Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor Pro tem: George Sipe
Council Members:
Bernie Cohen, Debbie Guthrie, Delicia Reynolds, and Marcie Zielazienski
City Attorney: Dick Carothers
City Clerk- Jackie Wall

Citizens Present- 11

CALL TO ORDER
Sipe called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.

MINUTES
Cohen motioned to accept the minutes from April 1st, 2004 with one correction to change Sipe to Seitz in the third paragraph of the Mayor’s message. Zielazienski seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed.

FINANCIAL REPORTS
Cohen motioned to accept the March Financial Report. Reynolds seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed.

MAYOR’S MESSAGE
Sipe said that Mayor Salter was absent from the meeting, as she is with her mother who is very ill.

Sipe said that he had attended a meeting with other municipalities with the Chairman of the County Commissioners and county planners. He said he had distributed a copy of the agenda to Council. One of the main issues was that the City would need an updated comprehensive plan. He said small cities were asked to respond at an advanced level, the same as all the other Cities. He explained that the County had suggested they all work together to fund a contractor to do the work. It had been suggested that it would be a cost based on population- approximately a $1600 expense to the city.

Sipe said the other main issue was regarding SPLOST. He said a suggested timeline had been given to the cities, and that he had distributed a copy to Council. It was suggested that the Cities work through the Gwinnett Municipal Association (GwMA) to achieve this. Sipe said that it was discussed at a GwMA meeting on Tuesday, and they had scheduled a meeting. He said Cohen would continue his role on the committee.

Sipe said that Chairman Hill had also reminded the group that Mayors and Council members are not free to promote SPLOST in any way, as it would be considered an ethics violation.

OLD BUSINESS

INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS- ZIELAZIENSKI
Spillway Repair
Zielazienski said she had given a proposal to Council with a quote from Strickland Pipeline, the contractor currently doing the spillway outfall replacement pipe project on Bayway Circle, to repair the gabions inside the spillway. This quote has been sought because the Safe Dams Division of Department of Natural Resources indicated in their letter of January 28, 2004 that, "the spillway slab and gabion baskets are showing signs of deterioration and require assessment by the Engineer of Record." The Engineer of Record, Richard Mockridge of QORE Engineering, made the recommendations on which the quote is based.

Zielazienski motioned that the amount of $9,853 be approved for the spillway repairs per the letter from Strickland and Sons Pipeline Incorporated to Todd Seldomridge dated April 12, 2004, and to proceed with the project as quickly as possible. Cohen seconded the motion.
All were in favor of the motion, and the motion passed.

Dalton Downey Culvert at 524 Lakeshore Drive open
Zielazienski said that Lakeshore Drive is open, and everyone is pleased and relieved! There are still some tasks to be completed but none of them will require closure of the road.

50 Lakeshore Drive
Zielazienski said that the County has put in new signage and reflectors on the curve at 50 Lakeshore Drive. She said that on initial observation, she felt that some additional steps still needed to be taken to assure the safety of the residents because of the high history of traffic accidents there.

Zielazienski said she had a letter from the County regarding the costs to install a guardrail, using their annual contractor. If the City were to approve the expenditure, Gwinnett County will inspect and perform the work, and send the City an invoice. Zielazienski said that she had spoken to the residents at 50 Lakeshore Drive and they still feel that the installation of a guardrail is the only way to protect them and their home. Zielazienski asked if the Council wished her to pursue the offer from the County. She said the County had offered to prepare a cost estimate for the work first. She clarified that the City would pay for the guardrail and its installation, but the County would make the arrangements, and perform and inspect the work after. Zielazienski estimated the cost at approximately $4,000.

There were discussions about the liabilities surrounding installing a guardrail. Carothers felt the risk routine and adequately protected by insurance. Council agreed to proceed to get the estimate of costs from Gwinnett County.

Cohen asked how the engineering work was proceeding on the project on the culvert at 185 Lakeshore Drive.

Zielazienski said she hoped to have the costs available at the next Council meeting.

