to give us our invocation this evening we will remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance let's pray dearly father we just thank you for this day God we just thank you for the father God we ask you to continue to bless us as we go about the business for Greenwood City father God continue to bless our homes and our families in Jesus name we do pray amen amen amen Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all oh my God chapter 30. South Carolina 1976 and again has been focused on the front door City Hall a notification of this meeting you've been given to the news media uh understanding between I understand you're on the phone can you hear us yes sir can you hear me all right Jake we can and Minnesota's not on the phone you said currently though she's traveling maybe maybe getting on the phone at some point first off it looks like we've got approval of consent agenda so we'll entertaining if any emotions if you've got breads that can send agenda it's motion to approved thank you oh we got a motion by Mr bias I I think Mr Abel's might have had it excuse me excuse me mercy by Mr Mr Miller second by Mr Ables any further discussion uh regarding the approval of consent agenda all in favor of approval of the consensus Mr Bass that motion carries unanimously with six folks Mr Mayor we have two items that need to be added to the agenda tonight one is considered consideration of ordinance number 22-025 which is a budget amendment uh and then a proclamation for National lights on after school day we just need a two-third vote from the council to amend the agenda for these two items thank you I've meant to do that first thank you do I hear a motion to amend the agenda to add consideration of ordinance number 22-025 and Proclamation for National lights on after school day public appearance so I have a motion by Mr Jones second by Mr Miller any further discussion regarding the motion to amend the agenda all right all in favor of amending the agenda to add consideration of ordinance number 22-025's new business and a public appearance for proclamation of national lights on after after school day Mr Bass yeah motion carries unanimously with six votes under public hearings this evening we have consider ordinance number 22-019 which is amending the city's zoning map by rezoning an 80 acre portion of a 294 acre tract of land located at 1501 Marshall Road from R3 to R4 we've talked about this multiple times this is the profiting question here they're proposing 237 Lots you see the full parcel outline there in red the portion that they're requesting to rezone is in white um staff recommended a approval to R4 the zoning committee recommended approval to R4 and the Planning Commission recommended approval to R4 Ms Coleman is here the developer is here and this is a caring and this is second public hearing on this yes sir is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor of proposed ordinance number 22-019 good evening again state your name and position yes I'm Tricia Jason I'm with four star the developer good to see everybody again Mr mayor council I'd like to thank Mr Jones and the church that we attended to for facilitating the public here in the public meeting that we had last week I believe it was a good form for everybody to express their concerns and I think it ended in very good positive dialogue for the majority um and I appreciate the time and effort and since you guys are familiar with anything I just wanted to say I'm here to answer any additional questions that you have I guess what what was your take from that public meeting that was last week yeah it was last week excuse me um no I think it went really well I I understand a lot of the concerns that the neighbors have development is happening all over the city and there are concerns for improvements and transportation and stuff needed to be addressed and discussed sorry I just got out of the car and I do think that having the opportunity to discuss with them in person we were able to get a good dialogue going and express some things that maybe they weren't aware of previously Mr Jones did an excellent job of facilitating and I do believe it has been a very good dialogue I mean were there any additional agreements and principles to to present before us or just essentially the dialogue no sir it was just a dialogue and that concerns for Marshall Road kind of overwhelmed and added to the concerns for the development thank you any first questions thank you is there anybody else that wishes to speak in favor of proposed ordinance number 22-019 well the record reflector or none is there anyone that wishes to speak in opposition to proposed ordinance number 22-019 friends with coordinating at 5 Marshall Road and uh like you like you said ma'am the meeting was great I appreciate you um mayor council for uh for hearing us out on that it brought a lot of clarity is what it did um for me and all the ones I'm representing is more for what we need on Marshall Road Mr Jones knows that I did send you all an email late last night I apologize I didn't get to it early hopefully you had time to look over um I'm not going to read it all around here but the thing is all of you can be voting on this tonight so I would like to have some input from all of you on you know how you can help us and help Mr Jones in supporting us on Marshall Road I know it's not all your Awards but all of you have a vote so if you're you know I don't think R3 was ever a consideration because there was never a plan for R3 I think R4 was pretty much the way it was going to be for the Diego so you know we're gonna have to live with that we got four years that we know that the um HOA is going to be able to take over so that I'm you know that that helps us on that side but the big the concerns Is Us on Marshall Road um you'll hear something from some of the others here in a little bit but we've got some needs that need to be improved in that Community um basically like I said you're being you're building a resort on our beach so help us make the beach better thank you is there anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition a proposed ordinance number 22-019 hello I'm Michael Thomas address 920 Marshall Road uh I am right there at developers entrance and exit you're gonna have two entrances two x's to the whole facility 236 or so which is a lot of people uh they want to resign for R4 which means it can be a lot more than that without any more input from anybody else once they get the R4 it's just a matter of what we can make more money if we do more houses period that's that's what it is uh where it's at R3 they can do these houses the Lots would have to be a little bit bigger but they never considered a proposal for all R3 this is strictly a proposal with lot sizes for R4 uh my concern is is not only am I going to have all those people flooding in and out of where my driveway is but instead of being 230 something it will be 330 something because they can not they are will or anything like that they can and I don't know about anybody else's recollection of recent history but if the opportunity to make more money is there that's usually the path that's traveling uh I'd like to stay zoned as an R3 they can redo the plan same amount of structures the lot has to be a little bit bigger I think so uh and that will keep it at the number of homes they're talking about I know that's more money on their part but I'm sorry my home