Planning Commission - Special Meeting

I'd like to call to order the East Point Planning Commission special meeting for Tuesday, June 10th at 700 p.m. Uh, as our secretary is basking in the sun of Europe, Miss Holman, please call the role. Commissioner Hall Raford here. Commissioner Moody here. Commissioner Nier Naylor, I'm sorry, I don't think she's here. Commissioner Sassic here. Commissioner Stokes here. Uh, we know Commissioner Yulinsky is on vacation and excused. Chair Dant here. Uh just in the interest of clarity, if you are not speaking tonight, please turn your microphone off. That way we ensure um better AV services. Um moving on, before we go to the approval of the agenda, I want to express why we're all here tonight. Um, immediately after the May 22nd meeting, uh, an email was sent to myself along with, uh, members of city administration of a YouTube video that you all will see this evening um, with respect to the scoring of the marijuana facilities and I think it was 2022, whenever that was. Uh this was information that we did not have at that point. Uh and some of you might find it interesting to have. Um not withstanding this barking dog letter that we all received yesterday. Um we are here to do due diligence. We are here to ask every possible question that we can ask. It is our job to make good, wholesome, honest, forthright recommendations to city council. It is their job to make decisions, but it is our job to make sure we are presenting

them with all the information that we have. That is our role. I will call 20 special meetings if I have to to make sure that city council is given the appropriate information. So, with that said, I'm going to defer before I go on a little further. I u and then I will be I want you guys to see this video that has been queued up and then I'm going to defer to Commissioner Sassic who helped light the fire on this one. So, Mr. Myers, if you would please turn the YouTube video on. Is this voice on? Can we turn it up? Uh, expeditiously. Um, our city planner has actually scheduled the afternoon of November 29th. We are requiring that all three applicants be present for a meeting with the respective city officials that will be involved in moving this project forward, which will be our planners, our engineer, our building official, most likely our fire marshal, and then uh a representative of the police department as it regards the uh security plans. Um so each applicant will have a 45minute private meeting with that team. Um, I'm assuming that will go out in in the official letter that you send to the three applicants. Um, and I will I can confirm the the times and get those to you. Um, any other questions? Um, I would just like to clarify. Um, now we we scored based on what was presented. So, they presented they're going to build the Taj Mahal and they turn around and say, "Ah, we want to build a trailer park." We have the right to resend their license for failure to comply. Yes. Because what was uh filed in the

application was relied upon by this committee score. Okay. I mean minor changes but nothing significant. That's correct. Okay. Okay. So um where's my So this was the information that was given to us that might have been very different. So I am going to defer to Commissioner Sassic whose email I received thus as having me call this special meeting. So Commissioner Sassic the floor is yours. Thank you. Once this video came to fruition and we saw it after a three-hour meeting on the 22nd of May where answers were being skirted, never really directly taken care of making statements that oh it's not going to set any pri priorities or that. We had a 4-2 vote that night under Sturgis and under the rules and or of order and that for the city in order to even begin to think about rescending a previous vote, that action has to be brought before the group by a person that was on the prevailing side of the vote. And in this case, I was on the prevailing side only because we spent three hours and I could not think of a reason to say no, we can't approve this. Once I saw the video and realized that since November 2022, this particular common citizens had been aware and the site plan. We kept talking about the fact that this is the site plan you

submitted. This is what was approved and you are now making major changes. It wasn't little changes. It wasn't asking to not put in as many trees. This was a major change. And I believe that if this commission had seen this information that night, the vote would have gone very differently. So that is why I sent the email to chairman Dant and to the members of city administration to have this special meeting so that we can um possibly revisit rescending this vote. And I thank you. And I do want to highlight something that our planner was able to um pull for us from our bylaws as it was inferred that we don't have the right to do this. uh PC bylaw section two says the PC's planning commission parliamentary procedure is governed by the Sturgeist standard code of any for anything not specifically addressed in the bylaws. In the Sturgeist book pages 32 to 34, it says the motion to resend and amend by a main by a new main motion apply only to motions that have been carried. These three procedures just mentioned have no time limit and may be used at any further meeting and convention or convention, I'm sorry. So, you know, in the interest of using AI before I even had this from the planner, I asked AI and they came back and said yes, we had the right to do it under Sturgis. Um, but I was not on the prevailing side and I couldn't say anything. And then when I got Commissioner Sassic's email, we we move forward. So that's why we're all here today. Some suffering, some not. But I am also going to say we're not going to put three hours in and hash back and forth like we did last time. So I'm going to call for a hard stop at