BULK MAIL PERMIT- COUNCIL
Cohen said he had spoken to spoke to the Home Owners Association’s (HOA) that he has liaises with and also to some individuals around the lake. He said the HOA’s had no real opinion either way. However, eight citizens along Lakeshore Drive surprisingly said no, they did not feel the City should allow the BLHA to use their Bulk Mail permit. He said six of them were members of the BLHA themselves.

Guthrie said she had spoken to the River Mansions and Berkeley Commons HOA presidents, and they were both fine with BLHA using the permit, as long as there were no legal reasons that they should not use it. They both noted that if the City was not accruing any addition expense, there was no objection.

Sipe said that the Miramont HOA president said the same.
Cohen said the Communication Committee had recommended that the BLHA should not be able to use it.

There was discussion as to whether the Communication committee still agreed with their original decision. Wall said that there were some changes in opinion, and she asked if the opinions that had been sought from the other homeowners associations had been those of the members of the associations themselves or just the presidents representing them. The opinions were just those of the presidents of the HOA’s.

Sipe said the Council wanted to do as the Community would like them to but there was no clear direction. He suggested that the situation remains the same until more opinions were sought.

Cohen and Zielazienski suggested that the decision be postponed until the Communication Committee reassesses the issue.

NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – Appeal- Marvin Stringer regarding request for an additional kitchen.

Sipe explained that Stringer’s request was before Council because the Ordinance Enforcement Officer (OEO) had denied his request for a Use Permit to add the additional kitchen, as it would effectively create an apartment.

Marvin Stringer -4154 South Berkeley Lake Rd
Stringer described the history of his appeal. He said he had built a house to retire to in 3-4 years. He said they had built a nice house which would be accommodating to the neighborhood. He said their intention was to have 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and a kitchen. He said their intention was to finish some rooms in the basement, and he had no idea that they could not have a second kitchen. He said he been building for 45 years, and he had never run into this- it was his first time. He said he had finished a lot of houses with kitchens in the basement, and he had never had this happen. He said their intention was to have a ceramic cook top put in upstairs. He said you cannot use large canning pans on a ceramic cook top, because they are not designed for that. He said their full intention was to have another kitchen in the basement. His said his wife does lots of canning and cooking, and their thinking was to have a kitchen there, so when she wants to do canning, she could go to the basement. He said they had also asked to finish one bedroom, a game room and an office down there, and everything was okay except for a kitchen. He said they had no idea that they could not do that, but they really want the kitchen for their own personal family use. He said it is not an apartment, but for their own personal family use for canning and on holidays when there is extra cooking. He said they had only one oven upstairs with the idea that they would have a second oven in the basement. He said now they were told that they could not do it, even if it is strictly for family use. He said that they are not building an apartment for rent. It is for them to live in- his wife, daughter and granddaughter. There are four of them living in the house. He said he thought they had built a nice house to retire in, and that it would be a nice community to do that in. He said he still did not understand why he could not have a kitchen in the basement.

Council consulted the plans that had been provided for them by the OEO, and Stringer confirmed that they were the correct plans.

Sipe asked if there was an entrance to the outside from the basement level.

Stringer said there was.

Sipe asked about the access to upstairs.

Stringer described the stairs as open at the bottom, and having a door at the top of the stairs for fire protection. He said that he had to have that there for a firewall. He said County code said there had to be a fire door there.

Sipe disagreed and said he had just built a house where that was not required.

Stringer said he had been told that there needed to be a fire door between two floors. He said that they had changed the County codes.

Reynolds asked why the plans did not have a kitchen on them.

Stringer said it was the original plan, and he had discussed the plan with Sewell. They had drawn in the rooms on it. It was never an apartment, it was just for their own personal use.

Sipe said the issue was not the second kitchen, as there are no restrictions in the code to having an additional kitchen, but when a second kitchen is requested in a use permit, the OEO is directed to consider if it effectively create an apartment. Even if not the intent of the current owner, if the house could be sold in the future with space viewed as being apartment rental space, then the OEO is directed to refuse the permit. Sipe said that was why that portion of the Stringer permit was denied, although the OEO had approved the permit for everything else.

