to use this thank you for your love your grace and your universe god thank you for the ability that you have trusted us allow us to be good scorers we ask you to bless everyone that is present here today to give us wisdom and knowledge to go forth as you will we thank you for all that you've done for us thank you for what you're doing for what you have done what you're going to continue to use us as you see in jesus name amen amen for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right in accordance with the freedom of information act chapter 4 title 30 go to laws 1976 agenda's been facing on the front door of city hall the notification of this meeting's been given to the news all right first up is the approval of the consent agenda if there's anyone who has reviewed that we'll entertain a mention pleasure to appreciate all right we have a motion by mr bass second by miss bowles all in favor of approval of the consent agenda miss bartlett thank you mr miller yeah that that motion carries unanimously with seven people all right what do we have uh i'm number one on the public hearings is to consider ordinance number 22.002 uh amending the zoning ordinance um two residential district regulations for special exceptions allowed in residential districts this is the um the uh ordinance that addresses accessory dwelling units um if you recall we began talking about this back in october and it came actually from a request to county council to allow accessory dwelling units in parcels over five acres city council asked us to go back and work with the planning staff to determine a more appropriate parcel size in the city um if you click forward um ryan worked with draper and phil okay so ryan worked with draper and phil and it was determined that the best allowable lifestyles would be half an acre in the city which if you i believe that's about 2 000 watts that would be eligible for accessory dwelling units i think we've discussed in the past that these would be um they they there's the requirements there it's actual primary structure or built as a separate detached structure they couldn't exceed a thousand square feet they have to be applicable with all building codes uh they have to be in conjunction with the primary residence go back that way to the first one yeah um you could only have one accessory drilling unit per lot couldn't be rented for less than 30 days um well you can see the requirements here um we discussed that this is you know a way maybe to start addressing some affordable housing um you want to click forward so that is what is before you this evening and just to refresh this is essentially identical to the one the county have proposed as well except the lot size berries what is theirs all right is there anybody that wishes to speak in favor of proposed ordinance number 22-002 let the record reflect our 9. is there anyone that wishes to speak in opposition to proposed ordinance number 22-002 let the record reflect there none all right i will entertain promotion for us to consider further motion to approve ordinance number twenty two zero zero two motion by ms polls second second by mr favs any further discussion regarding proposed ordinance number 22-002 i really think they the eligible partial size should be between one and three acres i just think half an acre a lot for an ancillary dwelling of a thousands worthy it's just too tight and it's going to make it the city even more crowded um we're already having some density issues and so i will be voting against this that's just my opinion do we do we know how many are currently out there that this would cover i don't know if they're grandfathered in at this point or what in the city at least you want to come up hill i don't think we know a number but i mean any that are existing would be i mean i see him all the time just not necessarily in the city don't be don't be bashful come on up um they're all grandfathered in so we have no idea how many there will be out there yeah as as we mentioned it's at least a it's a start for for trying to solve our housing problem i would contend uh i certainly understand ms hutto's contention about the half acre lot and i don't know that you could do it on every half acre lot with a house and driveway topography but and setbacks and step backs but there certainly could be some um they are detachable now they could be attached or detached they can be detached as well i just think the the acre to one acre to three acre lots which are 638 lots within the city and so makes more sense they do you i mean i'll be interested to see what what how many we get i mean i think it's potentially something that we can review down the but the half acre you get three times as many lots that are eligible and again i don't think it solves all of our our our housing problems but at least it's a start i think there's no way to regulate whether or not they'd be rented for 30 days i mean they can't they're not supposed to be rented for 30 you know i i think this is just opening up the door for having rental income for for property owners pretty much and having a verbo in your backyard because how i mean how are we going to regulate are we going to ask for everybody to turn in their lease leases or whatever if it's on vrbo yeah but yeah again this is that's just my concern all right and i'm just voicing that concern and of course this would not be applicable to anyone that has deep restrictions in their neighborhoods so so there are certain um subdivisions in the city which this would not be allowable anyway even though they have lots that may be an for three acres ryan that that 1954 unit lots that includes your neighborhoods as well right because any further discussion regarding proposed ordinance number 22-002 all right all in favor of ordinance number 22-002 miss bartlett yeah mr miller yes all right all opposed yes all right that motion passes by voted five to two under public hearing item number two is considered ordinance number 22-004 annexing one parcel of land totaling approximately 33.597 acres located 1930 old lawrence road this is the request by todd bailey to annex this property and rezone it to um his initial request was rezoned to r7 from county pdd to r7 um that under the current pdd that's in the county the parcel has been approved for 58 homes under this plan here while he mr bailey did request r7 to build 71 homes after the work council's work session you all requested that we bring it forward as pdd so that's the ordinance that's presented to you this evening is annexation and resulting to a pdd which would require these items listed here which would be the layout approved as i just showed you maximum number of dwelling units would be 58 they would be limited to single family minimum lot size 10 000 square feet setbacks 20 feet in the front 10 up the sides 20 in the rear dwelling units bordering or connecting to the existing brentwood hills neighborhood would be constructed of brick on at least three sides i would just like to call your attention to the fact that what's being discussed here this evening is two things one is the approval of the annexation as a part of that ordinance you would be assigning the zoning to pdd with these restrictions is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor of proposed ordinance number 22.004 mr bailey if you could just for the record state your name and address uh todd bailey address 1832 champion circle i'm sorry 1832 champion i bought this land with the original with the layout that was just shown already uh approved from the county request annexation which is bringing in the existing subdivisions already annexed into the city we'll bring it in keep it continuous i don't know what else that's about it we did concede that we would do houses that are next to new homes that are next to existing homes would be three-sided brick um to help uh buffer anything that's existing that's in the transition period yeah so there's three roads the weight set up now so there'd be two houses on each side so those six houses would be at least three sites great okay and i know i've been part of some conversations you've met with the neighborhood hoa the brentwood phase one h.o.a comes a couple places yeah any i mean any other agreements that you all have i told him i would participate in helping keep the entrance up modify the uh whatever you want to call that the monument