated that he would prefer if someone wanted to discuss something that would be covered under executive session then that council member just reference the broad subject of personnel, land acquisition or legal issues just like is done on the agenda.
Guthrie, Anderson and Kitchens were in favor. Cohen opposed the motion. The Motion passed.
Salter asked Cohen if the other three issues were decided by consensus. Cohen stated that he was comfortable with that.
i.) Reuse water for greenspace
It was determined that this agenda item was satisfactorily concluded by consensus at the July 19 council meeting.
j.) Discussion – BL shoreline and adjacent properties - Kitchens
It was determined that this agenda item was satisfactorily concluded by consensus at the July 19 council meeting.
k.) Sale of city-owned property across from City Hall
It was determined that this agenda item was satisfactorily concluded by consensus at the July 19 council meeting.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
a.) Discussion – Role of BLEMA
Mitsch deferred to Shawn Cochran to address council tonight about the role of BLEMA. Shawn Cochran, 4610 Berkeley Walk Point, stated that he feels BLEMA should be taking a planning role to help the city prepare to respond to a disaster. There is obviously a role to help recruit volunteers for disaster response, but clearing trees and other menial tasks are not the role of BLEMA.
Cochran stated that there is work that is already prepared. There is a draft crisis management plan from BLEMA, which could be available in about 2 weeks. He stated that there is a detailed project plan that has already been set out to develop risk specific assessments for disaster that could take place in the city. The time-line for that to be finished is six to nine months.
Guthrie stated that Alan Doss, head of Gwinnett Homeland Security, stated that Gwinnett County is about to revamp their Emergency Operations Plan and the Pre-Disaster Hazard mitigation plan. She stated that we would have to adopt those to be eligible for any funding.
Doss stated that if our BLEMA wants to write a plan, we might want to consider holding off on doing that until we see what the county develops.
Guthrie added that Doss, head of homeland security, would be willing to talk with the City about the County’s plans and any plans the City is interested in creating.
Cochran stated that the BLEMA plan needs to fill in the gaps in the county’s plan. As the county develops its plan, it needs to tie in to the national response plan. Cochran stated that members of BLEMA would need to be involved with that process and could provide input to make sure that Berkeley Lake is looked out for.
Anderson asked if Cochran was representing the entire BLEMA or speaking for himself. Cochran stated that he is speaking on behalf of the whole committee. Anderson asked Salter if she was agreeable to the new role that Cochran has proposed since it is different than what the original mission was for BLEMA. Salter stated that we can’t force a citizen group to do something they don’t want to do. If council needs more then, we can pursue that. The mission of BLEMA would change from what they were charged to do in January to focus more on planning, at least for now. Cochran stated that the planning piece needs to happen first.
Salter asked if it was Cochran’s suggestion to proceed with the PrepareFirst deliverables. Cochran stated that council is the customer, so it is up to council whether they want to use that.
Council will go ahead and act on PrepareFirst documents as it sees fit.
Salter asked if the crisis management plan draft would be ready to be considered by council at their next meeting. It is a generic framework for recognizing a disaster, notification during a disaster, responding to a disaster, and follow-up after the disaster.
Guthrie asked about the 6-9 month project, which will be much more detailed. Cochran stated that was true. At that point, that will be tied in to all the county documents that are required.
Guthrie stated that she does want to be sure that we are all on the same page. Berkeley Lake is relying on the county. We don’t have fire, police, ambulance, street equipment. In many areas, there isn’t much planning that needs to happen but to understand who is responsible for what.
Cochran stated that someone should review the new hazard mitigation plan. It shouldn’t just be rubber stamped.
Anderson said that there should be coordination between the council and BLEMA over the next 6-9 months. Cochran stated that there will be certain deliverables that can be submitted along the way so council won’t be waiting nine months to get everything.
There was further discussion.
Salter stated that in two weeks it would be nice to have the crisis management plan from Cochran and BLEMA.
Cochran stated that BLEMA doesn’t want to do day-to-day tasks that are the responsibility of the city, such as public works and removing downed trees. Council will need to accept that change in the way that the City has looked at BLEMA. BLEMA should not be city maintenance.
Salter asked if there was any council member who disagreed with not viewing BLEMA as city maintenance to take care of downed trees because this is a change. No one did.
Salter asked about the recruitment task. If a tornado comes tomorrow, who would BLEMA call together to help, or do we not have that piece yet. Cochran stated that the BLEMA members would step up and volunteer. If there are other volunteers, BLEMA would work with those people to get the work done and provide leadership to them.