Stringer said that was correct, the OEO had approved all his other requests. He said he had approved a microwave, dishwasher and sink, but not a stove.

Sipe asked if Stringer could see that the space could be rented in the future by another homeowner.

Stringer said different people could do different things to different spaces if they intend to. He said he had talked to the County about it, and the County inspector had said that they had a common stairway leading from one area to the next. He said if it was to be an apartment, it had to be separated. The inspector said that an apartment would have to have 2 meters and 2 separate mailing addresses for County regulations. Stringer said he had none of these.

Sipe said that may be true for a legal apartment.

Stringer said he would not do anything illegal, and that he had applied for all the permits. He said he was trying to do things right. Stringer said if he did not get this, it would deter his plans for his house.

Zielazienski asked if the office had any windows.

Stringer said it did not- it can be used as an office but not a bedroom, because a bedroom has to have a window for access. He said that was not to say that someone would not use it to sleep in there in the future, but he had no way to stop that in the future. He said legally it cannot be a bedroom and that they would not make it a bedroom, because if someone were to get hurt in there, then they would be legally liable for it.

Stringer said there was 3100 square feet above the basement. There are 3 bedrooms upstairs and the fourth bedroom will be in the basement. He said he lived in the home with his wife, his daughter and granddaughter. He said his daughter and granddaughter would be temporarily living there. They had been living with his older daughter but they were so crowded that they had to live somewhere else. So they are living with him until they can move on to somewhere else. He said that they would not be living there for a long period of time, it was just temporary. He said the area they want to finish is for their own personal use- for family get-togethers and holidays, to do cooking.
There was discussion about the size of their current kitchen, which Stringer said was large but only had one oven and one cook top.

Stringer was asked if another cook top could be put elsewhere. He said that he was not going to say it was not possible, but it would undo what they had designed and already finished. He said cabinets would have to be reworked and he did not see the purpose of doing that. He said there was space in the basement to do it. He said there were other ways of controlling apartments, other than keeping people from having a stove in their basement. He said a stove does not stop someone from renting the house; it could be rented without a stove.

Sipe said he believed that they were not going to rent it and it was for their use but the concern is that it will eventually be used as a duplex. He said someone else in the future could have a different intent. He said it would not be a legal apartment but something that could be rented as one, as there was no shared living space.

Stringer said to do it legally they would have to get a permit.
Council as a governing body would stop them as they cannot have apartments; however there are ways of denying permits without stopping someone like him. He said he could not enjoy his house like he would like to. He said he feels that if he cannot do it, his rights are being taken away. He said he should have the right to have a house he can live in and enjoy. He said there was nothing wrong with having a second kitchen.

Sipe reiterated that the issue was not with having a second kitchen, as that is possible under City code; however the Code inhibits the construction of apartments, even if that is not the initial intent of its usage. If it can be seen as an apartment by some future owner and used as such, even if not totally legally, then there is an issue.

Stringer said that he understood what the City is trying to do, and appreciates that the City does not want multi-families living together, but that there are other ways to enforce it without taking his right away to have a second kitchen where he wants it.

Sipe explained another kitchen could be in an area, which is shared and not easily converted into independent living spaces and where there is not outside access and another bedroom. He said that these are the elements that the Planning and Zoning Commission (P and Z) considers that could be used as an apartment. He said that the outside access means that it could be easily used independently.

Stringer explained that his outside access comes under his screened porch. He said there had to be access to the ground level according to County code. He said you have to have doors and access to it.
Stringer reiterated that they still want the additional kitchen to enjoy their house.

Cohen said the issue is whether the OEO denial of the Use permit was correct or not, based on the existing ordinances. He said that was what Council has to decide.

Cohen motioned to uphold the OEO’s decision. Zielazienski seconded the motion.

