07/19/2016

[0:00:12] thank you this is the second or third born applesauce [Laughter] okay [Music] welcome everyone I'm now calling this meeting to order please stand with us we'll be led In Prayer by Alderman Gallagher please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance that will be led the Holloman Ferguson oh heavenly father would come before you tonight and thank you for this day that

[0:02:15] you provided for us Lord I pray that you would be with our children as they go back to school tomorrow Lord that you would keep your hand over them Lord keep them safe Lord I also pray that uh for this special election Lord that you would give the people wisdom my Lord that you would uh watch over us and keep us safe in your name we pray amen I pledge allegiance to the black of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you before we move on with the agenda tonight today was a sad day for the city of South Haven we had to uh various gentlemen that was a great servant for the city of South Haven in the state of Mississippi judge Bob Perry and if y'all will I'd like to um read a little bit of history about Judge Perry and then if you will at the end join me in a moment of silence to pay respect to judge Perry we've read some formula passing of former South Haven municipal judge Bob Perry Judge Perry passed away yesterday evening at DeSoto Healthcare in South Haven with friends and family by his side Judge Perry served as a judge in the city's municipal court for 21 years he was a graduate of Horn Lake High School class of 1949 and was inducted into Harlan High School Hall of Fame in 2009. Judge Perry was an Air Force veteran who served as state senator representing the subtle and Tech counties from 1964 to 1976. he was president pro tem of the Senate and even served a stint as acting Governor Judge Perry later served as executive assistant to Governor Cliff Finch from 1976 to 1980.

[0:04:18] Jess Perry was admitted to the Mississippi bar in January of 1964. his original Law Firm was founded in Horn Lake and then he and his Partners moved affirm to South Haven in 1967. Judge Perry often volunteered his time to serve as a judge for the annual South Haven Spring Fest barbecue competition Judge Perry has also been a lace figure and organist in the Methodist Church we're very thankful for judge Perry's contributions to our state and our city he will be missed by many and if y'all will join me for a moment of silence to pay respect to judgmentary thank you okay next on our agenda is approval of minutes for the July 19 2016 meeting Mr May remove we approved the minutes of a regular meeting in July 19 2016. 16 Corrections second we have a motion by Alderman Payne and second Alderman Kelly Missouri discussion hearing non-roll call me yes yes okay and that motion carries next on our agenda is the Roscoe Road mou and bid authorization Nick Manley you may recall this item was discussed at the last board meeting is the call sharing agreement with MMR Associates of Nebraska Road Extension uh the agreement since that time we had a couple of issues worked out with the other side our work as it relates to the cost and the sequencing of events the mou allow for

[0:06:21] the City to split the calls with immune Associates which is required to build half the road pursue into our ordinances from the subdivision the city will be the entity bidding out the project before we go to bed m r will provide an irrevocable letter of credit amount 209 900 which is represents the same portion of the project and then we will then during the course of the project either invoice them for over four months for the 25 or Draw down that letter of credit for the uh are their calls associated with the project um we'll go to this you know you allow us to go to bid as well we won't go to bed until we get the air booklet or credit from the RNR Associates um and then the uh the timeline yet after we go to our last bid we have nine days to award the bid for the mou expired neither party will have any obligations under it so that's kind of the big picture of the mou of having some questions man cordell's here as well as far as technicals other questions you have about the design but tonight bring this for your approval m r Associates has signed it and agreed to it approval for the mou and then summer motion authorized going to be available from someone and this this motion's on the mouss yes okay so we have a motion of Oliver Ferguson second Alderman Gallagher is there any discussion and I will say that just make it's clear for the minister that the city hasn't been going through this project obviously for a while from a public safety standpoint all the way through so I call share of business exciting mayor we've been waiting on this long john great is there any other discussion and just just as a reminder I think everyone understands as I mentioned at the last

[0:08:23] board meeting but this extension is the um short distance going east from Sweeney Road or dead ends now by the fire station and it will connect to uh to the home so just that short stretch will then make Roscoe an East and West Corridor that reaches all the way from uh Getwell on the east side all the way to Highway 51 on the west side so we think in addition to Public Safety it'll also serve as a help with traffic mitigation uh moving East and West so we think it's great for our city this is coming out of a bond issue right the funding our portion I'd like to refer to Chris on there on that yes thank you thank you we had um after the other projects from the bond commission a few years ago all the other ones they are roughly roughly there's about 600 000 left in that we our portion is um it's 802. right so we're we roughly may have to use a hundred thousand a little above uh from the fund balance but the majority of it will come out of the bond balance qualification okay is there any other discussion hearing non-roll call yes okay that motion carries no we need a separate for the bid to get authorized for us to go to bid on the properties so moved from the busy right back to you for a little bit right for a little bit we have a motion on the bid authorization by polarman Flores the second Alderman Ferguson is there any discussion this one has to be a little bit right because it's construction well at lowest and best and basically the low but low lowest amounts but typically

[0:10:26] I don't want to speak out typically that is but although I was in this but sometimes you will have a feeling that's higher but on your state law you can go below but once we come in like engineering to Apple evaluate that our recommendation next any other discussion hearing now and we're welcome yes yes okay that motion carries all right next on the agenda is the amendment change order I think I talked to Chris with me that's already been approved at a priority okay so we don't need to do anything else correct okay all right we'll move past that the next on our agenda is a resolution for our special election yes as the boards aware and mayor board are aware July or last meeting was Audubon kites last meeting her resignation was effective July 31 in a letter to the clerk that she submitted last week so under state law since the election or since the vacancy in office is longer than six months which would be in her term we have June 30th requires a special election state law requires that there be an election no less than 30 at no more than 45 days on a daily vacancy the vacancies July 31st we've the date suggested in the resolution is September 13th for the special election which will be 44 days from July 31st that would then go within the statute the plan would be understood while there's certain requirements for advertising the resolution the intent for the special election it's a little bit of it's quirky the way the state law works as far as an advertisement goes but it requires us to advertise within a certain amount of days that being said we'll end up advertising it five times hosting in three special places for the of election uh the deadline to qualify I'm request for a while I'm doing something ahead of the deadline I qualify the August 24th which would be 20 days prior to September 13th

[0:12:29] and Clark's office will have all the information regarding uh especially the early voting dates information over the packet so any candidate wants to pick one up and express interest in your office in addition and our next item in the agenda will be Election Commission or the later agenda item will be at the point of the contract election commissioner that'll help with the election as well um special election so tonight we seem to pass a resolution setting the special election day for September 13th um and then that will also allow for advertisement of the special election the posting of the special election and then I think tomorrow is when Canada is going to start turning in their information regarding an attempts to run they're soaking I'll be happy to answer any questions and Andrew can answer any questions um regarding this issue well this one resolution cover everything said the dates the advertisement and the vacancy yes the uh resolution the only rank this resolution does is set the date for the special election and the posting of the notice the state law state law will then comes in and tells you when everything has to be done regarding the uh populations in that type of thing okay I was just trying to make sure there wasn't we didn't have to do more than one on this I'd like to make a motion board mayor patch resolution declaring the vacancy in the office of alderman award two in the city of South Haven Mississippi and calling for a special election to feel said vacancy pursuant to section 2315 857 of the city code second we have a motion by Alderman Ferguson and a second Alderman pain is there any more discussion hearing none roll call me Kelly yes yes okay that motion carries next on our