8:00 p.m. uh because we've suffered enough under this. So moving on, I'd like to open the uh I'm sorry, I'd like to get a motion for the approval of the agenda. Do I have motion? So motion. We have motion. Do we have support? Support. We have motion by Miss Moody. We have support by Miss Hall Rafford. Miss Homeman, please call the role. Commissioner Moody, yes. Commissioner Hall Rayford, yes. Commissioner Sassic, yes. Commissioner Stokes, yes. Uh, Chair Dant, yes. Moving on to the hearing of the public. You have three minutes to speak. You can speak about anything you want. Uh, please be nice. That's all I ask. If you would please go to the podium. There should be a piece of paper. Uh please write your name down. And commissioners, if you would make sure to turn off your microphones and if you get close to the three minutes, I'll give you like I'll raise my hand at you got 30 seconds left and then you can just so you know. Absolutely. I'd like to address you. My name is Michael Andrew Machinsky. I'm the owner of 24545. I'm the owner of 24545 Gratchet. I've ran a car lot there since 2008. I started that. It was one of my first businesses. I was very successful there. And uh they came and approached me to want to buy my business. I held the master deed for the property. Their tax ID is on my property and they were supposed to cash me out on the building back in December. Instead of doing that, they forced me into a land contract. And on that land contract, the same day, they approached you and tried to take me out of the deal. So, they're very deceptive and run in shadows. And then I talked to their lawyer numerous times and he continues to delay delay to buy time. But really, they're just looking for every avenue and they have no regard for the community and they just want to leave my building abandoned. And I would

just frankly like to remove myself from the deal and return to having a car lot and running a successful business that I can bring my children to and have memories and a legacy. And with a marijuana dispensary next to me, that's not going to be possible because of all the traffic. There already wasn't enough parking when Joe was selling one or two guitars next door. there's no parking and it's going to cause people running all over my car lot and damage to vehicles and people being high and garbage and all these sorts of things and not to mention the traffic. There's I couldn't even barely have enough parking for my own business, let alone theirs. So, I would I really like you take that in consideration so I could move forward with the business I already had there. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Does anyone else wish to be heard? Uh, good evening. My name is Will Dessa. I recognize that this is the um public engagement portion of the agenda tonight. Uh however, I just want to make sure that common citizen has the opportunity to address any and all questions and concerns presented by the body tonight. Uh we tonight I have with me here uh the lead of our architectural team once again Harold Reminger and once again uh Chad Zaki who was one of the principles of the entity um who I will note uh ended up in a collision. someone hit him on the road and he still managed to find time to be here this evening. So, uh that is the level of commitment we have to this city and we hope that we are given the opportunity to speak on this matter. Thank you so much.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Sean Smith. I know at least one of you um from the past. How are you? Um I was called the other day by a good friend of mine, Michaelinski. I've known him for 20 years. I knew him when he know owned the lot and I knew him when he started to negotiate with these folks for a um dispensary to be in East Point. I was familiar with the fact that there was a master plan. I was familiar with the idea and I thought to myself, you know, it's whatever the city decides that's going to be probably a long shot. But for some reason, you know, I think that's the way the world is moving and the city has opened its arms to that. I find it interesting That video kind of speaks to what I was going to say because there was a master plan. It did include Mr. Ozinsk's property and at that point when they were analyzing it and scoring it, they decided that if in fact this property is laid out in this exact way that this might be something that we can accept. Maybe not wholeheartedly, but at that time they were accepting it. Then I get a call recently and Mike says, "I don't know what's going on, but we signed an agreement on on uh May 20 May 22nd, May 1st." And and then and then uh I was waiting and wasn't hearing anything and all of a sudden I find out from somebody that there's some minutes that say that they're excluding my property. Now that alarmed me for several reasons. Um the first reason is because I can't remember in the very beginning we tal you some I think you talked sir about you're going to have an honest and open and truthful discussion in order to have an honest open and truthful discussion with all of you from