being right there at the entrance and exit is a safety hazard as is with 200 or something but thank you for hearing me I'm Michael Thomas and I appreciate it [Music] is anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition to propose ordinance number 22-019 I'm Bill Hart I live in the Woodfield neighborhood uh keeping its R3 it would be the best for everyone uh the developer can still make money on R3 the City of Greenwood can still make money on all the houses uh the schools will not be overburdened any more than they already are by keeping it R3 uh look at the picture behind you there are a lot of houses in that little area there's three three-story houses that go straight up no room in between the houses no yard for the kids to play uh and it also looks like to me this is Phase One of possible three-phase uh a deal maybe going on uh but it does look like phase one to me so I would ask that we keep it R3 or the best of everyone Greenwood to schools and Iowa Community thank you thank you is there anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition a proposed ordinance number 22-019 let the record reflect our knowing and uh the ordinance in front of us the second reading is specifically for the change from R3 to R4 that's great because that's how it was brought forward from Planning Commission right do I hear a motion with regard to ordinance number 22-01 before you get to the motion man I just want to ask a question so it was already in R3 it's currently R3 they've requested R4 okay R3 is three units an acre our fours four units an acre according uh how many I guess this is your question but Draper how many houses would be an R3 yeah well I think as I understand I will answer as I understand it I think they could build 240 homes we have someone that's speaking right now sorry Carol Collins Greenwood City County Planning um the question of how many you could have there I'd have to do a few calculations it would probably take down to about 20 percent less um if we calculate it based on the minimum area for a lot and R3 is about a third of an acre 14 000 square feet plus the minimum square footage for a lot and this is what we purchase a quarter acre 10 000 square feet so you have to calculate in uh the rights of way the widths the ponds the pond areas what wetlands are there everything that could come out what they're doing with the reduced size Lots is maximizing obviously for the property they have that's available to develop so it's it's more economical to develop narrower Lots because you have you reduce the linear feet of development for infrastructure and I'm sure that's where they're going with it I mean I think the calculations have already been done was it not 240. so what's your so 237 I think what she's saying is that if you take 80 acres and you say I can build four units an acre that's 320 houses if you take 80 acres at three units an acre you just do quick math is 240 but what she's saying is there's wetlands in areas that can't be built on so if you assume 20 less than this you would be about 190. so 20 you can take out because you have to you're calculating for right-of-way widths things that aren't part of developable area crude math would say you could do crude math would be 80 acres times four units an acre 320 in our four and 240 in our three but we know you can't develop every inch of it so what Carol was saying is that if you assume this similar layout with larger Lots you're looking at 20 percent less which is about 190 versus 237. okay and that's more realistic because um when you say so many units per acre that's strictly based on math and there's a whole lot there are a whole lot of variables that you have to remove from the calculations when you're looking at laying out a land plan now when planning to approve this was they looking at just the homes are they looking at the people going in the homes that's going to be coming out of those like the families what the company comprehend the fact that a planning commissioner member who rightly so questions every time something comes in as to do we need the number of homes that are coming online well from what we understand and from what I know living down on the coast for so long we are behind the eight ball and providing homes for people so um so you just looked at the number of homes that we need for Greenwood we're looking at that we're looking at the location we're looking at what the current infrastructure says and again the the long the long range um goals for the comprehensive plan the future land use has this identified as medium density residential which is even higher density than what they're proposing okay and the and we say we just planning staff there is Black or White based really on what the comprehensive plan the plan commission can take into account some other right factors and the way I usually explain it is we're going to look at the just the nuts and bolts of it the Planning Commission can bring in a little bit more of the altruistic ideas and everything and then you are the lucky ones as elected officials you get to bring in the politics um so we're not looking at it in terms so much of what people think or you know what the warm fuzzies are of it we're looking at it strictly in black and white and and what the zoning ordinance says what the comprehensive plan says you know what we can handle it doesn't mean we don't listen to those comments and I put everything I take everything very seriously that everybody here is saying but it's not our recommendations are usually based on what the elected officials have put in place for us to refer to thank you any further questions from Miss Coleman anything else you need to educate us on it's not time if you want to outside you're welcome to thank you Miss Coleman appreciate it I think right now Brian looking at the I know the infrastructure and that we do need more homes here in Greenwood but I'm also looking at the fact that you're looking at single you know single family homes you're looking at two cars per house you're going to buy that 237 times two you're looking at 400 over 400 out 400 cars possibly come into a two-lane Street I mean there's if you look at it it's only what entrance now there was another exit or you know coming out of that development maybe onto uh 25 you know I can kind of see but I can see the concern of the residents being that you got all these homes which is good and we do need them but you got all that's coming into one street which is now coming back into their neighborhood and coming across the young man's right in front of his home um you know there's that's concern there with me I think they should be should have been another another exit or another entrance uh because we do know that uh the intersection that the red light is considered hazardous for walking traffic for children going across the street they can't even ride bikes they can't even walk really across the street the people from that neighborhood has to have to take their kids to the school which is right up the street so you're looking at 400 more kids being added to that that's a big concern I think this is a good discussion you may uh some good points for discussion purposes Mr Jones technically under Robert's Rules of Order we we need a motion and a second really before any further substantive discussion and I'll entertain if anyone has a motion for ordinance uh for proposed ordinance number 22-019 so we can further