[0:14:35] agendas Election Commission agreement this agreement is with uh Barry Chatham uh of it it depends if there's a runoff if the election is 1475 without a runoff one thousand dollars to assist our city clerk's office and the city with a special election and it's not recommended for a program so moved a second we have a motion Alderman Gallagher second Alderman Kelly during discussion hearing none roll call yes yes yes okay that motion carries next on our agenda's appointment of an another election commissioner I believe this is our last one at last meeting we discussed we have four we needed one more out tonight was on the agenda for early vodderman Gallagher has the attacks okay so we want we need a motion of the person is the that would round it out be our last one is uh Danny Thomas so we need a motion to appoint Danny Thomas I might get motion a second most modern Ferguson second Alderman Gallagher to point Danny Thomas to the election commission is there any discussion hearing none roll call him and Kelly yes yes okay that motion carries next on our agenda resolution for the filing of links this resolution that is where they've given the city according to follow the lanes for those properties that have been cut already are from downed and cut these resolutions will then be this Lanes will then be turning for assessments upon September October meetings for the go into the assessments pursuing the state law office tonight it just being a resolution to authorize filing liens for these properties for the grass being cutting that was going to be on properties

[0:16:37] just remember we adopt the resolution of the mayor Board of Alden in the city of South Haven adjudicating the cost of cleaning property and closing a penalty and posing lean of the same against property second I have a motion volume and pain second bottom in Flores is there any discussion hearing non-roll call me yes yes yes and that motion carries okay next on our agendas uh a request for board approval for supplemental agreement number three for the Elmore Road South and supplemental agreement number two for the Elmore Road North construction projects Mr Dan Cordell thank you um he had two tonight I guess I need two separate uh motions the first is the supplemental group number two for Elmore Road this is the northern section um it is basically a change of order supplemental greatness would the state uses in this matter it's basically a quantity adjustment for some overruns yes for an increase of 23 455.98 um as y'all know this work has been depleted uh this is not the final change order they're still doing quantity adjustments to come up with a final but this is within the contingency fees never recently set up in the project so it's not it's not a payment from y'all y'all already sent your money in this is just a justification of the quantities that have overrun in some areas I request y'all's approval of this supplemental agreement authorization for the mayor to sign Al so moved thank you you know the motion volume and fluores second Alderman Gallagher is there any discussion

[0:18:42] that's for the change number two right Professor number two on the north north park there was two two sections they all kind of be in the cutoff this is the normally number three the next one is number three on the southern portion two separate contracts is there any other discussion hearing noon roll call yes okay that motion carries you know I know it doesn't equal out but the next one is the supplemental agreement number three for the southern portion it is indeed up same thing as a adjustment of the as measured quantities in the field there's a deduct in the amount of four thousand and forty two dollars and four cents organization of this change of order and improved for the major design so move thank you we have a motion of alderman Ferguson a second honor and Kelly is there any discussion indeed doesn't worry any other discussion fearing none Rock Hall yes yes okay that motion carries our next on our agenda is the resolution the granting authority to clean private property so may I moved we've done to resolution creating Authority including private property is presented on the state we have most moderate pain second ballroom and Kelly is there any discussion among the board hearing none is there anyone in the audience

[0:20:43] that owns any of the mentioned properties they don't like to speak hearing or seeing none roll call yes yes yes okay and that motion carries all right next on our agendas our planning agenda is when you cook yes sir our first application is minor subdivision request for a two lot subdivision on the east side of Getwell north of Plum Point Road it's kind of nestled in uh the wooden Place Summerwood area uh the lady owns approximately 8.37 Acres she's wanting to break it down into two lots it is in a large lot residential side of the city lot one having 3.15 Acres lot two having 5.22 Acres they have provided the necessary dedicated right-of-way on the North End of the project and they have given you a small width drive there I believe it's 30 feet we have acid they put that into a formal Ingress egress before plotting it so it's a legal bonding document that gives access permanently to that back lot and I did agree to that Planning Commission but a unanimously in favor of it at that point thank you is there a motion to approve item one I'll make it motion can you tell me I'm sorry can you tell me exactly I've changed there should be an aerial photo following that um there's the street Mary Jane you know it kind of dead ends at both ends is it that no man's land in the in the middle that just has driveways that access these Lots like I said they've given us the extension area for that road but it's not built out at this point they not already been back there on

[0:22:45] partial there's one house already in existence on this I think what they want to do is break out the back path to get to a family member okay item one we had a motion volume at first and a second of alderman Kelly is there any other discussion I do have one comment with me you know the Ingress egress again I mentioned in the past because of the trouble we run into having Clarity that it's not a city street so will this be a city street or just a private yeah this will be a private Drive the dedicated the right of way that they've dedicated for Mary Jane Lane will be publicly dedicated once the road is built out but the Ingress egress that is going north and south from Mary Jane Lane down to the second lot will be a private drop in your opinion do we do we need to get anything signed by them it will be on the it will be on the documents that record that it's improving our secrets okay okay and again we just had a few situations yes we want Property Owners not not immediately when it's done but yeah down the road they come in they don't understand why the city's not maintaining the street because it's not a public street right when we plot them if we plant it as a designated Ingress egress that's essentially a legal driveway that gains access to another lot if we're going to plot it as roadway that the city takes on it will be identified as right-of-way or dedicated public Street okay I would think it's an emergency services they don't have an address to the rear lot it'll be addressed off of Mary Jane Lane it'll just be a really long driveway okay okay let's say that I mean it's a family in the front house when you drive down the drive to get to another family but in the future say these people go away and somebody else wants to buy these properties I see a problem coming with that driveway yeah but if it's Pleasant that way it's illegal bonding it's legal bindings it's

[0:24:47] legal body documents so they may not like them driving down it but it's it's their right to at that point well and that's exactly my concern that's what happened in some other areas we've had some areas that some develop 30 40 years ago and it was a private Ingress egress but then the second homeowners or other people did not understand what the city was not maintaining it and I just want to but we got legal documents I think we've had enough of them now we've just we should be psyched with this one we should be happy okay is there any other discussion on item one hearing none wrong yes yes yes okay motion carries Ohio more item number two we have an application by Billy Frazier for a veterinarian clinic on the northwest corner of Getwell Road and Cherry Place Drive it's in the Cherry Tree Subdivision the actual PUD it's going to be your northernmost entrance just south of College Road um basically we've we've reassured Titan commission and staff was reassured as well that there will not be any outdoor kennels which was a requirement for this approval as you can see on there it's designed to be residential in appearance it does have a pitched roof architectural shingles it's compiled with brick and stone it does have Cedar Accent on it the only thing that the Planning Commission requested to change was the architectural shingle color you'll see the building elevations in there and you'll see the stable materials beyond that it's kind of orangish red we toned it down to a weathered wood you stay right past there we've toned it down to a weathered wood and they did agree to that once that agreement came into play they did vote unanimously in favor of it there it's kind of a reddish brown it didn't really go along with materials

[0:26:49] that proposed for the rest of it so they came down to the weather wood which is a very standard architectural shingle color that we have on all the residential areas around there so like I said they did agree to that and we put that in the notes and it was devoted unanimously in favor of at that point I'll make that motion we have a motion Alderman Flores on item two and a second Gallagher is there any discussion very non-roll call foreign number three uh we've had many discussions on this has been in front of the Planning Commission a few times a town hall meeting I've had a few aldermen actually attend some of these meetings this is the Pinewood development and this is the property approximately 280 Acres on the south side of State Line Road between tulahoma and Getwell Road uh in 2005 the comprehensive plan was amended to allow mixed-use development in this area as opposed to large lot residential we had an application come in that requested to obviously use the hard corners for commercial bring in some office uh and then on the interior provide play business park at the first meeting at the town hall meeting obviously we had a lot of opposition mailing due to the warehousing three different Alternatives were brought into play what you see here is right before the last one and essentially what this did was shift the plan business part more towards the interior provide an area of common open space on the south side to a buffering Ansley Park which was existing Hardwoods and Pines and it actually pulled them in and brought a buffer yard along State Line Road a little bit further back so people um in the valley Grove area were not actually staring at retail and the further to get further through the discussions the applicant came back right for the Planning Commission last