2022 until the vote is actually sealed. These folks have to be honest and open. And when they sign new contracts, avoid the responsibilities to the community, and want to downsize the property, leaving one property, which would amount to blight or reopening of a dealership, that's not that's not good for the community. And I think as far as there's some sort of community benefit statement that has to go into this process. And if in fact these people act like this with Mr. Mazinski, a longtime businessman in this community who if they if they double cross him, so to speak, if they pull the wool out from him, when they're sitting when they're sitting there arguing with you last time about the date that they need to be done, and I think I can't remember which one of you, one of you said, "Look at this is the date you're going to be done and that's it. You've had since 2022." I think there's a trust issue and it's not good for the community when you have people coming in that are not from the community that are already causing waves and trust issues. So, I'm asking you to resend your previous vote, reconsider the factor and if they if they really want to go forward with it, negotiate in good faith. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Please put your name. Thank you. Chad Zaki, one of the principles. So if we want to talk about honesty, let's let's talk about honesty. We have paid Mr. Omani, is it? Approximately $600,000. Not only that, we have done everything that the agreement has said that we needed to do. part of changing it to a land contract as was relayed by our

general counsel that Mr. Omaniski is talking about and talking to during this whole process is because he's going through a personal matter and needed to also change the entity. So, we obliged and during this he also tried to up the amount. So if you want if we want to talk about being honest and negotiating in good faith, we've done nothing but that. And during this time, we've even donated into the community with the East Point Tigers, for example. We've been nothing but good patrons and not even yet doing business yet here. On top of that, our community statement is pretty clear. We have committed a half a million dollars to this city. a half a million dollars, which we have still not, we are not saying that we're going to pull that back. That's not part of it. There is no major change. You want to represent it as such. We're talking about a building that was going to be tore down to be put into a parking lot. The project still looks exactly the same, but minus the parking lot on the corner, which really should be a business and stay on the tax role. As a parking lot, it does not. That's all I got to say. Thank you. My name is Katie Geronic. I am Michael's girlfriend. Um, I don't believe any of that to be true. I have been with Michael while he has been negotiating with Common Citizen and his original contract ended in December. They were supposed to pay him a balloon payment, couldn't make that payment. Then they negotiated a new contract and that was where the land contract started and he did up the amount. There's more liability in a land contract. It's a

very long time. Um, and there was no guarantee that they were going to keep the building throughout the entire time. To this day, the lawyer still has not told him that he is no longer part of the deal. They totally cut him out and never informed him. They have been totally deceptive and what they're doing is wrong. He can't run a car lot there. He can't There's no parking. There's not enough room. I mean, I'm not sure what he's supposed to do with that land. He closed down his his dealership and he let his dealer's license expire. So, what does he do? How does he go through all of those hoops? Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Does anyone else wish to be heard? Seeing none, we will close the hearing of the public and we'll move on to new business. Mr. Myers, shall we defer to you to start the uh Nope. Now that we have a fill in for Paul, we'll let him take Okay, Noah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Noah Bustel. I am a, uh, community planner with McKenna. I am filling in for Paul Beiel, uh, who normally serves as a pler in this capacity. Um, I just wanted to verify that this is being, uh, read exactly as written. That's right. Okay. So, the and this is the That's right. So reading um from the motion to recommend denial. The motion is read to move to recommend denial of the It's not an Oh, I apologize. Yes, he's on that side. It's not on here. Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes. I think it's

on the uh the commissioners to decide what the next step is. Okay. If they wanted to uh resend their vote or if they wanted to continue. All right, let's defer. As I was not on the prevailing side, I will defer to I missed that part of it. So, we're going to do a little discussion here. Okay. Yes. We're going to discuss this before we vote. I'm definitely in favor of that. All right. So, we have one vote to resend. Do we have any other votes to resend? I vote to resend. If I had seen the video presented at the the last meeting, I would also vote to res. I would not have voted the way that I did. So, I would vote to resend. Then, I'm voting to resend. and chair the the the basis for the motion to resend just so the record is clear as based on the video that was presented. Yes. I just wanted to make sure that the record is clear that that is the basis for the motion to resend. Mr. Chair, I have a a motion by um Commissioner Sasset. Before we do the motion, Miss Moody, I'm torn. I really am torn. Um, I guess I would have to resend to have a more in-depth discussion before a final vote. Okay, Miss Hullman. Mr. J Oh, sorry. Do you want Do you want to call the vote at this time? Let's read the motion first. Would uh We do