that discussion if necessary to further that is good I'll make a motion to further the discussion so a motion to consider ordinance number 22-019 is that your emotion no I was more making the most to discussion well are you talking about technically under Robert's Rules of Order if there's not a motion in the second made we really don't have anything to discuss and it would die right there I got you I thank you you know you don't have to talk and I think it is a worthy discussion but if no one makes a motion uh to consider that then we technically don't have anything to discuss okay last call for a motion to consider audience number 22-019 so without a motion it would be made aren't the reason s the motion needs to be to approve or deny I don't think it can be part of the motion to move the discussion gotcha right so without hearing a motion are you are you I feel like I need a timeout I need a time out for discussion about whether it just dies without emotion I'm not I'm not sure that's accurate I feel like there needs to be some kind of vote one way or the other even if it's a vote to deny which leads to discussion that's fine so there needs to be some kind of motion and discussion there needs to be some kind of action from the body yeah yeah they don't take action yeah we have to have some some kind of action whether it's approval or denial doesn't matter to the staff but I don't think you can just leave it hanging out there so if somebody wants to make a motion to deny that's fine you can make a motion to approve and discuss it it can fail you can make another motion you can make a motion for NPR you can do all sorts of things however something has to happen if there was a motion to consider NPR would that requires two readings no sir I'm just I'm just giving you options all right we have a we're of motion by Mr motion by Mr Abel's to deny ordinance 22-019 a second second by Mr Jones um Mr Bass I know you would you had started the discussion or you started to chime in but you are now first person in the discussion regarding Mr Abel's motion to deny ordinance number 22-019 I will let the discussion continue because that was not gonna be my motion that was what that was what not going to be it's not going to be your emotional well do you have any any discussion Thoughts with regard to the motion that is on the table not in regards do we have any further discussion regarding the motion to deny ordinance number 22-019 so if we go with the motion that's in place to deny then you're talking about a hundred and possibly 190 homes versus 237. if you go with R3 versus R4 developer would have to decide if they wanted to continue the development under R3 and if they did then they would have to rework their proposed site plan I'll tell you that we've discussed previously with them R3 we've we talked about our three and it's been a lot of months and a lot has happened since then so I'm looking back there at Patricia to make sure I get this right but I'm I'm pretty sure that it didn't the numbers don't work for them to build it at R3 and I think I've said before just a fact but you have to say it developers don't come into Greenwood and for altruism right I mean they they want to provide what they know we need which is housing but their goal is to make money that's why you start a business and so if the numbers don't work the development doesn't happen and so when we discussed R3 the numbers did not work and so our three likely leaves this not developed I'm I'm not saying that 100 I'm just telling you based on the conversations we've had so I don't think I'm not sure that the debate about the number of lots matters because I don't think this particular developer can make those numbers work sure yeah I I would say I think this is one of those the reason why we passed and then subsequently amended the MBR ordinance so that with these type of developments they could say hey we're going to build we're actually going to build less than what we could build if we kept it R3 and maybe that's true but there's nothing that we can do to to to hold their feet to the fire because well I certainly take you all at your word a second developers or the subsequent developer could come in and change it all up based on the zoning so I I obviously y'all could have built or three without having to come before us at all but I certainly think this is more appropriate for the MPR statute that we just passed I think that was almost the reason why we passed it but considering that the motion that's on the table is not a motion to amend to NPR it's motion to deny I think we have one thing to to vote on at this point Mr Mayor I agree with you 100 matter of fact I'll I'll explain um where I was going with a potential motion but I was going to make a motion to approve NPR with a additional um egress exit uh whatever we want to call it in terms of a motion that was what my suggestion was going to be and also support with the developer to find a suitable location for those exits so that it would not be the residents on Marshall Road and that wasn't approved by dot correct so there aren't any other on the property options there's no other alternatives for egress they do but dot wouldn't let them go in that angle right toward 25 there um [Music] I should say any further discussion regarding the motion to deny ordinance number 22-019 all in favor of denial of ordinance number 22-019 Mr Bass yes all opposed all right that motion carries uh voted four to two okay so the motion was to deny and four in favor of denial is that right okay I like to keep us on our toes is it possible for us to make another motion to consider NPR didn't the motion just pass well it was a we denied the request to rezone right but now we can so procedurally if they are seeking NPR I mean we could have changed it up between first and second reading without another reading but uh if it's something they've got to go before back before Planning Commission then perhaps it's something we could further discuss if if the request or if you make a motion to have them Zone to something that's more restrictive than what they're asking for it does not have to go in front of Planning Commission you can send it back as a courtesy but if you were trying to reduce like if they had asked for Par Four and you've sent it back for our five that it would have to go back so in this case the the NPR would be more restrictive than the straight zoning at R4 okay but I think my question is can we still do at least two well I guess technically your vote was to deny our four so not here yeah not really a trip thing honestly it's really more of a clerk had that motion been made before Mr Abel's motion we would have been able to consider considered correct I think you can consider it now if you want to make sure to go into something else okay okay but I have a question before you do that the vote was born too and and what's the other amendment's problems me okay well so I'll make a motion to consider NPR zoning with the plan already presented with the plan that's already been presented I have a motion by Mr Miller second by Miss Bowles any discussion regarding that motion so so that discussion is so you're saying uh NPR with the proposed but they already have here but this way yes so at least and I think in the discussions we've had before maybe not with this development specifically but I know it's been brought up a lot of times that they you know I don't know if