landscaping and all that we would participate towards uh cost for that um and then the the four sides of the three sides of brooklyn six houses let's see um thank you anybody else have any questions is there anyone else that wishes to speak in favor of ordinances if you could use the microphone just so they can they can hear you online oh i've seen it yeah all right not for ellis name is harrison forrester and i live at 119 winston court west in brentwood hills i'm a resident there and i have a script anyway um i have a script that i'd like to share with y'all that basically outlines at least what the majority of our neighborhood is in favor of and certainly it has to do with the r4 designation for annexation and also the city planning commission and so on so those are the two things we'd like to be in favor of yes and i'd like to share this statement with you all uh we the hoa and woodhills have expressed in our letters to you how the majority of us feel concerning the proposal proposed development headed our way we know that the system and the city government will evaluate make prudent decisions and do what is fair and the best interest to all parties concerned now and in the future of our existing neighborhood there will be some opposition to this process and with that comes compromise that will generate hopefully positive results we thank each of you for your creative thoughts the problem solving solutions as this development moves forward toward fruition installation we the hoa brentwood hills requested and agreed on the following conditions to manage our neighborhood for the future they were submitted to all parties involved prior to this council meeting number one the developer will use the existing road system to gain entrance but will be responsible for all physical aspects conditions and engineering concerns before during and after working with the city government of greenwood south carolina number two rtb capital will be responsible for refurbish of our entrance both from design and financial support to reflect the name of our development similar to our president's present design continuing on number three homes ordering our existing neighborhoods in the transition area will be brick on all three sides number four additional homes will have a front brick or stone facade and they're designed number five the developer has decided to donate a seven plus acre track on gerst avenue and hopefully be classified as a conservation easement number six green space will be created and provided by rtb capital in the new development and maintained by the new neighborhood hoa number seven there will be there will not be any clubhouses pool tennis courts etc built that will in time become a financial burden to any hoa and number eight the completion of the new development the the existing the clearance rights will be transferred in power of attorney from rtb capital to the original brentwood hills hoa and that kind of sums up what we have accomplished in both working with the city and to hopefully keep our neighborhood in good condition and maintain what we presently have thank you mr forrester and you are all you're representing the hoa here well i'm i'm i'm on the i'm sure there's going to be other folks that may have comments whether it's pro or con but yes sir i'm on the board and we've you know said as mentioned in this statement we sent all the letters out outlining everything that took place and tried to keep everybody abreast and as far as us getting any feedback on the negative side it was very minimal and there are certain people i'm sure that have another attitude toward this development that might not be as favorable but but we have discussed it with them and i'm sure they may have some comments that they'd like to share with you this evening sure and i just want to make sure i know you're on the board but is this the position of the brentwood hills hoa board or is this your individual position uh as someone just happens to be on well as i say all this information was passed out to we we basically circulated all these letters that outlined everything that we were doing as a result of our meetings and the feedback that we got was either positive or none at all however there were a few individuals as i say that have certain concerns about their particular situation and where they're located in relationship to the new development and and there may be some some comments there that are i would say concerning i wish them well but i feel like this development is something that it's it's inevitable and as far as i'm concerned it's something that we all need to look at it is a positive rather than a negative and try to make the best out of it thank you yes sir thank you another question do you have more pros and cons i'm sorry no you said that you had people that was feeling different that didn't always agree with the uh you agree with the letter i will say this there was you know when we first found out about this it was back during the thanksgiving holiday that's when this thing was kind of unleashed on everybody and we and we were kind of double taking trying to figure out what to do and how to do it it was our first rodeo and we we really didn't know which direction we wanted to go in a lot of a lot of folks were including myself we were looking at it from the standpoint of possibly getting an attorney to represent us but in my at least in the in the research that many of us did and i talked to seven different attorneys and and and one of them shared with me says you know sometimes you're better off taking care of things yourself rather than drawing a line in the sand and you can work things out more advocably that way than trying to go after somebody well that was put in the letter that we sent out and as far as i'm concerned nobody said hey i don't agree with that it was you know there are a handful of folks in our neighborhood they certainly take a different view and they're certainly privileged to that view i'm not going to stand in their way but i think sometimes you have to make decisions that we feel like are best for our neighborhood and for the economics and for the future and for us to go out and spend a large amount of money having an attorney represent us and unfortunately not produce anything that's positive um i think you have to gather that information and make some some choices and those are the choices that we made okay thank you yes ma'am thank you mr forrester is there anybody else that wishes to speak in favor of proposed ordinance number 22-004 this man if you could state your name and your address my name is rachel shara i'm from 101 thornhill road within brentwood hills um i am speaking in favor but with a caveat i don't know if that's allowed or not um so i mentioned at a previous meeting that i am part of lander university department of teacher education faculty one of my concerns is always education and how this particular move will impact the local school which would be rice in particular this is greenwood's lowest performing school and the r4 zoning i'm very much in favor of that because of the more minimal impact that this will have on an overcrowded overstressed and over strained school my other concern is the amount of traffic that runs up and down burst school traffic in particular and the wear and tear that the addition of these houses will have on the traffic and on burst avenue in front of our development i know at one point there was reference to old lawrence wrote there being a road installed that would have allow a second departure point from the hoa uh i do not see any indication of that on this particular map but i think this may be an old one if that's correct so i want to just for the record note that yes there i am in favor of this development we don't have a choice um this is going to go forward but the residency is very important to consider in terms of impact on public education that is part of what you all have been charged with is maintaining public education and quality but also the second departure point from these two which will now be one hoa is another important consideration not only to alleviate that traffic going in and out of rice considerations of safety are also to be noted here with children coming in and out of a school that already has nearly 600 children attending plus the teachers who go with that so that second road i know that