[0:28:52] time adjusted to play a business park a little bit more towards the interior and brought the parking into that TVA line you see going diagonal and instead of having the retail and the office space along State Line right in front of Valley Grove actually proposed a church in an assisted living facility we let obviously there's some concerns citizens mainly the biggest concerns with obviously playing Business Park pollution traffic property values were your main three we had some concerns on the North side about like I said being right on the road against commercial property and they didn't want to sit out on the front porches and then look at it in the end the Planning Commission voted to deny it based on the cons outweighing the pros and at that point we're bringing in here I have talked to the applicant I do have some concerned citizens in the audience that would like to speak I also have the applicant here as well um in lieu of a full denial they have asked to propose something different which would take out a plan Business Park and leave the church Assisted Living office in the commercial end so if I could I could allow him to speak than any of the concerned citizens at this point so why don't you allow the property owner to speak first good evening everyone my name is David Baker with Fisher Arnold address for the record is 9180 Crestwood Hill Drive Memphis 3125. we appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and working with staff and the residents and Neighbors on this project as pointed out in staff report um and a staff presentation that there was an objection recommended by the Planning Commission uh and Mr Funderburk would like to get some type of activity happening on the site we've had a lot of interest during this process for the

[0:30:55] retail especially at the state line and get well corner and would like to at least have that opportunity to move forward with that while we visit other opportunities for the interior portion of the sides having said that I'll be glad to answer your questions and appreciate again working with the city just to be clear what are you asking for tonight well ultimately we would like to have the playing business partner but as to in order to not get a full rejection we would like to have a commercial in office on the get well and uh to the home of uh sides of the main event of the state of the balance of the Agricultural warehouses are gone yes okay I'm they're showing the old picture I'm seeing I'm thinking this is a new revised picture that I'm looking at here from the new plan business partner I have brought examples tonight of what it would reflect yes the requirement zoning if we win if we still require reselling to do any any form of approval tonight will require resentment at this point it is one large parcel of agricultural use property how many of these teams as well yeah what was the answer that you asked do we make to resell she sent me any approval my question was even with for God's plans does it require a reason what he said yeah I'm sorry what would be the rezoning only

[0:32:58] if we're going to go with just the hard corners and the office areas what we would do is take that portion and rezone essentially to C1 or C4 office what I would suggest and what we've talked about several times with the citizens is to do a blanket commercial there are some uses that they weren't very excited about I can say I wasn't very excited about them myself if you do a blanket C4 or C1 so the staff reports you have in front of you which was the original staff report will itemize out some things we would like to remove from that so in light of doing a straight C4 zoning we would probably just take those sections and do small puds on them with itemized juices on them which would still be a reasoning application So you you're still be rezoning it but you'd be doing a different resulting did you have a hearing on the reasoning it's not just these smaller portions no this came up um Friday since the last time that we would put the request in front of the board and whatever motion is made to either bring it back to the Planning Commission or make a decision here my concern would be just just talking out loud just my concern but you haven't had we haven't had a hearing on a on a commercial rezoning I don't think you can I don't think this board could be the first quarter of pressure or firstborn to hear I think you'd have to have a box of other women the Planning Commission did hear the site plan and I believe the main objection was the plan business part so they did hear the case and so it has been heard with was there action taken on it with the chest the portion of commercial office no no not three or four times I guess I guess my okay so they did not okay this plan they denied the plan the whole plan there that's correct okay so I would my thinking is that our our Planning Commission would have to meet on this one on the rezone or not can we let our city of time would you answer that for

[0:35:01] us I would I would my concern would be if if that if there has not been of course I wasn't at the meeting but there was not any action or anything presented for that specific alternative to be a C4 C1 Zone then you'd have to have a hearing for that portion of it I don't know if you come with my concern be tonight if we considered anything that was voted on considered at the original meeting of the planning Planning Commission that it didn't have to it didn't have a hearing if you will for that act for that particular rezoning question I mean rezoning application if that makes sense now because at that hearing that night it was done as a planned business part it was done as a mixed use development misuse development that was voted down that was voted down uh and then tonight obviously a C1 and C4 is different from mixed use development well I I or is it I would caution from doing a strike zoning either way we would still do a mixed-use development because you have office uses and Commercial uses uh Church uses and assisted living uses and what he's newly proposing we're willing to recommend a change to a C1 or C4 tonight uh no we don't want to do a blanket rezoned to a C4 what I said just like in a report our commercial areas we worked it off of a a master list of C4 uses but because it was a PUD you can take out uses you don't want and uses you do want you can add in strip centers car washes things like that we removed which is allowed in a C4 Zone but we didn't want to see in this commercial area so it was already tweaked into a PUD form for the cargo Corners either way but to answer your question on presentation for what you're looking at now that that was not an alternative that was brought from the Planning Commission what we're proposing not still can be a hood it's just the plan business portion I mean I see I'm like I'm not the judge I see everybody's point I just I

[0:37:02] think most most everybody that's been involved with this and they know that that land's going to develop something but they just knew that they did not want any more warehouses they took those out and I think we need to have a little time for the residents in that area to look this plan over and get this approved now you know the proper way I'm not sure if we we're taking the right approach to this one make a weekly I mean are we can we even look at this tonight I think you can definitely look at what's being presented absolutely and what was the definitely what was presented to the Planning Commission can be looked at I think the questions are looked in you know voted on that combo sport I think the question is coming can this board take action on something that uh this is where I'm getting confused I guess myself can this poor take action on something that may or may not been presented to the Planning Commission and it sounds like it was presented but there was no action taken is that what I'm understanding well I think that uh the misconception here is this is all a conceptual design that had sections of uses all through it um there is another alternative that like I said that's this is not the final alternative the final alternative that was given to the Planning Commission that was voted down still of all the playing Business Park in there it did remove the retail strip or the retail area along State Line Road and put in an assisted living in a church area there was some maneuvering of the buildings but essentially the overall plan was denied at the planning commission based on primarily based on the warehousing it was asked by the chair of the Planning Commission with the applicant remove the warehousing for approval and at that time not his faulted at all but that discussion had not happened with his property owner so he wasn't prepared to make that agreement with the Planning Commission at that point they voted unanimously to die recommending body to this board correct

[0:39:08] and then this board could take the action receive fifth whether it's to send it back or to take it that's what I think I agree with you I think my concern tonight would be this before taking action from the standpoint of doing I think this board could table it for further review by the Planning Commission slash planning director planning office um I guess we have had a hearing on the property but this is the you're correct the Planning Commission is is simply recommending board this board has ultimate Authority so tonight just so the boards also where you do have the authority to basically say we don't agree with the Planning Commission whatsoever and we vote to go with what was presented um and disagree with planning commissions on the board maintains that Authority as well so it's it's a I'm not trying to you know defer but it's a board decision tonight and how it stands uh but the board's options would be to the uphold the Planning Commission recommendation um or uh which would be tonight or a return payment commission recommendation and say this is we disagree we want this here we will vote for this uh I think another option too is to table we for further review based on lights based on the recent um changes that were presented on I guess Thursday or Friday now I guess I'll also my thought will be though just as the attorney I would want to hear from the planning directors like what are your thoughts and I mean if there's the options I would much rather table than deny or than to approve at this point because honestly I haven't had a lot of time to review the newly submitted documents uh getting it on Friday and Saturday and Sunday and hear him on Tuesday um I think we're working towards a cohesive development they've made some big concessions on their side it sounds like um we're still working with a lot of the residents trying to make sure that we get what they want in there so if it's up to me I would recommend tabling at this point there are there are still two other things that need to be answered though we never really got a clear answer on the question