this in this case it's possible but I think the questions are always there if they sell it anybody can put more property more more houses based on the zoning you know and they're they are leaving open space that's because of the clustering but um you know this just gives an opportunity for us to say this is what you've proposed this is any Amendments have to go back through Planning Commission and Council um the R3 they can't change anything is that right so this is still what they were proposing under R4 but it blocks them from being able to add they couldn't come back say we sold it to another developer and they want to put 320 is now joining in there this hotel's on the car now um do you have everything you need from the developer to satisfy the MPR I would like a more of a narrative um we have some narrative but if they would if you could submit something to us in writing describing it um just as far as the plan goes this is their best case scenario so this is the best they could possibly hope to achieve if they move forward and they get into it they may find out they may not be able to get this number of lots and it probably is going to go down some but that that would be the worst case scenario for the community we don't need we're not taking any comments in the crowd that's for order but um again you know they haven't done the kind of research at this point at the zoning phase typically they haven't done as much research as they will once they get into the planning of it the land planning and everything else so you would you would request maybe just some further details regarding conditions right in there and the narrative would give us um you know the absolute minimum standards for the lot size um what the lot widths would would not go beyond or below a certain point which is the the standard for that District um the number they're proposing how much area they propose to have in open space uh how much area that they're leaving open outside of that that's not really considered recreational weapons based or passive open space where their wetlands are and everything else is there anything we can do tonight uh pending final approval of the details in under NPR the old I think technically you could you could make you could approve it conditionally upon the receipt of the narrative that satisfactory to staff and it can be brought back forward to at a later time to as an update of information this would be our third hearing public hearing second public hearing I mean I think some match some in my opinion as a city manager some action needs to be taken on this property tonight and the subdivision still has to go in front of Planning Commission so they can they can we can look at it at that point and make some more suggestions for you know ways to make it better um again I agree with everybody up there I would love to have seen another point of Ingress and egress that that was my biggest source of heartburn looking at it from day one but usually a subdivision has to go back for Council the Planning Commission excuse me an ambr I mean so if we were to approve the motion as NPR it still has to go back before right all you're giving them is zoning approval at this point so it still has to go to Planning Commission we'll have to look at it we'll have um it will go to the utilities Coordinating Committee it'll go to everybody that's looking at development in the community and we have to make sure that everybody is aware of what's going forward you know we'll talk with water sewer roads Highway Department everybody that's involved and then it goes to Planning Commission and again Planning Commission has the ability to say well you know one of the things one of my concerns looking at it is do we have any any cul-de-sacs that are too long because you can only have a cul-de-sac that's so long without having turnaround points for emergency vehicles this is only a preliminary look at what they think they can do and so Council only approves the zoning and then the detail level site review of the plant of the of the subdivision plan goes through Planning Commission that never comes back to city council and when I said best case scenario in worst case scenario what I meant was for a developer that's the most Lots they could hope to achieve because that's the way this was drawn the you know the the developer went in and said we want to see that absolute maximum number of lots we could hope to achieve with this lot size minimum so the best case scenario for developer is always the worst case scenario for the community meaning this is the impact you could get realistically that number is going to go down some and the impact on the community will go down some as well so so technically what you're telling me is that they can go down on houses absolutely okay so they don't have to have 237. they still control they're invest in that they're not obligated to the number they can't go over that number um they they most likely will come in under that number well you you made it perfectly clear what you said this is good for the developer but it's not good for the community so um they would not if this is the plan you're attaching to it with the NPR that was the understanding is that we're kind of creating parameters around it Beyond just what the zoning minimum standards are so we wouldn't expect to see anything more than that and that would be our job kind of as Watchdogs to say well this is what you agreed to when you went through those on eBay all right thank you any further questions for Ms Coleman thank you thank you any further discussion regarding the motion that's on the table to consider NPR for this as as drawn but a Godly with some further details to be ironed out we want to catch Nikki up on what we're for the property on Marshall Road um to be zoned NPR from r31 right NPR as proposed on the drawing any do you have any further questions Nikki or Jonathan any further discussion not R3 we voted to do not go R4 well it's the that's correct but if you recall is actually less than the number that they could build in R3 right now technically um so what we've what we've done we've basically denied the the audience that's on the floor that was on the floor that's denied now we're doing something else that's right okay so to answer your question right here with that is denied so they're trying to go with the NPR you're right don't worry that is the way it was drawn if they were to proceed as ours before you go go into growing I mean that drawing is for our forward is not nothing to do with arthritis but but the number of lots are technically less than what you could put in R3 as Ms Goldman said once it's factored for um wetlands and some other stuff it's undoubtedly going to be less than 237. but we just don't know exactly right now just doing the math with 80 acres but you've got 320 and two 320 at R4 and 240 and R3 but not all of that land is usable land the reason they were going there is for the benefits of of R4 without having to actually before everything was R4 the entire thing is our form in other words they're going to have to have 240 or less is that correct 237 or less well you're saying with the NPR you're saying just as it is right now yeah well I think Ms Dolan's saying if if at the end of the day NPR is to is to make sure we have an agreement in place but if at the end of the day there are less which it sounds like there will be less than 237 buildable Lots then they