mr bailey has not indicated much positivity in that direction um but i think it's important to note that we when we do have a safety concern and we don't have good access this new subdivision will be contributing to that in part thank you thank you i appreciate it and hopefully hopefully there's a walkability to the school at some point i don't know how many children walk now but i appreciate that is there anybody else that wishes to speak in favor of proposed ordinance number 22.004 i'd like to let the record reflect no more is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to proposed ordinance number 22-004 all right and as we may have mentioned earlier some of y'all may have some of the same ideas if if that's the case we're not trying to limit anybody's ability to speak but if you hear someone that that speaks and represents your your uh your opinion if we would ask you to raise your hand if you agree at the end to uh to signify that you agree with that if you've got something additional to mention by all means we want to hear from you so um yes sir right here in the front if you can um or yes ma'am my name is peggy stepson i've been at 206 people would roll and and just before you start she's going to write down your address we had the timer up there before maybe it was just prohibiting our ability okay all right if y'all just want we're just we don't we just want to make sure everybody has ample time to speak their mind god's excuse me mr mayor if i'm not an always man i have something yes sir which day oh oh concerning the timer there's not a time is that correct there's and like i said if you if if she stands up here and says everything that you agree with and you're not going to add anything more we would just ask you to raise your hand um if you've got something else to add by all means all right yes sir yes mr sims peggy stepson yes ma'am 206 chief woodrow brentwood hills oh city of greenwood annexation in part annexation is an important tool in managing greenwood's growth one that has tremendous advantages for residents and business owners and annexation helps the city better manage the demand of the infrastructure and service so that everyone can enjoy a more prosperous community and some advantages of there are financial savings for resident faster emergency response time enhanced send sanitation and trash service upgrade internet broadcasts service and annexation offers a number of benefits to both the community as a whole and the individual property owner or benefits to the community immunization is vital to the city of greenwood as an anticipated future world an exemption helps the city plan for expansion of upgrade and utility include internet and broadband the need to increase service such as fire and police protection greenwood commissioner public utilities greenwood commissioner of public works cpw other departments provide reduced water costs competitive electric and natural gas street lighting solid waste and residential trash service street maintenance and other service benefits for residents and property owners the average homeowner saves city residents enjoys saving on insurance and utility rates and police service and trash people large-scale annexation incentives a joint program of the city of greenwood and cpw offers incentives and immersement for profit and for improvement to develop of large subdivisions and commercial properties inside the city landing incentives and reimbursement programs are available for road and stone sewer construction and are based on the pace of the development this is my end and i mr map if possible if i didn't make it he was my blast uh i've been losing about five minutes my husband can use the rest of them sure yes ma'am thank you just miss simpson was reading from our annexation i was reading from the annex station booklet this is the public this is a great thank you yes my name is marion simpson it's a 206 heat would roll and uh first off before i get into uh following up on my uh we we have a covenant and restriction that we abide by and there have never been a quorum uh meeting where where we have uh majority speakers but i just want to go on that of the benefits of any relationship agreement with my wife have just mentioned those these are some of the benefits that mr bailey and residents of the new development [Music] from the city of greenwood annexed into the city there approximately 33.72 acres the new residential development would create an increase in the senior base and maybe other possible benefits contemporaneous notes has been taken letters emails petition vision statement calls and other documents has been submitted to discuss regarding the discuss issue there are also minutes available for from the hearing held on december 14 2021 for these and many other reasons we respectfully request that mr vader's application for rezoning slash analyzation be amended to uh for him to use a different interest accident to the proposed subdivision located in 1930 old lawrence road on the northeast side of wright said amendment this would produce a win situation for mr bailey the city of greenwood and the breckwood hills subdivision we are mentioned we have mentioned in many documents and after hearing on december 14 2021 how the extra traffic will negatively affect our neighborhood and other surrounding areas these were never there were never any mentioning that the ultimate arrived into the proposed sub-events located on one's road could not be constructed no at the hearing on december 14 2021 however two constraints were mentioned concerning the road construction this was mentioned at the meeting at the held at the brentwood hills president home uh meeting on december 13 2021 with mr vege and mayor smith in attendance and other board members we were glad to have uh mr bailey and the mayor president there is also a statement on the page six of the joint planning commission many minutes of december 14 2021 uh mentioning uh regarding the alternate interest to uh mr vader's site on orange roads the two of our attention constraints to the construction of this road were money amounts and the necessity of building a bridge due to stormwater rentals flowing through missiles property there was a centers on the city annex senate brochure that says incentive and reimbursement program are available for road and stone sewer construction and are based on the based on the pace of development i called miss wilkins office this morning and was given the following information on the previous mentioned statement on the city and senate and reimbursement section one says apparently there was some amendment and i don't have the date of that but i'll just go ahead and read the city of greenwood at its discretion entering to an agreement to reimburse any person from a corporation developing property for an industrial commercial residential purpose up to the actual or estimated costs whichever is less of investment and infrastructure associated with such development a letter of intent to participate must be filed within the city within 90 days of development permit issuing date i do not have a date of just section one uh this is from mrs junior wilkins office city manager cheekwood road domain interest and two-hour development at the retention pond with the sunflower stormwater runoff has a regular paved road with no bridge the water runs underneath the bridge research and consultation with knowledge for personal infrastructure without being mr brady stonewall the runoff site said that same system on the cheap wood road or a similar one could probably be used at mr venice site with no bridge furthermore there is a flat map recorded i have here there is a flat map recorded at the city of city assessors office uh on may 6 2021 also at the planning commission on the same day uh this road is here and uh i i please uh we could refer to that it has a direct a road play site but no road was built brentwood hill subdivision where 72 brick homes will be the face of all will be the face are in front of the new development while traveling through chiefwood and western road to the new site this presents a unique situation we believe in the entire city of greenwood and the possibility of president says we don't know of any other neighborhood in the city of greenwood situated like this we've seen an extension of the same typhoons in the development but nothing