[0:41:10] um if there's been an amendment made by the property owner but um it's not been brought back in front of to have another hearing about it since there's a proposed amendment but we don't know exactly what that is other just the comment of taking the warehouses out so Nick my question to you is by law does there have to be another hearing regarding the Amendments or could the vote for example could the board vote tonight to approve it without the warehouses without there being a hearing I would caution against the board going tonight to prove it without that without that being presented needs to have a hearing I would I would recommend appearing since there is a change of the standpoint of of that thing now that being said that's my recommendation I don't think legally they would be required to because it's already been presented from my hearings from a zoning perspective to a Planning Commission board so it's not required by law but a recommendation yeah that would say I would want to research a little bit further on that okay but just tonight you know just looking at it from right now I want to but I would want some time to at least research just a little bit to make sure I'm right on that because I I could see where the and get to look at the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting as well and look at those minutes and see what was actually said was actually presented because I think the concern for me my perspective is having that having something presented tonight to the board that hasn't been considered by the Planning Commission uh to me would we I think the board had the authority to overturn the complaining commission's recommendation um issue would be tonight is doing something that has not been actually reviewed by the Planning Commission and when our planning director is also saying she'd like a little more time reviewed as well that would be my concern tonight and then my last question would be an offenders to the property owner rather than us being presumptuous and just assuming how does the property owner know that the plan that was turned down by the Planning Commission would not be approved by the board without a without a formal vote you're not telling the property owner anything he doesn't know if it's been

[0:43:11] approved or because even though the Planning Commission recommended as he turned down for it to be officially turned down the board of Auburn to have the ultimate authority to turn it down so before they go to plan B and submit another go to another hearing with another design I think they need closure to their original proposal because there's never there's not been any formal City action on it I agree with the board is if the board is tonight wanting to definitely take action on what was presented to the Planning Commission I think obviously I think it seems it seems like everybody's on the same page with facts which would not prevent them from making another amendment and going back to the process correct correct so to me and the board can do whatever you want the table it or do whatever but I would suggest that you give the property owner a clear answer you know he's made a he's come before you to ask for there to be an approval based on what was submitted at the hearing and then for him to know what the answer is yay or nay there needs to be a board vote on that future that's yes if it is voted and rejected is there a time period that we have to wait to refile or do we appeal it with the new information that that brought forth tonight that's a good question but I don't think it was exactly my question I was going to ask Nick if we deny this application and that's the one we're denying not the one we have in our hands this is their Doom then then that gives him a clear line that we stand behind our planning Commissioners and say that that's not acceptable and we're not going to take that back during that do we need to do does he just come back to resubmit this to our planet our our planning department or our Planning Commission and come before them and say okay I got a hold of him it would have to come in front of us as a new project altogether um starting from scratch okay but that would work better denying this tonight if his if his owner wants an answer a formal answer is not yes I would prefer it being remaining back to the planning

[0:45:16] commission based on this new then a total rejection if that's so a table would look what the table was the same way I don't know if we can remain back to a Planning Commission though if this board is the ultimate there's they're not going to bring anything back that's going to be feeling to me it's just going to be I think at that point I must be redoing setting it anyway because you have the hearing but the Planning Commission would this be a recommendation by they've given you a recommendation if you change it the Planning Commission or planning department could say we need to have the hearing for that particular change but I don't that's that's the question is does that does that the question tonight will tell me the research is does the change in the structure and the um plan itself require new hearing okay and that's kind of what my question was too if if if we don't deny this let's say we table this tonight okay that just means he goes back and forth the planning permission to me and and it submits more changes and these are his changes that he's showing which would shorten your period of time rather than a stroke denial I understand where he's coming from but if that's my that's kind of my concern tabling it it expedites it for a yay or nay a little quicker okay um if we do start over the process again I mean they have formal applications Public Notices new fees and it goes into about another three-month processarily can they bring it back to the Planning Commission tablet you have to untable it here once he finds out what we can and can't do you may find that it's just a recommendation from myself and the residents and a decision here you may find that it's a formal recommendation back from the Planning Commission but uh thank you but we can at least get an answer from Nick first you could always rezone this and that's my point is tonight the board could resonance as presented you yeah that can resign as presented yeah right or or do I find it now and back to

[0:47:23] what he's presenting tonight I think I would think I would think you could ever turn the Planning Commission on that tonight and let him hear what he has to say with this new proposal that's my that's my point I say we got someone in the audience supposed to speak we're going to get right to you okay um that's my again that's my thing if I'm the property owner and I'm not speaking to you I'm asking you um if there's no vote this the Planning Commission is an Advisory Board they have no authority to make a decision for the city of South Haven these people here make the decision for the city so if I'm a property owner even though it's been recommended that it be turned down I want to hear ultimately I want it to be a formal decline because I mean I guess what I'm asking you is if you don't want to vote if you table it then you never will know if you would have been approved for the warehouses you see what I'm saying so if you're willing to make that sacrifice without even knowing what the how the board is going to vote that's I guess that's your I guess that's your call but I think we probably have a pretty good field how the Lord will vote uh but we don't know that for sure but I just know as a property owner if I wanted the warehouses or I wouldn't want to be officially declined before I went to the you know before I compromised but I'm not that's that's I guess that's your call could we could but if I heard you right I may not have heard you right can this body tonight not overturn the planning commission's recommendations and rezone it to what it is right what he's about to propose as long as what he's proposing does not include the warehouses I think you could that question becomes you don't you're you're basically hearing something that has not been that has not considering something that is not considered about formal hearing through their ordinances well you're seeing a plan that has not been you're seeing a plan or a piece on a piece of paper that has not been considered about the formal hearing day so to err on the side of caution it would be better to

[0:49:28] to to uphold the planning commission's recommendation and then let them go back and have the formal hearing you can do that I can see where the mayor's coming from with that that's what I'm saying you're never answering their initial proposal I mean and that's the thing again I mean not that we don't respect our planning Advisory Board because we do or we would we wouldn't put them on the board however they have no Authority The Authority rests with this board so if you're if they present it with the warehouses and there's never a vote on it we've never it's never been declined and that's what I'm saying if I'm the if I'm the property owner I want I want to hear a decline before I go to plan B unfortunately we do that and that to be to me seems to be the best way to go but we do that then they go back into the hopper for a three-month process this is our way to do that without the delay that's what I was trying to come up with it it's not that not that I'm aware of well we got a unanimous from denial from the plant information and that's where I think that's why I think he's error on the side of caution right and I mean you know any any of the ways will work I understand where it is coming to private and you know our concerns are for the citizens and for the owner of the property too I'm just trying to see which one's going to expedite it quicker and get everybody an answer a bit when they like or when they don't like I mean the people the residents who've been here they've attended every meeting they've come to every town hall meeting like the mayor I want to give them an answer um I'd like to give Mr finder our answer but well I think Mr Cleaner Brooks do an answer to be honest with you and I think we need we need to take into consideration what's fair to them as well I'm sure they put a lot of money already out on this but that being said I still think that we need to air outside of caution and go forward while playing increases okay and I like that motion to the board mayor that we deny item number three application The Landing fund the perfect degree Zone 280 take this property a second