don't have to they can still be in agreement with the NPR building less than two rights they just can't exceed it and I think councilman Miller said it at one point that they clustered the design and from a planning standpoint that's what you'd like to see is that they put more of the homes in one section and then leave more open space available so if they were doing it in the R3 and they were doing it based on the minimum lot size mathematically they would have every single place on that property would show part of a lot so instead of doing that drawing it that way which I've actually seen people do before they actually clustered the development so that the housing the houses or the lots have a smaller lot area but they put them together in kind of pods for development this one has more open space than you normally see in something like this but that's their hope to try to get to the number they need to make make it work and it's every linear feet of road is what they are looking at and what by Road I mean the right-of-way I mean the delivery of services so water sewer anything else that goes along with it so that clarifies it a little bit but we actually have language in the cluster development to allow for density bonuses so we want to encourage people to put the development in portions of a piece of property like an overall lot and if that makes it better on a lot of different like on a lot of different levels we get more open space hopefully we can save some trees we end up with less impervious surface so that that's the goal thank you any further discussion regarding devotional only take the girls um I think with um and this is for the developer too just if this is approved if there's a possibility to make you work with DOT on some small improvements on Marshall I know you guys worked with them a little bit on Cambridge too I think that would be good and I think there are things that we can do too on the city side of things but I think at least on dot if we could all work with them on some that can be done whether or not they're recommended by dot I think that would be good right I would encourage discussion because we could pass this and developer says we didn't we don't want NPR and you know it does theirs I would if we are to do this and y'all are still interested in pursuing this further out of Courage continued discussion with all stakeholders all right a little further discussion regarding the motion for NPR for this property all in favor of the motion to approve amending the city of Greenwood's official zoning map by rezoning an 80 plus or minus acre portion of a 293.74 plus or minus acre tract of land located at 1501 Marshall Road from R3 medium density residential to NPR Mr bias and Miss Otto yes yes all right all opposed all right that motion carries to the voted five to two Coleman will work with the developer on a narrative that's satisfactory to the staff and we'll bring it back to you all this information once uh it's in a position where we feel comfortable with it okay I think she said she already had a semblance of a narrative but wanted something more country thank you if there's anything else you need to just just let us know all right under public hearings item number two is to consider ordinance number 22-021 amending uh ordinance 17014 this is uh International property maintenance code we had mentioned previously that this is um the international property maintenance code was adopted by City Council in 2017. we are adding some more restrictive Provisions which we are allowed to do by law you can be more restrictive but not less restrictive in order to aggressively get rid of some dilapidated structures and eyesores in our community uh so we've talked about this pretty up well at length so I'm not going to go into any more detail here unless Council has specific questions you'd like for us to answer is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor of proposed ordinance number 22-021 let the record reflect there are none is there anyone that wishes to speak in opposition to proposed ordinance number 22-021 reflect 99 do I hear a motion motion to approve ordinance 22-021 second all right we have a motion by Mr Miller second by Ms Bowles any further discussion regarding ordinance number 22-021 all in favor of ordinance number 22-021 Miss Otto yeah Mr Boss yes that motion carries unanimously the seven votes foreign public appearance item number one is recognize Mr Anthony price executive director of The Grooming pathway house for a proclamation for National hunger and homelessness Awareness Week thank you my name is Anthony price with Greenwood pathway house and I want to thank you for um considering hunger and homelessness awareness week and have several of our Community Partners here with us so I just quickly want to tell you that this week in November is designed to draw awareness all across the country to hunger and homelessness and that we are hoping to use this time to educate the people of Greenwood about hunger and homelessness in our community and give them opportunities that they can engage in that fight with us so I was um y'all guys come on up here so we can they've been having a long day already Greenwood pathway house helps people overcome homelessness permanently and I will just tell you that our request for services are up 39.4 percent over last year this time so we're definitely seeing the need and I'll pass the mic to my partnership thank you Council I'm Andrea white the executive director for the food bank in Brooklyn County and as Anthony shared we are also seeing um quite a few people in our organization this month alone we have already fed a thousand people and the numbers are continuing to grow since I've been there so thank you all for allowing us to share this moment and to talk about hunger and homelessness in Greenville County my name is Justin Chalet I'm the community engagement and data specialist for United Way at the lakelands we have also seen a great need for a lot of the the work and the food Arena as well as homelessness as part of the United Way we've been hosting an ESG program and an era program where we've been able to assist over 225 households in prevention for homelessness as well as give out seven hundred and ten thousand dollars to assist other community organisms organizations in preventing homelessness as well statistic hey I'm Candace Timmerman from mix house I'm the director of Housing and many of you all know that we have a shelter but many of you may not know that we have housing programs for the homeless so we have 47 units in the community and we are serving 57 people in our housing units right now and actually we do our homeless point in time count every January we'll be gearing up to do that we don't have our exact numbers from 2021 yet but in 2020 we had 118 homeless people in Greenville so um we appreciate your support thank you guys my name is Mark Derwin and I am case manager for project hope one of the homeless programs at Meg's house and my program specifically is for chronically homeless individuals with a disability so I'm director of Greater Greenwood United Ministry our organization addresses hunger through well we have about 1200 people that we assist with crisis and Free Medical Services every year and the crisis Ministry has an emergency food pantry we don't take anything from this wonderful lady over here with the food bank she does a wonderful job but we have an