like what is proposed here at grenfell subdivision thank you mister simpson that's your your five minutes we appreciate it okay i was wondering if i could have i mean it's my wife we got them today are you almost done how much you got left i got well i tell you what we in the interest of time we're going we're going to ask if anybody else has anything to add what you said and we we've received your letter that's going to be entered into the record as well thank you mr simpson okay the most important most important part of what i had left that really and if anybody else have any minutes that they can loan me i would love to sure finish that sure yes here right there get right here my name is anthony shearer i'm at 101 thornhill road in the bramble delta state thank you my time thank you anthony stay with us being the new president of h.o.a position he probably was not familiar with our covenant and restriction and voting requirements for poorer there are two brentwood hills homeowners the memos we need to look at regarding this rezoning annexation situation one day 12 23 2021 and the other day to january 14 2022. portion of memo dated december 23 2021 mentioned numerous meetings discussion for evaluation with attorney seven city government manager mayor brandon smith city manager miss julia goodwill developer toy bailey and our most valuable resource you you and hoh generate the information for the letter received on december the 22nd 2021 at the win when you're not find we wrote a letter still talking about this memo to share these recommendations with you that include all the availability we realize that legal representation is helpful when needed however i want to share a comment from one of the attorneys which is is interesting and surprising and once you hire an attorney the battle line is drawn and there is no turning back you can represent yourself rather better results and no financial investment of the time so be careful what you wish for in the decision you made portion of the latter day january 14 22 22 mentioned that mr baylor has agreed to a transition zone of two houses uh uh nothing another transition three threes out break the another transition as well as an organized community we are covered by a declaration of protected covenant and restriction there are 72 households in our subdivision of the georgia rules when when a quarter of 72 invited him to a meeting this is man we have not had any invitation for the entire members of the 72 household especially with the seven members who probably are adjacent to surveillance problem we are the most effective and and certainly should have been asked for our input so it seemed that we did not follow the rule for any type of agreement as dictated by our covenant and restriction and [Music] quickly just saying here you might not recognize brentwood hill sebastian subdivision that we have if the traffic is allowed to travel through redwood hill subdivision the solution uh as we have the the solution as we have stated many times would be to amend mr bella's application respectfully to go to his site and his address road this road is available based on all of the all of the material and other that are submitted and all parties will have a win-win situation this decision rests solely in the hands of this legislative body and this is the map that i made reference to early on that shows that shows uh a rose they have it i gave it to them this one here right here yeah you know uh that's the one that you provided to draper earlier this one is is a plaque that is at the assessors its assessor's office and and um i am very very sorry uh madam with you please forgive me but but this road shows that it was a profound road from but not not ever built and it actually draws and shows you a line where this could have been built there was never a road but it does show a proposed road that was never never never developed okay thank you very much i appreciate the time but just wanted to restate that there was never any majority of the household members uh are based on roger's roger's uh uh statement that shows that a quorum of the invited majority of the invited guests should be there it's 72 households so if you were to divide that by two you can add plus one that would equal that quorum so we have never ever especially the one that affected most most most mostly and that's those seven adjacent property so it appears that those rules were not followed at all in respect to this general uh uh what are you just saying thank you thank you i appreciate it is there anybody else who wishes to speak in opposition to proposed orchestra number uh 22.004 uh that adds anything different than mr simpson i guess there is policy uh connecting to the second part of it so the original plan for brentwood here has had two entrances on it and whether it's off the wings road or or old lost brothers [Music] is anybody else that wishes to speak in opposition to proposed ordinance number 22-0 that has anything additional to add thank you let directly reflect there are none and will paul is there anybody that wishes to agree with the the statements uh in opposition to proposed ordinance going to be 23-0-4 close your hands thank you looks like two two hands went up one because um bam your name that you spoke earlier mr rachel thank you all right may i may i ask one question to our um city attorney sure i think we i think this is our opportunity to ask our planning i remember when this subdivision was built because it was built by citizens trust company way back when um when it was first proposed and i was under the impression and i might be wrong that the covenants and restrictions only applied to the section that is actually built and were not applicable to the other land as i recalled i haven't done a title examination i haven't done title examination for this these parcels but restrictions only apply to property specifically restricted in the document so if they're if this larger parcel isn't subject to covenants already recorded it's unrestricted language subject is and um and other governmental that was the impression that was given to me um simply because i spoke to this was way prior to mr bailey's purchase of this for someone about this and i asked specifically to the seller of the property the previous property owner whether or not they had deep restricted this property in the same manner and the answer was no but i have no way to confirm that because i'm not an attorney and didn't do a title search but i was just because if that's the case then nothing that actually applies the hoa is actually doesn't govern any of this property is am i correct to assume that well be careful assuming anything assuming if the record a public record shows that brentwood hills came in in phase one two three four whatever correct uh then only the phase one two three four whatever is restricted okay so there's no restriction by implication there's no restriction by implementing and in fact the law of south carolina is pretty clear that if um if even if there are covenants but they are ambiguous meaning they could be interpreted two ways then the court will interpret it in favor of free use of the property so restriction is actually um you have to be very clear in what's restricted and how is restricted okay i just wanted to know but nothing has actually been you don't know that forefat i don't know okay i see mr templeton been here you mind answering a few i know you've been involved in this you might address a few things thank you our engineer in here and i know you've been dealing with this uh in in detail am i correct all right we heard that previously there had been another entrance proposed have you seen anything to indicate that my understanding is there's been a there's a boundary line survey that was submitted which is what i think mr simpson said earlier had some drawings on it that has not been submitted as a proposed design it was just something that was on that boundary survey that's the one dated from either late april or early may of 2021. i'll be honest i'm not sure i saw it a few minutes ago and i saw it several several about a year and a half ago that i said i don't know the exact dates on that okay i mean i just want to make sure we're talking about the same one this is this one right here okay yeah it's got a it's got a date of april 27th 2021 i understand it may have been