Reynolds asked if Council believed that the OEO erred in denying the permit that they they should vote against it. She was told she was correct. She said the grounds for denying the permit are strictly because it created non-shared living space, or could be easily used as such. She said her concern was as Stringer had said, that there are other ways to enforce that law. She said it was the easiest thing for Council but she said she was not sure it was the right thing to do to deprive him of the use of his home to make it easier on the City to enforce our laws. She said the issues Stringer about the County Code means that she could not support the motion. She said she would want to know more about the County Code. She said that everything made sense to her in having to have the interior door, fire door, etc.
which would virtually eliminate all second kitchens under the City’s current code, if that is correct under County Code.

Sipe said as a point of order that the P and Z had given use permits for second kitchens, and that they were not denied automatically.
Sipe said if Council accepted the appeal and overruled the OEO’s decision then the OEO has to issue the use permit and construction could begin. If it were denied, then a permit could be requested again later if changes were made to make it more acceptable to City Code. The P and Z could suggest changes to the Ordinance, so that Stringer’s situation could be accommodated while the City’s interest could still be protected by only having single-family residences and no apartments.

Reynolds said that the layout of the house meant that a second kitchen would not be allowed in a basement if there had to be fire doors and an exterior exit. She said she did not know how the City Code could be changed in a way to allow that.

Sipe explained other situations where that may be possible, and that it had been done before without being an issue.

Reynolds said that the Stringer floor plan was a common one.

Stringer said he had finished many basements as a builder with a similar floor plan. He said County inspections would pass it with no problems. He said he did not know it was a City Ordinance.

Sipe asked if the basement kitchen was part of the original use permit.

Stringer said all the rooms were framed in ready, as they were the same weight bearing walls as upstairs. The basement kitchen was not part of the original use permit. He said they were not sure how much money it would cost to build the house, and they were not sure if they were going to finish the basement at the time. After the house was built they decided they could go ahead with the basement, and so they applied for a permit to finish the basement. He said they would have done it originally if they had known that they could afford to do it. He said they had planned to do it all along but they did not know how quickly they would be able to do it.

Zielazienski said she had thought a lot about R100 zoning and how to apply it in a situation like this. She said the County is changing and it affects how people live together. She said she had wondered how it would affect the City. She explained her own situation and if similar circumstance happened with her, she would want her family with her but she did not know how it could be accomplished now. She reiterated that the question before Council was whether the OEO properly denied the use permit. She said the ordinance needed to be looked at but the OEO’s decision was the only thing to look at now.

Stringer said the OEO had explained and read the Ordinance to him. The OEO said he had no authority to issue the use permit. Stringer had asked to appeal it.

Sipe said the P and Z could not grant a variance for a non-acceptable use either. That was the reason it went to Council.

Stringer said he wanted to appeal it and paid the $50.

Sipe said that the City had interest in what Stringer was doing and that there may be a way for something to be done to the ordinances to make them so the City’s interests are protected while still allowing people to have more flexibility, and not inadvertently blocking things that are reasonable so long as the City’s interests are protected. He said , Council was not there to do that in this hearing but to consider if the OEO made the correct decision.

Stringer agreed that the OEO had made the right decision based on what he told him.

Reynolds said she would like to see if the City’s interests in R100 could be protected in other ways. If something is legal in the County and illegal in the City, then to look at it rather than to take the easy way and deny the use permit, especially as it is not his intent to create an apartment.

Sipe said the P and Z should revisit these ordinances.
There was further discussion regarding the County’s legal definition of an apartment.

Reynolds suggested that the decision be postponed to give more time to investigate it, so Stringer did not have to re-appeal.

Sipe said it would take a lot longer to do that and to put in a different mechanism. He explained the code and why it did not go to P and Z after the OEO had denied it, as the P and Z had upheld the same decision.

Zielazienski said that the R100 issue needed to be looked at in terms of an apartment, but it was a lengthy process. She said the OEO needed to be able to follow the Code until it was changed.

Guthrie suggested that the whole issue be presented to the P and Z for them to revisit it in the light of changing circumstances. However it would be a lengthy process, and that the current appeal should be decided upon.