[0:51:31] okay we have a motion called Alderman Ferguson to decline item number uh three number three and a second by Alderman Kelly is there any other discussion the motion though I mean was what was The Proposal The Proposal was for the plan with the PVD developments I mean with the retail developments without the warehouses those that you're voting on tonight is what you see out there people are denying a mixed-use development that included office commercial and plan Business Park as the use is on the property and we were requesting to amend that to take the business part office warehouses out believe the rain I can understand that but I think I would rather it be done right should we cross all the teams because I don't think you can I I get what you're trying to do and I respect that but I don't think that formally you can change the plan in the middle of the process I mean we're we're in the unless again unless Nick tells me different the way I understand it it does have to go through a hearing and that's not been done yet the amended plan the plan that's on the table now that was uh turned down by the Planning Commission commission includes the warehousing so we can't just say well we'll approve it if you take the warehousing out I mean it has to go back and and go back to a hearing again is that correct Nick I thought that's what I understood I think they're going to point of Christian Arnold is they're wanting to say you've already had the hearing on the zoning they're saying we'll change the zoning if you change the zoning we'll take the warehousing out and then don't speak for you but that's seems to be like you've already had the hearing on the zoning as a compromise to assist with overturning of the Planning Commission we will take out the warehousing of that so what you're doing tonight is you're just considering overturning the Planning Commission from their zoning from what they they denied the zoning of with some new details that in all parents have not been expected to the Planning Commission or being

[0:53:32] submitted to the sport the concern becomes the Planning Commission never acted on that in the standpoint they never saw these plans the residents never saw these plans it wasn't part of the public hearing what these plans um and so that's that's the part I would want to research a little bit more if you're not you're not asking for a different zoning you're just asking for a different uh you're asking for a different use within the zoning itself that's what it boils down to so I think that's the question is can you consider the zoning differently I mean the zoning wouldn't change designing would still be the same would just be the the users in the zoning are being revised but I would assume that this board would want to know that before they vote no I mean I'm not I'm just trying to help clarify what he's saying I'm not saying I'm saying that's I think that would be what started on this site we've been working on this for almost a year now uh and but we we've been to all these meetings we felt like the major objection was the plan business part proportion of this the commercial and office complies or proposed with the accomplishment plans and playing these plans before get well until the home of Roads so we felt like that was compliant with the Seas long-range plans but the objection will portion of the business part we said well let's take that out let's do some more market research of what what could go in that place but while that's going on let's let's get some activity because like I said we've had numerous inquiries about the property of the quarter there so that's our intense not not to confuse anybody or anything like that it's just at this point we're quite quite a bit of time like like that and let me and I hope this will help just to help clarify for everyone excuse my non-governmental time frame attitude but things take so long is there another way since this has already been presented and discussed for

[0:55:34] so many many months is there a way that Mr Funderburk can come back and amend the plans schedule hearing let them make a recommendation put it back on our agenda quickly without going through so when we talk about going through the whole process again why is that necessary why can't he just amend it put it back in front of the hearing again let the Planning Commission make a recommendation unless vote on I mean like that I'm fine with that I guess what we what we're saying is the next Planning Commission is not until the very end of August and then it'll go to the third hearing part of the ordinance to be rezoned in what September um can you not call it Planning Commission meeting a special special hearing discussion um well then we can try I've never actually called a special hearing but I mean we can certainly and we try to expert that I understand what America I mean I agree too everybody yes I don't I want to speed it up we try that I have to do I have to look at the statute requires I think 15 days I'll tell you I think it's Torah hearing for planning so once everything's fitted you just have you said it 15 days and you have to put hearing and playing commission I don't I have to look and see what your ordinance to say I mean I don't I don't know all that strikes is a Planning Commission meets the end of the Mind the field process comes to the board of alderman it doesn't go into a special hearing format if you set the hearing on the sign for 15 days or whatever today I think you could then have a Planning Commission meeting yeah that that I don't think has to be necessarily up there's anything magic about the the night y'all meet I think you have but you do have to have you do you want to put on that big red sign and advertisement and You Gotta Give the two uh the notice in the paper all that um but that I think I think the main limitation to the mayor's point is speeding up is it can be sped up it used to be enough it's just there are certain deadlines by Statute or certain note experience so 15-day notice is required under uh

[0:57:36] under state law so that whatever and I think it's I don't think I don't think it's 15 working days like it is on my bid a bid I think it's just 15 days like a bid statute 15 working days this is just 15 days but what I'm hearing it still would be realistic to get it back on on this agenda in September but you can do something yeah we would get it back in September regardless I just think it'd be better for the board to have a month to see it formally rather than try to you know make a decision it you know in midship you know and that would be my uh response back to the property owners like well so you're not going through this long lengthy thing again everybody's familiar with most of it Planning Commission is obviously familiar with it with the exception of the concern of the warehouses so I think we speed that up and make it quicker but I think it's uh I do think and again it's a board's cost not my call I think that he needs a formal answer you know with a plan that's been declined by the Planning Commission so he knows what plan B is well I agree with that I think we need to take that care of that and let them come back with a new revision and that way they've done it clean and we're airing outside of cautions yeah and I don't like to speak for someone else I mean we don't until we take the vote we don't know what the vote is that's right yeah so so we're voting it down tonight and then we're voting on what's been presented through the planning that went through the Planning Commission it was presented to the board now what's on the agenda that's what we're voting on tonight which is then I don't I mean I don't we Auto Ferguson's I think most amazing motion to deny item number three which is this item right here that we're looking at not the one that got past that right so it's going to require a new submittal as a new project if it's voted down tonight it will become a whole new project that's what I'm saying well isn't it a whole new product no I mean well yes but I mean that's I just want to make everybody I mean I just need to be aware of it not make it a new project and allow him to they're gonna have to refile and

[0:59:39] resubmit everything it's going to become it's its own new project now earlier if there's a way to amend it on the Fly then let's do that but they're based on what's Nick's saying there's not what you can't amend it on the Fly it's got to go back to the hearing so I know I mean I think you could come in and say I don't know the answer without looking a little bit further with it being changed I need to research that but can't get more information can we do that again next meeting right he could come back up in two weeks would need to hear but if we find out that we have to have we've wasted two more weeks yes the decline in the original proposal that doesn't change anything like if the board voted tonight to decline it I mean obviously if they go over to approvement then all this has moved yeah but I think if the board voted to turn it down that still doesn't change the fact that when you do your research on it we could give him a quicker answer that it can be amended without going through the whole process again well I think once you turn it down you go through the whole process okay and that's that's what I was trying to point out it does start the whole process again I that's I I'll shut up and I just know if I were a property owner I won't I want closure I want to know what the answer is you know but that's again a support's call how long do you think it'll take you back this week but I mean we don't mean unless we call this you know especially but we don't meet again special meeting and so forth later uh and hearing what you've heard would you rather be tabled yes we would like to because we've spent a lot of effort in like I said Mr Sunburst spent a lot of money trying to get to this point and he looks like it's some type of return