filed in may 2021 but anyway um any other proposed entrance i know i heard mr thompkins mention another proposed entrance that does not appear to be this one are you familiar with any of this i'm not familiar with another entrance i was not on staff when this was originally approved um and i've not seen the original documents i've seen what's been submitted most recently from mr bailey but i haven't seen anything prior to that the uh the boundary line road that you're talking about this referenced here on the the flight of april 27 2021 that's boundary right around rice elementary that that was just a my understanding of the plot was done for us to show the boundary of the property so it's just recording that is what was recorded the drawings that were on that were not submitted to my office or anywhere in the planning office for review of a development at that time so i don't know the history of that drawing or where that came from or what where that was that was never submitted does for review of a subdivision excuse me are you referring to this yes ma'am yeah subsequently have you had any conversations with mr haley about a separate construction entrance maintenance maintenance entrance i've spoken to mr bailey about that we've discussed it and i don't want to speak for mr bailey um obviously but there's there are restrictions geographically on the property that make that challenging and and not a feasible um issue is the way i understood our conversation one of those restrictions there's a there's a stream on the pond there's a lot of clearing there's some there's some issues with the constraints along around the utility easement over there on the other side of rice elementary mr simpson the the what you just referred to as a stream i just want to make sure we're clear that's not waste water that is a waterway is that your understanding that i've not been on site yes it's not waste water no shirts it should be storm waters not waste wheat i'm under the under i'm under the understanding that it is that it is a waterway exactly that is my understanding i have not been on site that is my understanding from looking at the gis thank you any other questions for you mr templeton mr mayor i have another statement no we we passed that time was was that the um the water that um simply was referring to this witnesses is that the is that the pawn or a different uh water at another location i know mrs simkin referred to something about water waste or something there there is a there is a creek that feeds a pond that leads right into their neighborhood i know there's a pond right there should enter it goes into the road and then it runs across the property that they're referring to now that's my understanding again i've not walked that i've been out there plenty of times but it's my understanding that water leaves that pond and continues on and that's how the the um the the stream that is there continues on past and through this property referring to if the access road were to have to be built or were to be built it would have to go over a waterway um which but that's not the waterway you were from yes ma'am that's what i'm referring to okay so and i think the the road they're discussing is at least in the immediate future would be a maintenance be a construction road i don't know if there again even if that was feasible if there'd be intent to make that a permanent entrance but from what we understand it would involve mr bailey having to build a bridge over water i mean fairly significant undertaking when there are city roads yes sir i do have i mean and i want to get clarification when i ask planning for my understanding is this development was originally reviewed previously and i guess the pdd was accepted in the county so that this has been approved before i think the annexation is i was saying if i understand that correctly that can be done it's already been approved through pdd side okay through the county i just was making sure that was i was the case right mr templeton is there any instance that you can remember of and in your experience that a developer was um restricted from using public roads i cannot think of any i i don't know if that's a that's i guess to be a legal matter i would refer to trump i know none that's the next person i want to answer that question okay um uh uh tripp if if um can you tell us the implications if if this body were to restrict access to public roads well i i would agree i don't know if any basis to that you could stop public from using the public roads unless it was for some unlawful use like racing or something like that if you tried to stop it you'd probably have some legal proceeding in which mr bailey was asking the court to prohibit our prohibition of the road and ask for attorney speed costs at that point because i i don't i don't want to give any more advice um about what my jeopardizers are our privilege but a public road is for public use lawful public use um okay anybody else have any questions for mr templeton um i think that maybe draper or phil could probably answer this question because in our packet the property that's directly behind it that i think mr thompkins referred to on wingard road um that actually goes across a parcel that's not bombed mr bailey is actually owned by satterfield construction um that the another entrance could not be good there because it's landlocked is that is that what y'all's understanding is we've gone through this a lot we've we've explored every single option we possibly can to try to find a separate entrance for that back part of the neighborhood i'm just sort of restating the facts here that we have is that we've tried the back entrances we've tried the side we've tried we've tried i promise you we've tried every single option to explore every single one of them and and i i don't i don't know a way we could do this um and and the developer be incentivized to be able to do this without their um being um it'd not be beneficial to the developer and to the homeowners association that's what we've tried to do yes i reviewed that as well and i found the same conclusion there it is landlocked on the other side and i had the same results in my discovery draper is there something you wanted to add i would just echo right here is that if you're talking about going to the east towards winger road it is separate ownership it would be a land if the property is landlocked in that direction it would be difficult to get access that way could you two explain what the requirements were for you to put a new road that enters into a state road um is there it would there is there automatic approval if you want to put a road because dirks is a state road correct versus state road um scdot will would manage um any review of an encroachment permit it would have to go before their i guess encroachment engineer they'd review it for their standards whether that be driveway spacing um you know sight distance any of those things that may restrict it so you'd have to go through that process and get vetted prior to any approval so it's there's no guarantee that you look at a site get get approval for a entrance off state road it has to be vetted and looked at very care carefully that'll be looked at through the scdot okay do either one of you have any knowledge that any of that work's been done for this road that kept this been mentioned several times to us tonight i have no knowledge of that being done at the state level is that the road you're referring to that is locked no man that would be the road that was shown on the drawing that you'll have in front of you yes ma'am that road is the one that i was referring to i have no of no um preliminary engineering work any encroachment permits being submitted on that road this bowl is the one that's locked is actually located as county road winger road is behind the behind the behind the neighborhood um and it's off the maximum springs road okay yeah milford springs spring i'm sorry yeah i know what you're talking about yeah sorry thank you any other questions but this this that is this is just proposed this is just a drawing this this this isn't a road no that's correct this is not a road it's never been a road because but what you're saying in order for it to be a road it has to have um egress grass and egress on the state highway state road and that has not even been to my knowledge my knowledge has