emergency food pantry for our own patients and clients and already this year we have put out 10 000 pounds of food just for them we have a community garden which we have just partnered with the United Way to Grow even bigger it was for our patients predominantly over the last three years but now we're going to be able to do it for our community this next year so we're super excited about that and we serve as the medical home for the residents at the Greenwood pathway house and the community but I wanted to just part it point out how we assist with our homelessness in our community garden it is if you look at the front of our building is to the left and it's kind of hidden but the United Way has done four larger raised beds that actually have seats on them now so we can incorporate handicap so anyone that's handicapped which I found somebody today that wants to come and help us with the garden this fall we have access for that as well well that's great another contact the community how do you contact the community are they referred to you for the garden yes well like I said we've only been doing it for our patients over the last three years and with this expansion we're going to be able to offer it to that Community around greater Greenwood United Ministry so we'll be getting it out with flyers and Facebook and word spreads pretty quickly thank y'all and I also just Tracy Brandon bedenbaugh from Piedmont Agency on agents he couldn't be here tonight she does the Meals on Wheels but that's another important partner in this fight I wanted to recognize them also sure sure great thank you all well as as we we often tell the community if government isn't going to be able to solve all the problems so it takes a team of non-profit volunteers like y'all to to help us solve problems like hunger and homelessness and I being the eternal optimist I know we will get there eventually so even though it was a proclamation we could have I'm grateful that y'all showed up because it's part of awareness of hunger and homelessness so um I'll come on over here and read it we have a proclamation for National hunger and homelessness Awareness Week in Greenwood South Carolina whereas the week prior to Thanksgiving is recognized as National hunger and homelessness Awareness Week and whereas mayor Brandon a Smith and the city council Greenwood City Council recognized hunger and homelessness continue to be a serious problem for many individuals and families in Greenwood and whereas the purpose of this Proclamation is to inform and educate the public about local hunger and homelessness and whereas many organizations in dreamwood are committed to Sheltering and providing Supportive Services such as meals and food supplies to disenfranchise people and where our citizens can engage in community service opportunities to advance support for Hunter and homeless assistance service providers so now therefore uh Brandon A Smith along with the Greenwood City Council hereby Proclaim November 12th through the 22nd 2022 as hunger and homelessness awareness week we encourage all citizens to recognize that many people do not have adequate food or housing and need support from citizens businesses and private slash public non-profit service entities cool we'll sign that I knew this was requested by Anthony buttons thank you good job come here can you get all nervous anymore absolutely all right one two and three thank you I'm preparing side number two was um added to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting and this is to recognize Sabrina Miller executive directors Boys and Girls Club of the lakelands for a proclamation for National lights on after school day all right and and Sabrina had actually asked for those in terms of her attendance that's probably it's brought it on me for dropping the ball letting her know I think I told her we were adding it to the agenda but didn't necessarily tell her she needed a few years so in terms of awareness uh I I would also that I am I know this is a proclamation but I am a board member of the Boys and Girls Club of the lakelands um but I think without any binding um matter here I think this is appropriate for me to read I have a proclamation for National lights on after school day whereas the city council of Greenwood stands firmly committed to qualify to Quality after school programs and opportunities because they provide safe challenging and engaging learning experiences that help children develop social emotional physical and academic skills support Working Families by ensuring their children are safe and productive after the regular school day ends build stronger communities by involving students parents Business Leaders and adult Volunteers in the lives of young people thereby promoting positive relationships among youth families and adults engage families schools and Community Partners in advancing the welfare of our children and whereas during the covid-19 pandemic after-school programs have risen to the moment to support Youth and our critical supports to help youth recover from this challenging time and address their academic social and emotional needs after school programs provide engaging Hands-On learning and opportunities to connect with caring adults and peers during the pandemic programs have innovated to provide remote learning support virtual programming care for children of essential workers meal sport Wellness check-ins and more today programs are supporting young people and families as they navigate and return to school and will continue to innovate to meet ever-changing needs and whereas Boys and Girls Club of the lakelands region has provided significant leadership in the area of community involvement and the education and well-being of our youth grounded in the principle that quality after school programs are key to helping our children become successful adults it was lights on after school the national celebration of after school programs held this year on Thursday October 20th 2022 the most importance of quality after school programs in the lives of children families and communities it whereas more than 28 million children in the U.S have parents who work outside the home and 7.7 million children have no place to go after school and whereas many after school programs across the country are facing funding shortfalls so severe that they're being forced to close their doors and turn off their lights now therefore our Brandon Smith mayor of the City of Greenwood do hereby Proclaim Thursday October 20th 2022 as National lights on after school day it earns the citizens of Greenwood South Carolina to ensure that every child has access to a safe engaging place where the lights are on after school as my enthusiastically endorse lights on after school and I'm committed to Innovative after school programs and activities that ensure the light stay on and the doors stay open for all children after school and I'll make sure you get this to exit Dean Miller thank you all for listening and the awareness moving on to new business item number one is to consider ordinance number 22-023 amending ordinance 20-003 which is to Consolidated restate a healthcare ordinance for participation by the city and the cost of health insurance for retirees so if you recall in the past we had a lot of ordinances related to retirement we Consolidated them all back in 2020. part of that ordinance includes a cap basically it's the cap amount that we'll pay for retirees