There was further discussion.
Salter stated that as soon as possible we need a phone tree about who is willing to be called.
Anderson asked if we have a list of those who have been recruited. Wayne Mitsch stated that he had such a list. It was asked that that information be submitted to the City Administrator.
Salter asked for the purged list to be provided to her and Threadgill.
Cochran stated that the crisis management plan may be slightly delayed because his wife is expecting a baby in the next four weeks.
Anderson stated that he wanted to address emergency preparedness for the city. He has no issue of the redirection of BLEMA that they will take a stronger planning role. He wanted to suggest that we need to do some things from the bottom up to be dovetailed with whatever they come up with over the next 6-9 months. For example, we will have the deliverables from PrepareFirst. September is National Emergency Preparedness month. If we try hard, we may be able to get the PrepareFirst laminated sheets into the hands of the citizens. This might have an impact on our citizens’ preparedness if they do have these. He suggested that after review of Rob Carter’s final changes that they be generated and distributed.
In addition there is a home disaster response book that is supposed to be a good manual for someone to have in their house to know how to respond to certain emergencies and to be prepared for certain kinds of emergencies. He doesn’t want that to supplant what BLEMA is doing, but it would be a positive benefit to the safety of the citizens if we could distribute these to the citizens.
Salter asked about the cost of the book. Each copy is $3.50. Anderson stated that the BLEMA budget doesn’t have enough left to cover that cost, but would like to suggest that if there’s interest, we could get big box store sponsorship of the costs of some of these materials. Anderson volunteered to line up funding for these things and try to get everything ready to be distributed for September’s Emergency Preparedness month.
Guthrie asked Carothers if it is permissible to sell advertising for the handbook. Carothers stated that it sounded fine to do so, but he might want to talk to the author about this and find out what kind of stuff they do. Guthrie responded that it was the author who had suggested this as a funding source.
There was further discussion.
Salter suggested that we get the modifications from Rob Carter and staff can look into costs of lamination.
Guthrie asked if there was council support to distribute the books without city funds, and, if so, then we could proceed with doing so.
Anderson motioned that if we can acquire and distribute “It’s a disaster” and the two PrepareFirst laminated sheets within the budget of the single laminated sheet that we’re currently budgeted for during September’s Emergency Preparedness month then he be authorized to proceed to do so. Guthrie seconded the motion.
Cohen stated that he would like to amend it to include funds that are not in the budget.
There was further discussion. It was determined that the motion should not be amended.
All were in favor. The motion passed.
Guthrie stated that the city needs to go ahead and pursue the suggestions from Shawn Cochran regarding communications and phone service back up. Salter asked Mitsch to report back to council about this at the next meeting. Mitsch stated that he thought that could be done easily in a short period of time.
Anderson stated that we should think about doing some basic training such as CPR and the absolute basics for response in a disaster.
Guthrie suggested that Carter could train council about some of this.
Salter asked to delay discussion about this until next time.
b.) Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan Process
In 1989, Georgia passed a planning act that required every city to adopt a comprehensive plan once every 10 years. The deadline is February 8, 2009 for our comp plan. The community assessment, public participation program and community agenda are the three components of the comp plan. The community assessment has already been completed. We are now working to complete the public participation program to get the citizens involved in the vision statement and an agenda for how to proceed toward that vision.
Salter suggested to council that we have a kick-off meeting at 7 p.m. before our next council meeting, September 20th, and invite all the public. We would explain to the public what the comp plan process is, and this would take the place of a required 1st public hearing.
Council would need to adopt a resolution that night to submit the public participation program and plan schedule for our city to the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC).
Salter noted that she had provided the community agenda schedule to council. She proposes in September we have the public information meeting and get something on the website. She asked if council was comfortable to have this at 7 p.m. before the next meeting or if council would prefer to have a separate meeting.
Salter stated that the first meeting is just to explain the process. Anderson’s concern is that people may not recognize the significance since it’s just tacked on the front of the city council meeting. He thought it important to emphasize that it’s a public meeting to discuss the comp plan scheduled at 7 p.m. and to encourage the public to attend.
Guthrie stated that she thinks having it the same night will result in a higher attendance.
Salter asked if anyone had an objection to holding the meeting at 7 p.m. on September 20th. No one disagreed to the meeting time and date.
Salter asked council to be thinking about stakeholders to be included on a list to be submitted to Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and ARC.