[1:01:42] we'll start over you know take five new fees another additional meetings and things like that and like I said we were hoping uh and we've got like the main objection was the the playing business part and that the commercial in office that fit with the long-range plans at the city so when you're trying to trying to appease the neighbors by taking the playing Business Park out and still trying to move forward with some type of development development terms of problems but you're under the understanding that if we table it tonight and we come back and Nick tells us no we've got to start all over again that's where we got to be right I understand that all right I don't think you've planned but you know we've got emotion on the table so okay we have a motion to decline as submitted um Alderman Ferguson the second Alderman Kelly so do we want to rescind that motion I make a motion to rescind my emotion to deny you know item number three okay and it is there a second to rescinded I guess we're going to do that um emotion of rescind the original motion of alderman Ferguson a second of alderman Kelly is there any discussion about rescinding that motion hearing non-roll call yes okay that motion carries so we'll rescind that so we're back to where we were so now um before we decide to tell you what I did for I was a gentleman in the audience a chance to speak so would you please come forward and I appreciate you've given us the opportunity to present the some views that are pertinent to the

[1:03:43] people that live near this area first of all I agree with the city attorney that the 15-day requirement for public notice for people living in a neighborhood has not been met in this particular situation twice it has not been met and it hurts me that uh Pinewood is anxious to shove this through as fast as I can with only one side of it being shown one of the things I like about living in South Haven is that the Planning Commission on the city of South Haven I think have done a very good job of protecting residential property values by separating residential areas from areas they should not be adjacent to and on the where we are at this point is there have been two votes on this one was two votes no four votes to table no votes yes then uh the question was clearly asked at the meeting that you're now talking about the Planning Commission meeting uh would you be willing to take the warehouse out the answer was no there are lots of vacant spaces in existing Warehouse areas west of 1620 State Line Road uh there's there's a number of vacant spaces in there the concern of the people of Ansley Park and some of the chamless divisions which that involves 490 homes we did some very careful research about

[1:05:45] what the future zoning of this would mean if the warehouses went in I understand that we've backed off from that some but if the warehouses went in for the 490 homes there would be a loss of eight and a half million dollars in property value almost immediately we checked the house that was just north that sold roughly two weeks ago 4 800 4 800 square foot house originally a four hundred thousand dollar house it sold for 290 thousand dollars there's there's another uh cheaper house in another Warehouse area and uh it was originally a hundred and eighty thousand dollar house it lost 18 000. these are actual sales [Music] what year was the was the house worth that much the uh the 400 000 house sold last week when was it when was it when was it built no one was it appraised for 400 right when was well it was uh I believe it was 15 years ago see that's that and that's and again I I respect what you're saying but that's not a fair comparison because property values are tremendously different throughout the city in that country I I understand what was the factor that caused it to lose that much value well there's been a lot of factors that decrease values it's in 15 years my personal house has decreased in value since I built it my built mine 15 years ago and and it's not worth as much now I mean just because of the recession and everything that happened you can't saying you can't blame that the president tells us the recession is over I don't care what the president said but uh

[1:07:47] at any rate we we did we did honest research and there were estimates that the loss would be considerably higher one of those estimates was EPA influenced and quite frankly I don't believe much of what EPA says anyhow there's some other factors as you know uh DeSoto County has been in a tussle with EPA for what 20 years over air quality standards and finally after an enormous amount of pressure including from one of our own senators we're now in attainment with EPA we need to look very very carefully at what we do to change this we don't want to go back into non-attainment and we we don't want to lose the value of anybody's house but you know it you could drive through these these housing there isn't see that they're uh quite well kept Landscaping including and that sort of thing and the homeowners should not be victims of an overly ambitious developer and by the way let me ask Mr Baker have you all had contact with uh IDI on the possibility of selling this property you haven't excuse me the IDI is not involved but there uh there was the the proposition of selling this property had this gone through was a very definite possibility right yes so we're dealing with somebody that probably doesn't even live in Mississippi much less DeSoto County

[1:09:50] uh Mr Mayor again thank you for your courtesy of hearing the point of view Alderman appreciate your consideration too I appreciate the attorney's opinion I think he's right and uh you know if you're going to do something like this most actions including even those of EPA which is as much of a rogue uh government uh bureaucracy as exist they have an obligation to have public notice of intent and the public notice of what's in front of you right now has not been held and this developer twice has failed to meet the 15-day requirement well in all fan please stand I I appreciate because I I want my goal is for everyone to make an informed decision right whatever that may be so I appreciate your comments and please please remain standing right there because there's a couple things I want to clarify all right I don't agree with your cut the facts don't support a couple things that you said because your initial statement was that that we have vacancies in our warehousing now which we do have vacancies but there's a reason for some of that there's been some consolidations among companies and Jim Flanagan our economic development director I've been in many meetings with other people as that are prospects to come here and we do not have a vacancy problem actually there is a lack we we need more warehouse space in the city of South Haven and I've heard the reason I'm saying that because throughout all this conversation I've heard that and that's not that's not true um that's something that some have continued to repeat but we do not have um an excessive vacancy and warehouse space we actually need more warehouse space Mr Mayor uh I didn't state it clearly enough apparently there are vacant lands West of 1620 State Line Road several very large Parcels of land there are warehouses all around that

[1:11:55] land so you're not saying the existing structures you're saying that there's land for potential that's right okay I got you thanks for clarifying that and then the other thing was the um the comment about the EPA um having been in many meetings regarding our air quality I can tell you that that a lot of that has nothing to do with Southaven Mississippi it is the fact that we're grouped in with West Memphis Arkansas which is you know Trucking capital of the world and so a lot of our air quality attainment was not caused by the truck traffic here in South Haven is caused by the exposure to West Memphis I was involved in some EPA tussles in the 1990s at that time Carol Browner and Al Gore who had a habit of disobeying the law ignoring the law and so forth they wanted to slap a to give you some idea of their behavior it has nothing to do directly with South Haven but in that EPA can turn on anybody it is related they wanted to find the taxpayers of West Memphis 20 million dollars for a Superfund Site that had never been in the city limits of South Haven and never been controlled by the city of South Haven we fought that battle for 10 years finally in the Bush Administration it was ended the city of South Haven wound up having to pay zero they even asked us if we would cut the berm on the Superfund side I said no we had nothing to do with this to start with and we're not involving ourselves now so uh I I think I think all of us have a deep respect for our law enforcement and our people who genuinely service who try to help us out in a weather emergency or whatever the case may be but

[1:13:56] there is a deep-seated fear across this land of what government can do to us right and then in relation to that I'd like to clarify one other thing too the accusation that we did not give proper notice would you please address that Whitney I mean this is not something and again I'm listening to what you're saying but I know that I've been involved in many discuss this has been discussed for many many months I don't think it's a fair statement to say that the property owner is trying to force anything down anyone's throat because there's been much discussion for many months about that but when if you will please address to make sure that I don't I don't want Mr Baker to leave here film like that the properties have been done wrong or that we have not done things properly so would you please express that um I think one of the things Mr Baker's referring to is there was a period of believe it was the April hearing that the dates weren't adjusted so we held it the other discrepancy that he's stating is the one I checked with Nick on was when um the Planning Commission heard it and it was brought up to the board and the dates because we had held it and brought it back up to the board of alderman he felt that the dates on the board needed to be changed the red signs were not changing you said since it had its formal hearing at the Planning Commission date that we didn't have to go back and change it I think Debbie verified that while I was out of town okay you had a plan commission here we had the Planning Commission here at that hearing and it was tabled until next meeting and since we had that formal hearing you said the dates didn't have to be changed Mr Baker he respectfully disagrees with that but that was giving more accidents it was more and and we've had Town Hall meetings and Mr Baker's not honoring all this but I have a huge list of emails from the property owners and the HOAs I've sent them all the stuff immediately when I get it and been in correspondence with them since November um and we have a good rapport with them we've tried to keep them informed of every change that's come on all the way down to the change by removing the warehouses we let them know Friday um so I feel like we've been very open about it and very um