nothing but i i'm not on that i'm not working for the states but not about anything okay and it would have to cross a naturally flowing waterway any other questions for uh mr carlisle mr tim you can't do it we've we've already had the public input thank you sure um mr bailey um someone mentioned that you um you agreed to i think the gentleman who spoke in reference to the hoa said that you two had talked about road improvements and keeping the entrance way or improving the entranceway or the roads in and out of the property um i think what he was referring to was the entrance at durst comes into chickwood we talked about updating that and there's not a lot of costs there but sharing in the cost of maintaining that during you know during the year as far as flowers planting landscaping maintenance and all that and then on the roads and if the roads get messed up if they're clearly our fault and we've got to fix them so that mean with like your trucks and everything that's going through doing the development they would have to travel through that neighborhood yes so if there's any damage or anything during that process you would be i mean if we stop and pack a tractor up on the road up we'd have to fix that for sure yeah i mean i think anything else is going to be hard to determine as to the cause of it like you said it's clearly their fault and but through her the miss bold's question um mr forrester indicated that there had been a number of agreements i mean is that your understanding of um i'm not in a 100 agreement when everything he's stated but i'm in agreement with most of it all right specifically are y'all not in agreement about i'd have to see the list i i believe the one that that mr bailey is not in grants with is is the one about the donation of the land is that correct that's for later so yes yes you're talking the frontline it's been pulled from the agenda for now pending some additional information so that mr bailey can bring forward some additional information to help counsel with their decision making process and once we have that we'll bring it back and put it on the agenda for discussion what what what he said is my intention but that depends on her body and i i guess i'll show you if you want to thank you for your business but yeah if you want to take a look at that and tell me anything else that you're not in agreement on the green space i'm not exactly sure what we're referring to i do own two lots in the existing neighborhood that i would be willing to i mean one can't build so i don't have a problem donating that to the hoa or whatever it's bad um definitely new pool and clubhouse and i have no problem transferring clarendon right now existing front wheels back to them so that was the only one about the seven acres any other questions for mr cleveland all right thank you go here in motion with regard to proposed audience from the 22 304 questions okay we have a motion by mr bass thank you hutto discussion regarding proposed quarters number 23.004 other than the fact that there's nothing can be done as far as a highway being installed within a separate entrance i asked a lot of questions earlier today about what the process is with the fire department and and um what requirements would be for um uh maybe an emergency road that goes through there my understanding that after site plans submitted to engineering that the city fire department will also review that um juilliard draper someone you mind you might tell me about what that process of those those things that we discussed earlier today well once so that's why i stated earlier that what's before this body tonight is simply do you want to annex the property and what do you want to zone it if you do once that has been accomplished mr bailey will have to present a site plan to city council now to to the planning department now if you approve it as is presented this is the site plan it'll have to go through the approval it'll go through the engineer's office it'll go through the planning department it'll go through a building inspection the fire department now they will assess it under the codes that were in place when this was originally approved and for that reason the fire access road is not required at least that's preliminary conversation that i had with the fire marshal earlier today but once the plans are submitted they'll be reviewed based on the codes that were in place when the subdivision was originally approved but right now all the council is considering is do you want to annex it and what do you want to zone it if you choose not to annex it you can deny the ordinance to annex and it will remain in the county and it's already zoned pdd in the county and this site plan has already been approved by planning commission and mr bailey can build 58 lots at 10 000 square feet with those setbacks accessing through those roads at that density with that plan right there and i think that's the point that i hope everybody understands is that if we didn't mr bailey uh i'm sure is glad to see our infrastructure reimbursements but as i understand it would build anyway and our residential infrastructure reimbursement program was a whole another topic that we'll deal with soon i know but from a city standpoint uh the the residents of brentwood hills have gotten received some concessions along the way that mr bailey wouldn't have had to give uh at all had he just built it as it is currently approved uh in the county pdd so and these are just going to be built whether we approve it or not going to be built the same way but without potentially any of the concessions that mr bailey has agreed to make i would point out that the document that mr forrester i get his person you have two two first names you have two last names okay uh what he presented there is not part of the pdd that's an agreement between him and mr bailey what's included in your ordinance of pdd is this and um i will point out that the additional item that city council added is number six which is that the bordering and connecting units into the new the back part of this subdivision will be brick on three sides that was that is not required in the current pdd that could be built under now right and the the agreement that mr forrester gave us will make it certainly a part of the record but as ms wilkie stated it's not part of any ordinance or ddd that we're voting on sounds like y'all are in general agreement about a lot of the uh the issues mr bailey even mentioned he'd be open to donating a lot but the the most important thing for everyone to remember is that the six points right there are what we're voting on to see any further discussion regarding proposed ordinance number 22-004 before you vote i did want to make one comment just for the record um for the young lady that works at lander i didn't catch your name um we do include the school district on all our subdivision review processes yes ma'am that comes next so they'll be the superintendent will will come or he'll send a representative to evaluate okay this is the number of new homes this is how it impacts our school district um they have kind of a unique situation in that you know just because you know say i've moved from one side of the county to the other side i can still keep my child in the school they're in and so there's a lot of things that they have to evaluate but i think it's critically important to keep them in the loop and we we do that and our planning to point department is a joint department so that applies to any development in the county as well they're made aware of it and i heard you mention also your understanding of our our role we are not the school board although the educational system is very important to all of us mr bass and i have children in the public school the program right now in school district 50 and i know a lot of others up here on the uh on city council have had children and or grandchildren go through the public school system so it is while we're not on school board we're not tasked with some other specific school board matters we do certainly have the best interests of our local education system in mind any further discussion regarding proposed ordinance number 23-004 all right we'll take a vote all in favor of ordinance number 22.004 uh mr miller yes ms bartlow no all opposed to ordinance number 22.004 all right we heard this part look that motion carries with a vote