we we we'll make the motion then we can go into some additional discussion um on hand with us. We don't have the motion. Yes. We we don't have that motion in writing. Okay. So, let's make a motion. Uh I'll make the motion. Oh, I can't actually. No, you can't. It's on you. will make a motion that we resend the vote of May 22nd, 2025 approving recommendation to city council to approve the site plan special land use and special land use and then site plan no site plan special use special land use for the property at 2425 I'm sorry 24 545 and through 24525 support. And the basis for the motion again and the date of the motion the basis for the motion is tonight. Correct. No, the basis of the motion the basis of the motion is that the video that was presented after the May 22nd meeting brought to light information that we did not have that would have led to a well informed vote. support. We have motion and support. Any further discussion? Miss Moody. We're all friends here. We're all out for one thing, the good of the community. My discussion is the fact that um it is obvious that there's something that is um underhanded here. appears to be appears to be, let me use that that language until

for the 12th hour. It seems as though we are bullying is not a a a proper word, but I'm going to use it anyway because I feel like using it. Um, is that's not fair to the commission. It really isn't. And we should not be sitting here having to determine who in the world is telling the truth. That is not what we are here for. We are here to do for the betterment of the community. That is our purpose. And whatever decision is made for that, that is what we're going to do. And I I I personally don't appreciate it. I really don't. Um because I could be doing something else right now besides sitting here going over something over and over again when I spent three hours last last week or whenever the last meeting was three hours of precious time and now we are seeing something totally different. So that's just my opinion. No more discussion. Chairman D Hunt if I could add to that. I think Miss Rayford was moving in moving in for the microphone. Okay. U after seeing the information I'm a little perturbed that the entire story was not forthcoming. I asked several times about timeline. What happens if you don't meet the deadline? asked for could you provide us with a detailed step by step of what could be done to make sure you meet this deadline. It's not that I want you to fail. I just want to make sure that you could meet the deadline. Now, had I had this information beforehand, my vote would have been different

because I wasn't really sure of it to start with. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt when the scoring committee laid out what they expected. And even at the last meeting of May 22nd, you said all the properties properties had not been purchased. So, and but in this letter that we received, it appears that someone wants to hold the planning commission or the city responsible for your not being able to meet the deadline. I don't understand that you've had until 2022 to obtain the properties and even though it was said that you were waiting for recreational marijuana to become a had you gone ahead and started with the medical that you were approved to do moving into recreational wouldn't have been a problem and we would not be having this meeting tonight or the meeting on May 22nd. So I I'm not sure what you expect us to do or that you think we are capable of making an appropriate decision. I for one, and this is not having to deal with this per se, but I tend to look at people when they're talking because I have a hearing impairment. And so when I see someone speaking to me in a rather condescending voice, I get irritated. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's the way it came across. That had nothing to do with my vote last week, however. But if you want to make sure you get what you want, knowing how to talk to

people, even though you think we're not experts, and we're not. I freely admit that. But we've been given a task and a role to play in what we recommend to the city council. And honestly, full facts make a difference. Transparency is magnificent. It's not a one-way street. You see through glass both ways. The glass has been smoked or darkened and tinted. We didn't get clear information. I don't know if anybody would have even thought about looking into it the way it was presented, but this was the most offensive thing I have ever seen in my life. I got that last night and I wanted to scream bloody murder. We are here to take care of our community. We are here to safeguard our community. And we are here to hold people accountable for promises made and to I'm trying to be nice. I really am. But it's incredibly insulting. I would hold my nose over the daycare, which I personally find horrific. If you build the entire complex, I would hold my nose over the daycare. But you're not proposing that. I want people to do what they say they're going to do. So again tonight you stand there before us telling us that you've been above