Guthrie asked for Salter to give council the list of people that she and Threadgill have identified, and then they can add to that if needed.
The other group that we need to pick is the steering committee. The first steering committee meeting will likely be at the end of October. The Steering committee should consist of Salter, Threadgill, Josh Langen, the planner, and anyone else.
c.) Appointment of Election Superintendent
Salter stated that she was recommending Leigh Threadgill to be election superintendent.
Anderson motioned to confirm Threadgill as election superintendent. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
d.) Ratification of CD investment
Threadgill reported that she had reinvested a CD that had matured on August 5, 2007 with BB&T for a term of six months at an interest rate of 5.25% and an annual percentage yield of 5.32%.
Anderson motioned to ratify the CD investment. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Cohen discussed the need to diversify our CD investments in more than one bank because banks are going under. It was explained that our CD investments are already diversified in two different banks.
All were in favor. The motion passed.
e.) Consideration of Equipment Disposal Policy
Council is supportive of disposing of the equipment that staff has proposed.
Council stated that staff could work on a policy when they had time.
f.) Appeal of OEO’s decision from Jim Gilpatrick regarding in-home daycare
Salter introduced this issue stating that council had received a letter from Lydia Gilpatrick, 4614 Briar Hill Cove, as well as a copy of the Ordinance Enforcement Officer’s letter and the appurtenant ordinances as well as some information Mr. Gilpatrick had emailed.
Salter asked for council’s motion in response.
Guthrie reviewed the facts of the case and stated that the Gilpatrick’s have not been cited but have received a Notice of Violation, and the Ordinance Enforcement Officer, Rodgers, has given the Gilpatricks 60 days to come into compliance. Guthrie stated that tonight council is just to determine whether or not Rodgers was correct in his interpretation that the activity going on at the Gilpatrick’s residence is in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Salter stated that she believes that Rodgers is correct in his interpretation.
Guthrie stated that Sipe had emailed an analysis of why the OEO’s assessment was correct.
Anderson stated that the process being followed is the proper process. The OEO has identified the proper code sections and based on that code, it appears that there is a violation. On the other hand, Rodgers has the latitude to wait the full 60 days before determining if there is a citable offense. Anderson would like to address the issue of these kinds of uses in our code so that when Rodgers comes around to reinspect he will find that this is a conforming use. Anderson would like citizen feedback about whether this is a problem. Anderson stated that this kind of use, along with piano teachers, tutors, and in-home daycares up to a certain size, is something we should encourage in our community to some extent. He believes there is a gap in our ordinances. It sounds like City Council has 60 days to remedy the problem before Rodgers has to reinspect because he has to perform his duty properly.
Cohen asked if Anderson is suggesting to change the code to allow in-home beauty parlors and people to do taxes at home.
Anderson thinks that there are some home businesses that wouldn’t conform to our ordinances, but we should consider allowing certain ones as permitted home occupations.
Guthrie asked for Threadgill’s input on this. Threadgill first addressed Anderson’s comments about trying to change the code within 60 days. She stated that it would not be possible to do this because a code change would require review by P&Z in addition to two readings before council. She asked Carothers if enforcement proceedings may be able to be put on hold if there is a text amendment under consideration to allow these kinds of uses. Carothers agreed that enforcement could be delayed while the text amendment was under consideration.
Threadgill stated that she and Rodgers have other municipal experience where in-home daycares are permitted. She stated that there should be a way to write the code to mitigate the impact on surrounding neighbors, such as limiting the number of children, limiting hours of operation and amount of time outdoors, etc.
Guthrie asked if it is Threadgill’s perception that most cities allow in-home daycares as home occupations. Threadgill stated that she had not done a survey of the surrounding cities, but that in-home daycares are a customary home occupation. Threadgill added that our code does exempt some other home occupations that do have customers coming to their homes.
Cohen stated that the uses that are exempted in the code are exempted because of a strong state lobby.
Guthrie stated that those exempted businesses can have clients come to the home on an occasional basis, but the definition of occasional is vague and someone could have clients coming throughout the day. It doesn’t make sense that an in-home daycare would be something that we shouldn’t be friendly towards, with limitations.
Salter asked Carothers about this. Carothers stated that Berkeley Lake’s home occupation ordinance is tougher than most. In most instances, where other cities don’t allow them, it isn’t particularly well enforced anyway.
Anderson stated that we have to enforce the ordinance, and if we don’t like it, then we need to change the ordinance.
Salter stated that Sipe has been opposed to changing this. If there are three council members that are opposed, then there’s no use in pursuing it.