of five to two if you are here for that particular item you don't have to stay but if you want to you can we'll give you an opportunity to leave though if you don't want to stay uh okay uh for lunch and um what do we have up next on old business so we have a public hearing number three which is to consider one that's number 22.00 authorizing city manager negotiate a purchase contract um on 700 kensington street so if i had known that you were bringing a friend i would have put his picture up there too yeah well you know i already had this slide from last time so um as presented in the uh february 7th meeting we had a full price purchase offer for 700 kits and street for black stock development they have indicated their intent to develop our parcel as multi-family apartments likely that are similar to the architecture and character adjacent to the adjacent mill village the contract was included in your packet so this ordinance tonight gives the city manager the authority to sign that contract it comes with 120 days of due diligence um i listed everything there for you guys so essentially what that means is that the city cannot sell the property to another buyer this gives them the opportunity to do their due diligence and research on the property which we all know is a brownfield the buyer can pull the offer during that 120 day period without penalty um i put the dates up there they're very close if they're not exact that the due diligence period ends on 6 28 and then the closing would occur sometime around 8 27 but there is an option to extend additional 90 days did i get all that right okay um the city will provide them with a quick claim deed we will pay three percent commission which there's the number there all other fees are paid by the buyer that's the net proceeds after council set the sale price at 350 000 city attorneys reviewed the contract it's comfortable with the terms as you all know the properties of brownfield is deed restricted so it cannot be used for single family i get that question a lot it can't be used for that use as a public hearing the developers are present and we'll answer any questions all right is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor of proposed ordinance number 22.005 i'm assuming y'all any anything you wanted to add from uh last time we spoke well i don't think so we're just very excited to keep moving on this project great all right possibilities are endless yes ma'am i will just say from the uptown perspective that we are very excited about this possibility as well um and that is really going to be a catalyst project for our uptown district from an uptown perspective and is this something you envisioned becoming part of uptown i'm sorry is this something is this partial i mean maybe i'm getting ahead of myself but just because you mentioned is this i know the uptown is clearly defined is this something that you envision seeking to make part of uptown it's technically not a part of the uptown district right now that is something we would be very happy to discuss with them at some point i think it would make sense to come into the uptown just to um to reap those benefits especially when we get to the to the warehouses and they get to that stuff for the for the um the advertising and the marketing that we do for all those businesses that will probably where it comes into play it's not adjacent it's not adjacent but we would have to annex it so yeah and for the record this is laura hudson everyone notice me nobody knows thank you all right anybody else that wishes to speak in favor of proposed ordinance number 22.005 i'll let the record reflect there now anyone that wishes to speak in opposition to proposed ordinance number 22.005 let the record reflect there are none [Music] do i hear a motion with regard to ordinance number 22.05 motion to approve ordinance number 22.005 to authorize the city manager to negotiate to purchase contract regarding approximately 6.76 acres of city-owned property located at 700 kitson street exactly we have a motion by ms hoda ii mr abels any further discussion regarding proposed ordinance number 22-005 all in favor of ordinance number 22.005 miss partload yes mr miller yes that motion carries unanimously with seven votes i will send that over to you guys tomorrow thank you very much thank you thank you thank you looking forward to hearing more you don't want to stay you know we're a little worn out from the uh [Laughter] item number one is to consider ordinance number 22-006 remote development and annexation within the corporate limits of the city uh through sewer reimbursements with cpw i'm not going to read that full title because it'll be reflected in the minutes but essentially this was discussed in executive session and it addresses the current sewer reimbursements we have in place with cpw um currently we we in partnership with the cpw will reimburse um the total is thirteen hundred dollars per developable lot that goes on public sewer that sewer is then taken in by cpw and subsequently donated to greenwood metro cpw contributes eight hundred dollars per developable parcel and the city contributes five so the total is thirteen hundred cpw has already voted to reduce their amount to four hundred dollars and i am requesting that the city vote to reduce ours to 250 for a total of 650 per lot versus 1300 per lot um this would be effective april the first april the 1st is that right i had printed out uh jeff meredith sent a letter out to all pending um subdivision developments that he was aware of that you know kind of on the books letting them know um how the commissioners had voted and that city council will be considering something very similar so they have all been notified i don't i have the letter but i got a bunch of stuff yeah it's april the 1st julie that that coincides with what cpw's effective date will take place right yes that's correct they just took action on it sooner than we did and we would i would have asked you all to take second reading on march the 7th but it was an issue a timing issue because our meetings are hitting back to back that we weren't able to advertise the public hearing so the second reading on this would take place uh march the 21st but in his letter he he notified them you know that city was going to be looking as well at their numbers so just because i know that affects some other ones what's the rule with that with the uh notice that we seven days yeah yeah thank you planning commission items are 14 days and other agenda items are seven all right we'll entertain a motion with regard to supposed ordinance from between two guys zero zero six motion to approve ordinance number twenty two next year is there six second a motion by mr bass second by miss boles any further discussion regarding ordinance number 22.006 and y'all on the phone i if you if you have anything to that you want to chime in we're not trying to fight for you you feel free to speak up all right all in favor of ordinance number 22.006. mr miller yeah yes and this partly i think i heard you say yes is that correct yeah yeah that motion carries unanimously with seven votes new business item number two is to consider ordinance number 22-007 amending the zoning ordinance by rezoning approximately 0.72 acres of land located at 223 elm court north from r7 greenwood village overlay to r10 greenwood village overlay we've we've covered this in uh in the work session this is 223 elm this is the former bowers rogers children's home it's currently zoned r7 the applicant which is a salvation notes recovery and they're here this evening are requesting r10 to operate a group home extensive which is 10 to 16 people this is a recovery house for women they can answer any more specific questions that you have there's a photo of the work they've done um currently as it stands zoned r7 they can have up to nine and i believe they already do have some women living in the in the house now but they would like to extend their home to up to 16 people which is why they're requesting thank you i know some of us have taken a little field trip over there and seeing the work that you all are doing is there anybody that that has any questions for mr or mrs reddy i just want to thank you for the opportunity to the site and to take the time out to explain and answer questions or any questions or concerns we had about the facility and what impressed