[1:15:59] just forthright with it I would say to you that Whitney's office has been cooperating with us thank you well the hearing that I would I would I would respect the disagree with Mr Baker that when you had a hearing and you table it the hearing note is hearing date I don't think you have to re-advertise for the hearing at that point I think you would just have that you would that no at the hearing it was entailed to another hearing right and his request though we did ask the City attorney to make sure if there was something else we needed to do formally just to make sure we were doing it correctly and we wanted to do that um and we did that was at the last hearing the last four minutes this is a plane director we're playing office have a recommendation with the revised plans um we got on Friday um honestly I haven't taken a huge look at them there were some other things that needed to be tweaked that were kind of fine-tuning like I said up against Valley Grove um I think we've about got that dealt with there's a a couple of the Moors that still want to go over just some minor things with them but otherwise like I said that the warehousing come out coming out would appease the residents we did inform them that the Planning Commission when those come out the infrastructure improvements that were promised to State Monroe and things like that are all so removed as well we inform the Planning Commission of that so I mean okay all right now all right let me let me turn I'm hearing you're right so this is Alderman Ferguson was here here virtually all of this correct that's good let me make sure so we you're you really haven't looked at the changes yet I mean you got them on Friday you probably looked at them but you you really got back a recommendation no hard copies got them in an email um talked to David on the phone and said what do you think about this he said well we can just bring it up there and we'll see how they want to make a motion it seems clear to me after hearing the digital information the fair thing to do for the property owner and all the residents and every and the board is uh to give them time to let Nick do some

[1:18:02] research on if there can be an amendment so it's my recommendation to the board we do take away I think it'd be fair for everybody if you do table it this morning but we don't we don't have to necessarily make it a restart do we don't we control no and it may be that it can be just reviewed and handed back out here after review from the planning department it may be that it has to come back down but with I've never had to go through the process in this manner so I mean I'm like the mayor I'd rather have the research with Nick or I thought also I mean if I really just be quick have you done tomorrow I mean is the playing adult kid being a big issue I think that it's going to be given your office time going to give a recommendation at that point um because that's going to be I mean I feel pretty as long as I can get to the residence and if I need to get to the planning Commissioners get to the planning Commissioners in a timely manner my office has looked at this so long and in such detail that if it's just the removal of that and a little tweaking at Valley Grove's uh State Line Road area that I can get a recommendation up pretty quick I can't promise that my planning Commissioners who are volunteers that come in once a month are going to be able to get in and I you know I can't promise that I can get to the residence in time and we can try obviously we can call another town hall meeting like we did whatever you whatever your research says we have to do we'll expedite it as quickly as possible that's all I can promise there's still a worst case scenario if Nick knows research it tomorrow and says that we can't do that then basically it's just a matter of posting for another hearing that we can get letting the Planning Commission after their meeting we can put it right back on the agenda immediately right and then so in September we can do that in September right go ahead next I'm sorry I'm just getting confused on why it has to be a new project if it's denied here the Project's being denied as a whole that is that is the project it's a planned unit development project and the board the Planning Commission voted to deny the overall project so that PUD request has been denied on the 25th of August right it leaves it as a parcel of agricultural property again so that

[1:20:05] being upheld here and it's brought back to a 280 acre piece of land it has to start the process back over um I mean it'll essentially have a lot of the same details it won't be nearly as in-depth for the applicant he can do some tweaking but we have to act like it's a whole new project it's about four thousand dollars to reapply and we take it back through the process as we would now we can exit out a little quicker instead of going to the third uh Tuesday for the board meeting we can come up to the first we're meeting after that whatever Planning Commission we fall through with we also control the fees though don't we yeah the fees are on the application and um an ordinance uh I I would plead I would plead with you all uh Mr manly and Mr Mayor that whatever you do you give the residents of the area time to respond good proper public hearing and uh you know we've we've had to do some research too on the question of lost the eight and a half million dollars in loss of uh value of the 490 houses we spent some time on that with Consultants and uh well this is this is the first time that's been heard on the 25th it was voted down and no residents were were heard at that time and I didn't I didn't think that was an unsurmountable problem at the time but bringing it back up again does make it a problem I just I just think In fairness to everyone since there's still some question marks out there in Port I'm not speaking for y'all but I would think if I were in your shoes I would there's too many unanswered questions tonight and I want the board to have a fair chance to be completely informed before they make a decision so that's why it's my it's my recommendation that we do table and after hearing everything I've heard tonight did you want anything else for me sir no I just if you want to submit is there anything else you want to say

[1:22:06] and you have the form well I I have a good question for Mr Baker I've made the lamp once go ahead uh I know you've been through all this you've been there all seasons you've seen on plans and uh and I've I firmly believe I think the residents should have a chance to look at the new revised planning revision but my question you and I I'm not going to hold you through this but knowing everything you know taking the warehouses out is that something that you would be in favor of you could live with or certainly certainly certainly the warehouses are the most damaging aspects of this but uh we're going through the process of approving something through the Planning Commission as the mayor has pointed out they're serving probably gravis aren't they pardon they're probably serving without salary aren't they are they not the plan information yes okay so they're they're like they're like everybody in this room they come here without their billfold being involved I've been a landowner and you know I know when you buy land some Investments turn out better than others right but I mean all these people are residents of South Haven so property values do affect them yes and also any kind of that's why their own they're willing to serve on the zoning I mean on the Planning Commission because decisions do have an impact on the overall Financial Health of the city as well which affects them when their taxes and they by the way the property tax we made an estimate on the property tax of the 490 houses and this does not include Summerwood and does not include the houses on State Line Road and the house is on tulahoma does not include Williams uh just considering those 490 000 houses I'm sorry 490 houses we estimate that the property tax would be a hundred uh 588 000 a year so it's not that we homeowners

[1:24:08] are sitting back here not contributing to the city we are sure and I hope you'll take all these things into consideration and uh I I think I have ever used to believe that there's a lot of Integrity here but you know use judgment and consider us as well please absolutely and if you 'd like to know how many of the people here are residents we can have them hold up their hands and it is fair to say and I want everyone here I want you to hear straight from me I'm not going to hide behind this question my main goal as a mayor is to make sure that this board and everyone is completely informed and um and I know this is a this is a tough call I mean it is there's no doubt about it but when you talk about the financial situation of the homeowners you also got to think about the people in South Haven that are not here tonight okay because when you're when you talk about bringing in development to an undeveloped piece of property there's a significant amount of Revenue that that provides to the city and and that benefits everyone in the city because I can tell you when you're talking about a 600 000 to a million dollar uh change in the revenue that this would bring that does a lot you can do a lot for six hundred thousand or a million dollars you know and so I'm just I'm just saying that although it's not that I respect everyone that's here but I'm saying there's also a lot of residences to see that are not here tonight that would benefit from the financial benefits of the development there was no public notice that this was even on the agenda tonight isn't that right no public notice this was on the agenda yeah we followed all the it's yeah no we're at signs no that's something that's already been done and that's where that's where you disagreed with Nick the date the dates to change the dates the dates are still uh June and July on the red signs but you had a hearing right now we had a hearing but we're past the hearing stage this is this is only a formal City agenda which is is public record