Cohen stated that Sipe is against the use because of what the code says now.
Guthrie asked about the Special Exception option in the code. If we have the intention that we would change the code, then can we grant a special exception to allow them to continue until the code is passed. Carothers stated that this is a slippery slope and that he would prefer the OEO issue another letter to provide for more time.
Carothers stated that if the city wants to carry it forward and there are several uses to be considered, then the city should sponsor the text amendment.
Anderson asked about what the process should be. Do we need a motion to investigate a text amendment?
Kitchens stated that he agreed with the decision to look into changing the code.
Cohen stated that he doesn’t know if we should pursue this because we have very strict zoning requirements. To try to make a single exception is tough to do. If we do make an exception, how would you prevent a Montessori school? Salter stated that the number of kids would be limited. Cohen doesn’t object to exploring it, but is not in favor of changing the code.
Guthrie stated that there are already three exemptions to the home occupation code. Cohen stated that the third exemption is because of state lobby.
Guthrie agreed that we don’t want to create a negative impact on the neighbors, but there are ways to limit this.
Lydia Gilpatrick stated that they normally only take the kids out at 4:30 for half an hour in the afternoon.
Anderson agreed to work with Threadgill about changing the text to allow this kind of home business.
Salter stated that the direction for the Gilpatrick’s is to continue for the time being and that Rodgers needs to issue another letter extending the time to come into compliance.
Guthrie asked if we knew of any specific complaints about this home business. Threadgill stated that the complaint that resulted in enforcement of this situation was lodged anonymously, but she thought that the concern was about volume of traffic.
Lydia Gilpatrick stated that she hasn’t had any additional traffic coming more than normal, but one of her neighbors has had a lot of traffic and maybe someone thought those cars were for her house. She couldn’t think of anything that would have triggered a complaint.
Anderson motioned to deny the Gilpatrick’s appeal. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Anderson motioned that staff and council undertake to investigate the pertinent changes to the zoning code. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
It was decided that Rodgers would not take enforcement action until the outcome of the text changes was determined.
g.) PIB planning and development issues
Chong Reitin, pastor of Good Shepherd Baptist Church, discussed the property that he has bought and is now seeking a Special Use Permit (SUP) from Gwinnett County to allow for his church. There have been issues that were raised such as parking, which was resolved because there is ample space behind the building and they have come up with 76 spaces. In addition, there was concern about the traffic that would be generated. Nine of the ten businesses surrounding the church location have signed letters saying that they are not concerned about added traffic because church normally meets one evening a week and on Sunday.
Reitin is seeking approval from the city because of the church’s proposed proximity to the city.
Reitin stated that the church wants to be a good neighbor. He will give a legal affidavit to give assurance to the city that if the church becomes a problem then they will relocate without any appeal. If the church grows, it will move. The church is here to serve the community.
Salter went over some of the details from the meeting with Bill Cornell who was representing Rev. Reitin’s interests. Chris Holben and Rodney Hammond were at that meeting and a list of conditions was drafted to help mitigate the impact of the church on the neighbors, such as providing a visual and audio barrier in the form of a screen of trees, and a permanent undisturbed buffer.
Rev. Reitin stated that there is approximately 1 acre of undeveloped area. There are two choices. The church is willing to give up the whole undeveloped area for the buffer as long as the church is there, but when they sell the undeveloped area would revert back to the M-1 zoning and can be developed. The second option is for the church to give up 150 feet permanently for a buffer, but to retain 50 feet from the edge of the existing parking area.
Carothers asked about the status of this. It was explained that this is an existing M-1 property, but the church is seeking a SUP from the county. The Planning Commission denied it, but the Board of Commissioners has not heard the request yet in order to give the applicant enough time to talk to Berkeley Lake to gain the City’s approval.
Guthrie stated that one of the concerns is about how much the church plans to grow and how much traffic that could bring to the area. If you had 76 parking spaces, then you would be allowed up to 830 people. Guthrie stated that 12,000 square feet of space would allow up to 1,000 people.
Reitin stated that because of language barriers, they will never grow that large.
Guthrie stated that there was also a concern about lighting coming from the property. Reitin stated that he is willing to turn the flood light off. Guthrie stated that a more permanent solution would be needed.
Salter stated that she concurs with Guthrie and it’s not a lack of respect for the church’s purposes. What we need is something that is permanent, legal and written down. If they are willing to create on the deed to commit a permanent 150-foot buffer on the back of that property and if they are willing to plant cypress trees to provide a visual and sound buffer, then Salter would be much more in favor of this because it would be a gain for us.