me most of all was it did not look like an institution it looked like i was stepping into a home a home environment and i thought that was just fantastic and i just hope and pray that all goes continue goes well with your with your center thank you so much and i would point out i did speak with um solicitor stumbo who was greatly in support of the work they're doing he's going to try to be here but i don't see him um and even mentioned sometimes when they're short-handed in drug court that mr reddy will step up and help them he does it for free out of the goodness of his heart so sorry i was not able to come i do want to come for for that's it also um of how i feel like um how i could partner with you in my day job on several different things so i i i believe brandon has your phone number but i'm gonna reach out to you really soon okay absolutely yeah i'll echo what ms bowles said i'd been through there when it was bowers rogers and our friend ty barnes did a great job but when the house uh with a bunch of kids in there it's gonna look different than a house with uh that that that's for for ladies there's a lot more wear and tear when there's a bunch of kids coming through there and i know there were you know that it was it was a great great institution in greenwood i believe from the late 80s home and so we're glad to see a building like that repurposed for a very beneficial purpose like y'all are doing so i don't know if y'all just cleaned up for us but it looked it looked great in here that's what i do i'll tell this to council as i spoke to the homeowners that are adjacent to these properties off acts off of cambridge avenue um they also did not have any objection from the folks that i spoke with and i have not received any calls from from that on ward 3 as well we appreciate you guys doing this responsibly we really yeah and that that's really the point is we see so many of these and i told y'all this last week but we see so many of these just kind of grown up and we just appreciate y'all going about the right way i want to make sure we get our vote in before we praise you too much do i i have a question yes ma'am yeah i i hate that i wasn't able to clear the home um you said this was a women's facility yes ma'am strictly women strictly women yes ma'am okay to approve ordinance number 22-007 amending the city of greenwood's official zoning map by rezoning approximately 0.72 acres of land located at 2 23 m port north from r7 greenwood village to r10 greenwood village second a motion by this photos taken by miss boles any further discussion regarding proposed ordinance number 22-007 all in favor of ordinance number 22.007 miss bartlow yes mr miller yes that motion carries unanimously with seven votes of course there'll be a public hearing uh next month but um again we appreciate y'all's patience because i know there was some issues with the city so so again thank you all thank you thank you right that's right uh new business time number three is to consider resolution number 22-003 to reaffirm the importance of on-the-job safety for the city of greenwood this is a resolution that council we ask council to pass over here we send it out to our employees we ask them to just reevaluate safety make sure they're keeping risk management front of mind um sarah dell and our house has been doing a really good job of helping the staff with trainings and coordinating keeping us you know where we need to be this is something that our insurance company asked us to do um and we would request your approval sure should i am i just savage should i read it in the record you can just sign it well we have motion by miss toto's no question by ms hutto any further discussion regarding resolution number 22.03 all right all in favor of resolution number 22003 mr miller yes this part load yeah that motion carries unanimously with seven votes and um i know we ms bartlett and mr miller we we uh we miss you all this evening look forward to seeing you back glad to have you danian from the index pack as well so glad they're glad to have you this evening all over the place the school board downton council city council cpws so good to see you they say what's the last all right a couple just uh quick things to touch on that work in my information to council is we do have the west side housing demo dead finally that process was put on hold a long long time because of covid and we're bids will be received on march the 8th at 3 o'clock so we're hoping to see some quick movement on those houses and have them down i i say the end of april but i'm hoping it's going to move faster than that um supposed to be a public right yes ma'am when they come in we put them on our website we don't run them in the paper but we do list them on our website um and that's 610 612 620 700 owens 101 and 105 park alley 405 409 park ave 347 through 353 washington um and those houses have been vacant and boarded for a very very very long time and i'm just thrilled to get them down so one of them is a burn structure that i know miss partla is aware of and that one will be included as well it's not part of this contract the city is going to take care of that one separately but it will be in conjunction with these other houses i believe you've all received information about the housing summit that the chamber is hosting on march 18th if you could please make sure that's on your calendar if you're going to attend if you'll just let tiffany know um redistricting we had our last day for public comment on friday we did not receive any comments from the public we will relay all this info to rfa so they can begin the draft maps once we have those we'll bring them back to council for review there will be another public hearing in conjunction with the approval of those maps before they are officially approved um there's some dates i got some dates up here for you guys um does anybody have any questions about those dates now uh drives down with tara is going to be in conjunction with the late cleanup okay we put a huge disclaimer red lights go off and say we're outside the city limits but we're going to help our our friends in the county for the march time with terror i thought we really need to help gleams find candidates for their their position they're trying to fill right now i have one candidate that already submitted great okay is there anything we can do you could show up for the election okay that's tomorrow is that tomorrow no this wednesday at 11. and we've been sharing it on our social medias i've seen it a lot um i guess let me understand anybody that shows up can vote you must live in the county i mean in the county of greenwood city or county doesn't matter along with your county residents and you have to be you know over the age of 18 a voting age and we this position is to represent the low income sector we request that you you don't have to be uh from the low you don't have to be low income but just be affiliated with the community within low income this is the only position on the board that have to be elected from the community the other the other positions are appointed by the county yeah this will have to be approved by the county but they have to be elected by the community there is at least one candidate already because one candidate has so many and that's still time for other candidates to compete they just have to show up but you have to be you have to have a problem you have to be voted in by at least a total of five or more persons my wife is having surgery that morning but i can get away afterwards i definitely want to come and support that yeah we just we need people i don't know if you can just leave surgery easily or not floor great i'd love to learn a little bit more about that structure just a reminder our statement of economic interest is at the end of next month today did everybody get an email i should have got an email because i got one um same way we do our reports it's actually much easier it's very easy matter of fact you didn't copy the same information we had last year i did it already i did it already if you already did i think it's just a formality they just sent it out let me know the last day is march the 30th are there any other city council comments pretty good all right well i i don't mean to run uh but uh with we could all wish the greenwood ymca under 13 hawks they're going right now and i'm the coach mr folks