[1:26:12] to a lot of people though those red signs are public notice and then there was a hearing on those dates we're past that we've already had the hearing with the signs well there was a hearing on that when that was there hearing on the ninth of the red sign no the Planning Commission this is what we asked you the Planning Commission heard it on the night that was advertised yeah there it was tabled at that point so the board of aldermen date did not correspond with the day it was going to be heard because it was tabled um Mr Baker brought it up to our office and that's when we contacted you right the 20 the 25th of July was not on the red side you can go look at those red signs right now and by the way they're only on two sides not three sides of the development there's some three sides I've got pictures of all three sides do you yes I draw there myself when was the original hearing date November no like on the red sign that was November that was me I'm saying like when do we have the actual hearing little boat the actual here the the actual hearing was June um 20 26 which is on the hearing dates there's tables formally that nice so do I until July 25th which is when I was brought off the table the next to the next meeting the red signs as of today as of my driving past one I'm coming up here so the June hearing June here that's right and that's where it was formerly titled that's that's what we're talking about right so if you would have came to the junior hearing you would go no no I'm not saying you but if you were another Citizen and you came to the junior hearing uh that's posted you would know that it was tabled right so I mean we don't have to give notice again for first like I said we've had a beer I've got a an email list that I've actually got it as the Pinewood concerned citizens group and there's probably 50 people on there plus HOAs I talked to the Presidents at the Ansley Park HOA uh and a couple of other people and then um I submit to them everything

[1:28:16] any changes any date changes I'm trying to keep them as informed as possible Mr Baker comes by and picks his hard copies up at the front office um so yeah you had a hearing at the June meeting my question is that the hearing note the hearing you had June hearing you had time went on the hearing advertised yes and in hopes of moving on you know so we can go under our other items I appreciate you coming forward Mr Baker and speaking thank you for that information it's very very useful and um so it's my recommendation to board it to table this to both to table this or the city so we can let Nick clarify well you've got to want to table it to do project research on the for the revisions from the further review of the submitted plans with your table okay is there a motion to do so much Gallagher second Alderman Ferguson is there any other discussion about table and hearing gun roll call yes okay and that motion carries okay next is item four very simple section D and your general notes it requires a 10 foot utility easement long all the street frontages for those lots in the development phase of this we found we need to increase that to 20 feet along the road Frontage and we just need a scrimmer areas recommendation so we can go change into the transfer clerk's office so we have motion Alderman Flores second Alderman Ferguson is there any discussion on the floor hearing none roll call yes yes okay and the motion carries thank

[1:30:19] you Whitney all right next on our agenda my mayor's report just updates you on a few things obviously there's a lot of concern about the construction at Goodman and get well the traffic was still starting tomorrow uh obviously it's going to be a difficult situation there's no two ways about it we have been in touch with um MDOT Engineers I will tell you that there's an MDOT engineer that will be on sign monitoring the signals to make it as efficient as possible a lot of myths going around I didn't realize how many Engineers we have in the city but we got a lot of we got a lot of Road Engineers who live in the city I just want to clarify a couple of things that the main thing that's being done is this is part of the its project that's a CMAC project congestion mitigation and air quality this intelligent transportation system is being set up where the signals they're on Goodman Road from Olive Branch to walls can communicate and that way it helps the traffic move more efficiently East and West it also gives other capabilities where you can have a digital reader board to inform drivers of traffic delays so what I'll do a lot for the traffic Improvement on the east and west travel on the Goodland Road the other thing that this does is it's amended the intersection to make it safer uh it's a proven fact statistics back this up strongly that that your right hand yield Lanes when you're having to look back at traffic I'm sure everyone in here is either witnessed that or seen it under no honor to Gallagher and myself have seen it many many times at the insurance business that's one of the most common causes of wreck someone looks back they end up having to stop they get rear end it happens all the time so that's one of the main reasons is to eliminate the uncontrolled Lane which is the yield Lane so that's being removed with that there are improvements you're still going to have a right lane where you can go straight or turn right but you face the intersection instead of having to look back so it makes it safer that's one of the main reasons they're doing it the other thing is there's going to be two left turn Lanes right now there's

[1:32:22] only one so we're going to be adding an another left turn lane in all directions which one proves the traffic situation greatly at Goodman and get well a lot of people don't know this I'm asking everyone here tonight uh Mr long if you can help me anyone else get the word out that uh where the intersection is not being narrowed and reducing Lanes even though it appears to be narrowed there is design there to add two left turn Lanes which are going to help the traffic flow through Goodman and get well until then it's going to take about four or five more weeks before they're done with that so the bottom line is it's going to be tough I mean we did ask MDOT why they did not get this done before school started we don't have the authority to set the timeline for Implant we know it's going to be a bad situation with school starting but MDOT has the authority on their timeline so we're just going to have to do the best we can and I hang tough for about four or five more weeks but then knowing that eventually our traffic situation is going to be tremendously greater you know a good bit of get well and also at giving it to Lahoma but anyway I appreciate the questions have been posed to me I can't get the information out quick enough so if anyone asks you that question please share that information everyone I appreciate it um tennis expansion I recently board approved design for the new tennis expansion under our Parks Improvement plan that design is now complete that will again as we discussed before at eight additional outdoor tennis courts in the current location of the South Haven Tennis Center there will also be a Pavilion in the middle a nice bleachers it's just set up so much better you know the whole tennis tournaments and things like that so it's it's really really nice but the design is done and just to give you an update on timelines of bids will be opened on September 9th the board will be asked to approve the bid on September 20th with construction starting sometime in October we plan to have before April of 2017 we plan to have the tennis courts

[1:34:27] so we've been talking about that waiting on it a long time so very excited about that with the mandatory Alley Road Extension that has now connected the tennis center to Snowden Park so we'll now consider that an entrance in the Snowden Grove Park on the east sign off Malone so the park the new complex will be the Snowden Grove Tennis complex but we're excited about that last thing just to remind everyone we do our budget decisions are coming up we will have a budget hearing at our next board meeting August 16th let's all have this evening next on our agenda is our Personnel docket remember we've approved the first time excited is there any discussion hearing none roll call yes yes yes okay and that motion carries uh next on our agenda is our city attorney's legal update Mr Nick Manley again two quick things uh first item is approval of by the Supreme Court of priority electronic it's just approval of a resolution a point Deputy clerks this is for the training that they that the resolution theater for the deputy clerks we actually forward Janice McCree Alyssa Pruitt Pam Pyle Sandra Pride where April for the revolution for the training they'll do in October resolution advice from my arm and Kelly second Alderman pain is there any discussion where does that training take place in Knoxville okay any other discussion hearing noon all in favor say aye aye all opposed say no I was having motion carries

[1:36:31] the next item is the refund of assessment um for 78 79.89 long road I've had the property put assessments the property sold after the assessments were meeting after assessment for Levy and the amount of there were some liens on the property which will deduct but the assessment refund the amount of 1122 dollars so move second a motion ottoman Gallagher second Martin Ferguson is there any discussion hearing none all in favor say aye all opposed say no I just haven't motion carries okay next on our agenda is our claims docket Mr mayorman we approved the cleaning stocking and the amount the amount of 2 331 198.90 including demand checks and payroll second we have a motion moderate pain second daughter but Flores is there any discussion hearing none roll call yes okay that motion carries next on our agendas is there a motion to determine the need for executive session Alderman Gallagher second Oliver Kelly all in favor Santa call Post say no I was having motion carries a need this evening is Personnel from the fire department and the potential litigation against the city and economic development now is there a motion to declare acceptance sessions modern pain Sacred Heart and Gallagher call them ever say hi all the folks they know I was having motion carries the bear board will now enter executive session thank you

[1:38:41] foreign

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=s5G_jeuwjCY