It was suggested that Stringer be able to re-appeal for free if the P and Z advised changing the current code. There was general agreement that should be the case, and the motion was amended to reflect this.
Cohen, Guthrie and Zielazienski were in favor of the motion. Reynolds was against the motion. The motion passed, and the appeal was denied.

FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS RE DELIQUENT TAX BALANCES- Cohen
Cohen outlined the recommendations of the Finance Committee in dealing with past due taxes. The Committee suggested that anything owed under $100 be written off. They also suggested that anything owed by homeowners no longer living in the City should be written off, as it was the City’s fault that liens had not been filed as soon as taxes were due. The Committee suggested that all the other taxes should be collected as soon as possible, as it amounted to approximately $10,000 (not including interest). This involves approximately ten property owners.

Pam Williamson- 3996 S Berkeley Lake Rd-. Finance Committee Chairperson

Williamson described the steps the Finance Committee recommended pursuing in order to collect the taxes due.

Reynolds motioned that the Council write off the taxes due under $100. Cohen seconded the motion, and all were in favor. The motion passed.

Zielazienski motioned to accept the remainder of the recommendations of the finance committee: to write off the taxes due by those no longer resident in the City, to move forward and collect the rest of the taxes owed by those who were still resident, including denying use permits to those who still owe taxes. She included the suggestion that there be a moratorium on interest payments if a payment plan was agreed by the homeowner to pay the taxes due by the end of 2004, after which time interest would be added again. Reynolds seconded the motion.

In discussion Reynolds asked how it was determined that the homeowners no longer lived in the City.

Wall said she had used the tax digest from 2003.

All were in favor of the motion, and the motion passed.

ARBOR DAY AND THE EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT- Guthrie
Pam Williamson- 3996 S Berkeley Lake Rd- BLC Committee member
Williamson asked that Council approve the spending of approximately $79 to plant two to four native trees in a deforested area of the greenspace for Arbor Day. She said she believed the funds could come from money left in a Greenspace grant.

Guthrie motioned that the BLC plant two to four native trees in a deforested area of the greenspace up to the value of $100. Reynolds seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.

Williamson asked that the Eagle Scout presentation be postponed until the next Council meeting in 3 weeks, as he had to leave to do his homework.

OTHER
Aquatic Centre- Cohen
Cohen said that County Commissioner Bert Nasuti had just informed him that the City would need to nominate someone by next week to join the board for the new aquatic centre to be built on Peachtree Industrial Blvd. He suggested that Chris Holben be appointed, as he would be most impacted by run off and lighting concerns, although he had not asked him yet.

Sipe asked for consent from council to nominate Holben to the board should he consent. They all agreed, and that a substitute should be sent if he were not able to go.

SPLOST- Cohen
Cohen said as Sipe had described, the first meeting regarding the allocation of SPLOST would be the following Wednesday. A City official and a Council member had been asked to attend, and he would be attending with Wall. He said every City would be represented, and they had been asked to bring a copy of the draft Capital Improvement Plan that the Finance Committee had been working on. He said the main issue would be how the money is divided.

Facilities Committee- Guthrie
Guthrie reminded Council that the facilities committee had asked Council to let Carol Seitz know if they have any City equipment or resources held in their homes due to the issue of a lack of space at City Hall.

CITIZEN COMMENTS
Debbie Robinson- 540 Lakeshore
Robinson said she had been interested in the question of the R100 status of the City, and the definition of possible apartments. She said she knew it was an issue for the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss, but she would be glad to join a group to discuss it should one be formed. She said there were many issues with the changes in society, and the need for extended families to live in the same home.

Sipe said he would contact the Chair of the P and Z, and ask him to put it on the agenda to see if it could be worded in another way, but still protect the City.

Robinson also asked if the Site management plan was available for the Greenspace yet.

Williamson said it was not yet available

THERE BEING NO FURTHUR BUSINESS, COHEN MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:08PM. ZIELAZIENSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, AND ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED.

Respectfully submitted by Jackie Wall, City Clerk