Salter stated that the SUP could be dealt with as far as the lighting and hours of operation and any other concerns.
Cohen asked if they plan to have a school at any time. Reitin responded no, they intend to conduct church. Gwinnett County would require the church to come back in for an SUP for the school.
Guthrie asked how this would work for us to get what we needed prior to Gwinnett County granting the SUP. How are the deed changes coordinated with the SUP? What are the chain of events that need to happen?
Lighting was further discussed. Lighting will be required to be directed downward as part of the SUP. The SUP should also include a condition regarding the planting and maintenance of Leyland cypresses. Hours of operation need to be dealt with and outdoor activities limited. It was agreed that hours would be limited from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Outdoor activities should be limited to no later than 9 p.m.
Carothers asked what size Leyland cypresses and how many. It was determined that they would need to be 4-5 feet tall at the time of planting. They should be spaced 5 feet on center.
Guthrie suggested that Green Giant Arborvitaes are more drought and disease resistant and should probably be used instead of Leyland Cypresses.
Reitin said that Bill Cornell will carry this further, but they do not have an attorney.
Carothers stated that it is a conveyance of a permanent conservation easement to the city, and that he can draw that up. Carothers will need the pastor’s contact information. He stated that the church will dedicate an easement to the City of Berkeley Lake for the buffer area. The City will pay for the fees required for Carothers to draw up that legal documentation.
Salter stated that the Board of Commissioners will meet on this on September 4th, so this will need to be done quickly.
Is there any council member who disagrees with the agreement with the church? No one disagreed and Salter stated that there is consensus.
There was further discussion about the other church Special Use Permit (SUP) on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard (PIB) for the Christ Church of Metro Atlanta.
Guthrie stated that this other SUP request doesn’t present as many problems because it’s further away and won’t have as big an impact on the city.
Cohen stated that we can’t oppose everything and this one isn’t sitting right on top of the City.
It was decided to communicate to the county that the City doesn’t have an issue with this SUP for the Christ Church of Metro Atlanta.
There was discussion about the George Flanigan rezoning on PIB.
Guthrie stated that the conditions list includes what was discussed in the meeting and that this is in an overlay district. Guthrie stated that other restrictions that were on the C-2 list have dropped off the most recent list from Cornell. Guthrie went through those things that had been removed from the conditions list. Threadgill stated that she believes those requirements are covered in the corridor overlay, but someone should cross reference the conditions list with the overlay requirements and the C-2 conditions list.
Cohen suggested that we should try to get an additional buffer on top of the current 50-foot buffer requirement. Salter stated that we shouldn’t go back and ask for that now after reaching an agreement with Cornell. Her recollection was that Holben was satisfied with the fence and trees.
Salter asked council if they were comfortable with Guthrie and Anderson researching this list of conditions from the applicant and advising the Mayor on how to respond to Bert Nasuti on this. Everyone agreed to this.
Guthrie brought up the issue about the SUP’s and whether we were approving those now. Salter suggested removing that condition and then they would have to ask for SUP’s each time they want to add those uses. They’re asking for the SUP to be tied in to their zoning approval. This would be a carte blanch approval of SUP’s for banks with drive-thrus, restaurants and drug stores. Salter stated that we hadn’t agreed to that in the meeting with the applicant’s representative, Bill Cornell. There was further discussion about whether council would support the condition to allow a blanket SUP’s for the uses bank with drive-thrus, restaurants and drug stores. It was decided that the SUP’s for these uses is not something that the City supports at the time of the rezoning.
Salter stated that she had her marching orders on that.
Guthrie stated that the cross-referenced list would be done over the weekend.
h.) Septic Extension Requests
Anderson motioned to approve the septic tank extension requests. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
i.) SafetyCheck
Salter stated that what they’re doing is very nice stuff, but asked do we want to spend extra money on it?. Kitchens stated that we are already doing this kind of thing for our citizens.
Anderson stated that we are not a good profile for their services.
Kitchens motioned to deny participating in the SafetyCheck program because we already have community organizations that provide many of these services. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
VII. CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were none.
VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION for consideration of legal, land acquisition and personnel issues
Anderson motioned to enter executive session at 10:45 pm. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Anderson motioned to exit executive session at 11:05 pm. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Anderson motioned to exit the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
(Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by Council September 20, 2007)
|
to top
|
|
|
 |