and that cap historically covers 100 percent of those benefits with the recent increases that have been passed down by piba the current cap in the ordinance which is 725 dollars is not enough and so we need to increase it to twelve hundred dollars that gives us some cushion so that we don't have to come back again and again to increase it um we feel like that should get us that should bias about three years before we have to come back and ask you to increase it again so that's what this ordinance will do and you all may remember us doing this before in the past as well all right do I hear a motion motion to improve ordinance number 22023 section the motion by Ms Bowles second by Mr Miller any further discussion regarding ordinance number 22-023 you think that'll cover you know that'll cover a big increase next year too I don't know right now what their increase is going to be so we feel okay with the 1200 who's who's to say we might have to ask y'all to change it again next year we do have retirees though that have been rolling off of our books which has been decreasing sort of our liability so that's you know we and we told you guys a long time ago that that would eventually start to happen so as people reach Medicare age and they roll off of the city's retirement so any further discussion all in favor of ordinance number 22-023 Mr bias yes Miss Otto yep motion carries unanimously with seven buttons under new business item number two is to consider ordinance number 22-024 uh rezoning 97.85 acres of land located at 875 New Market and 1080 bypass 25 Southeast from R2 in General commercial to our seven this is one I believe at least some of you are familiar with as we've met with developers uh and council members in these Wards this property is directly across from Wesley Commons on 221 and then the back side of this backs up to New Market Street um the developers are again requesting our seven currently the property is a split zone of R2 and GC future land use shows it as high density residential and Commercial development this is the proposed site plan 353 single-family homes staff recommends approval zoning recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Carol is here and I know she'll answer any questions you guys have about this one Carol tells anything else we need today well this one was when I mentioned in the earlier discussion about having adequate access this one ticked that box much better than the Marshall Road Project because this has two points of Ingress in Ingress on on New Market and two points of interest and Congress on the bypass also there is a three acre portion that was left out of the commercial area that they want to maintain this commercial so it's not included in the research that's up here right but it's right up there and they have they've made some suggestions possibly in daycare but I'm I commented that in my assessment that a well brought out commercial parcel could be very beneficial not only to this community but to even what's the commons you know if it is uh retail or anything along those lines they do have um believe it or not they do have a a lot of open space in there because they show it between the between the Lots they're keeping kind of little buffer areas between the lots that they back up to they have active open space for recreation um as the city manager said this area and the future land use category was shown as high density residential so even as shown like this which is much more developed as a plan than the previous one we looked at it still comes in as less than high density development it's in the medium density range so I think that's why it went it went over fairly well Planning Commission the one hold out on the boat the one the one they vote was the person who asked do we really need this number of homes in Greenway and the applicants here agents here I think one thing the applicant said they're they're out of Spartanburg and he said we actually had a meeting with Upstate counties and local governments and we've been told over and over and over again that we need more homes so that's why they're still pursuing this developer is Mark III uh which is the developer of the Greenwood High parcel and then the the Florida Ave Alpine Ridge near Ben Benjamin Mays Elementary which is moving forward right it's actually moving forward now so and the same thing goes for this as I said on the other one this is just the zoning phase this is absolute maxing out the property as they can propose it that doesn't mean that's what's going to be put on the ground was uh with an eight to one vote were there anybody there in favor at the Flaming commission Hearing in favor opposed um real grilling was from a Planning Commission member so because there wasn't anyone in the game The Voice approval or disapproval now we get we did I did get a number of calls on it um you know people were asking about the signs because we posted it in a number of locations um even made a suggestion that one thing they could do is be cognizant of the fact that there's a cemetery on New Market that I think is considered abandoned it doesn't have a church associated with it maybe um and a lot of concern about what's going to happen with that property moving forward so maybe they could help us Shore it up a little bit and preserve it I would like to discuss with someone about that Cemetery because there is it's some attention it's really getting close to the church they used to maintain that assist with maintaining that that Cemetery at one time years ago and and it could be that we can track down who might be willing to do it I mean my family is actually in one of the older cemeteries in town and Main Street Methodist took it over so yeah there's a Eagle Scout project that I helped with um in that one and probably a good Eagle Scout project that's exactly what I suggested that um depending on how spooky it's it's as close to the road as it can be it is there's a chance that that I mean I think a couple of Threes are already kind of compromised yeah um not by anything anyone has done but just over time erosion just yeah I agree thank you any other questions for you it's Goldman thank you all right do I hear a motion with a guard oh goodness let's get back to it until I revolution with regard to proposed ordinance number 22-024 motion to approve I have the motion by Mr Miller's second by Miss Bowles ordinance number 22-024 this is what this is just first reading right down below this is his first Arena right right and I know we we uh we typically at least now do public appearance of public hearings in our second reading right so I'd certainly interested in what what the public has to say and and I want to try to stay on point here and I think this is but with some of our brothers I talked to Draper about this um the other day just from his Vantage Point coming from that uh planning department that Ms Coleman made you have some insight into this just before I forget I really think as I understand pursuant to State Statute we have to at least partially update our comprehensive plan every 10 years is that correct yeah really it's it sorry every five years we should look at it and and update it and physically update it if necessary but a lot of that can be just moving forward and assessing what your goals and objectives were and where you are in achieving those or if you need to change those and maybe amend those a little bit but it helps that if we go back and look at it so that when we come forward again for the next 10-year rewrite we've actually got something in our back pocket that we're really just starting from 10 years ago but I guess I just want to make sure I think we if I'm understanding correctly we're encouraged to do it every five years but statutorily required to do it every excuse me encourage you every five years statutory required to do it every 10 years yeah the five year is an update to what you wrote five years previously so you're looking basically they want you to look at every five years and and every other look is a complete rewrite so that's why we say it's an update after five years and and then a complete rewrite after the next five years yeah I mean I think if you were to 5 10 whatever years ago when this was last updated if you were to look at that and see the the future land use of that in the comprehensive plan basically I don't know I think once you've approved a number of them it's worthwhile revisiting yes the remaining it's only classifications because I don't think that a comprehensive plan accounts for every single one of those being the undeveloped Parcels being developed right it does not and then you want to look and see what capacity you chipped away at because you don't want to overheard in certain communities and that's one thing that the county manager asked me when I came on board how can we encourage people to go to parts of the county that are that are right for development that may not be seeing development we provide incentives we make it more attractive for people to live there and we can actually do the same thing in the in the city well I know we we have a joint Planning Department towing City County Planning department but I would certainly love to look into the cost of updating that plan sooner rather than later and if the if the county would be willing to join in any costs in doing so definitely and I will say that it is a well done plan I was very very well I mean I was really happy when I read it the first time sure and that's why I said I don't know that any of us having issues with the with the plan but once you've approved some not all of them are going to get developed but based on what we anticipate we'll be developed I think it's a an opportunity for us to to take a look at the remaining portions anyway that that may have that discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting great we do have a motion on the table um any further discussion regarding proposed organs number 22-024 and again this is first reading we will we we will have I think getting to the second really allows public input for us to learn more so all in favor on first reading of ordinance number 22-024 masato yes Mr Bass yes all right that motion carries unanimously with seven bucks under new business item number three is to consider ordinance number 22-025 amending ordinance uh number 21-035 which is the city of Greenwood's Hospitality budget for this year um we apologize that uh we asked the agenda to be amended there's just a couple things that we need to address in the hospitality tax and we need Council to approve those items to be pulled from our fund balance and into the the H Tax budget um we're requesting 19 000 five dollars for a stage and we actually already purchased the stage we thought we had funding to cover it in a separate account and only recently realized we did not and so we need to round out the stage the other stage we had for any of you've ever stood on it it was a little scary we actually had a band who said we will not stand on that stage again ever it really needed to be replaced from a safety standpoint so we have already purchased the stage from Hospitality tax and then there was a water line extension and the Maxwell Avenue alley to assist the the growing businesses along there the the water line stopped Midway up and in order for a lot of those businesses to be able to renovate those buildings and go into those buildings on that upper portion of Maxwell the water line had to be extended extended and so the cost to do that was twelve thousand two hundred eighty dollars and we're asking city council to allot that money from our htax fund balance into the into the um 2022 budget please um motion to approve second of a motion by Mr Miller second by Mr Eagles I know we mentioned the stage has been purchased Lord I know we were using because there was supply chain issues or something we were the vendor had provided another stage while this that we got in the actual stage okay is it it's not like hydraulic yeah they tried though they did I did try those are what kind of stuff are we buying here those are really neat what happened to the old we still have it because some of the pieces you can use in a smaller I think it's wise for us to keep it some of the pieces are okay but we weren't able to so they piece together they're four by four they piece together in different sizes so some of them are still okay but not for us to make a large enough stage for for a full band to perform them so we can take the pieces that are still good and make a smaller stage for like if we have multiple events and we needed a local stage over here or like a jazz stage we could do something smaller so so this one would put house any typical band crap yes yes ma'am yes the backup stage before is really going to be thrown away right I would almost pay somebody to come back it is very heavy very heavy yeah but we do appreciate it was much needed um none of us I don't think could even track when the initial stage was purchased so we don't even know how long we had it but we definitely got the city's money's worth out of that stage and this stage looks really sturdy and very nice and yeah so we we feel really good about this purchase did y'all take a vote on that yeah yeah all in favor of um of an ordinance amending ordinance number 21-035 the City of Greenwood Hospitality budget for 2022. Mr Bass yes yeah I have motion carries your name is 37 votes these are including your packet also um we have a our our fall and winter events are getting ready to kick up so I would expect your calendars to be pretty inundated over the next through the end of the year and um we have the Uptown annual meeting next week is that next week Laura Tuesday the 25th so we'd love to see you all there and that is all I have this evening there are many things to do it's been a busy few weeks I know we've got a number of events throughout the remainder of October and November and then Christmas will be here before you know it I've not been able to make the steam Festival before but I've heard all the great things about it but but a band with my boys are playing there on Saturday at noon so I don't know if we've got to see these things or not but we'll be we'll be outside of Uptown Market there'll be a lot of great vendors and presentations I know of any other any other comments from City Council all right do I hear a motion to return I have a motion by Miss Bowles second by Mr Jones any further discussion I guess we'll wait till Matt comes back to me to take the official vote I don't know if you just thought I heard a door so yeah hope he washes his hands we don't want to adjourn without your input yeah um oh Jesus he's already gone yes all right that motion varies she's off the phone [Music] okay thank you emotion carries unanimously with seven buddies yeah I hope you have a good time in Spain