board but tonight just like May 1st and just like May 22nd every time we asked you why has it taken you two and a half years to do nothing and then in the 11th hour you're expecting this commission which is responsible for the whole community to buckle under and grant deceitfully because that's what it was. You knew from November of 2022 that that clause was in there that you could not change major changes. We're not talking a tree. We're talking eliminating a whole parcel and not doing anything with it. And yet you're expecting the city then to welcome you and you haven't been above board on everything. And when I saw that videotape after the way we voted, I was upset because like the other members on this commission, I was really conflicted as to how I should vote. And I did vote yes that night. And that's exactly why when I saw that video, I realized as a person on the side that actually won that night, I had to bring it back forward to this commission. I have no other comment. So, we have a motion. We have support, I believe, to resend. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have a motion by Commissioner Sassic and a support by uh Commissioner Hall Rayford at this time. Will the commission allow us to speak on this matter? Mr. Myers, what was the question? The gentleman would like to speak. Before we vote.

He's allowed. He's welcome. All right. Thank you. Uh once again I have with me Harold Reminger who is of our architectural team and Chad Zaki who is one of the principles of I'm sorry sir would you please speak into the microphone so it's on the record. Thank you. My apologies. I'm so sorry and that was far too close. Uh once again my name is Will Dessa. I'm a representative the legal representative of Common Citizen uh for tonight's meeting. With me again today is Harold Reminger who is our architectural lead and Chad Zaki one of the principles of Common Citizen. Now, uh, I suppose the first thing that I'm going to do is is address tone. Uh, it was said tonight a couple times that condescension is not appreciated, and I understand that entirely. And if at any point my tone in the previous meeting was uh, less than cordial, please understand that that is not a function of intent. I have only meant to speak with the utmost respect to this body in every sense of the word, every time I have addressed it. And so, If I have not come across that way, madam commissioner, I do apologize to you. That said, uh so today's proceedings uh now appear to have been motivated by the video that was or the partial video that was shown uh before the vote. Uh there are some important things to note about that video. Uh first, it's been said a few times that the video was not in the city's possession. That video is of proceedings. I would stop you there. We never said that. Well, you said that you weren't aware of it. We were not given that information, but it's not nec I'm not saying that it wasn't in the city's possession. Quite frankly, it was an iate resident who found it was so irritated by that meeting, they found it

and presented it to us to be completely transparent. I appreciate that. Okay, that being said, uh the video was of a portion, as I understand it, of the scoring of the original permits. So the statement which I am paraphrasing because I did not have the opportunity to review any of this before now. Uh the thrust of it was that the city has the authority to revoke a permit medical marijuana permit on the basis of changes or or major changes to the site plan. Uh the first thing that has to be noted about that is that uh at that meeting site plan and special land use approval were not up for discussion on the table. That meeting was about scoring the permits. This body, and again, I'm trying to say this with as much respect as I can, with all the respect that the body is in fact due. Uh the question before the planning commission is not whether or not uh common citizens medical marijuana permit needs to be revoked. The question before this body is whether or not special land use approval should be recommended for approval. I would actually stop you there and I would simply state that it goes to the intent, sir. It goes to the fact that at that meeting it was stated that if the site plan was not lived up to then the it would be revoked. It it has nothing it could be revoked. Yes. Thank you. Um, this is about the intent. This is about promises made. This is about us being able to hold people accountable. This is about the slippery slope. And to that point, immediately following the last meeting, one of the other facilities had the nerve to go to

our planning department and ask not to take down a part of their site plan. So one of the three others was using this as a cudel against the city to get out of having to do something they too promised to do. This is the slippery slope. This is the intent. I'm sorry. And that is a problem. I I guess I I just want to have a point of clarification. Another one of the successful applicants came before the body. It wouldn't have been in a meeting. So Mr. Meyers, are you at liberty to discuss? I am not. Okay. I will state that one of the other facilities wished to make drastic changes along the scale of what you folks are proposing. But it also sounds like they didn't attempt to go through the proper procedures and requesting an amendment before this body, which is precisely what we have done. Kudos to you guys for taking the the proper route. Can we end this because I don't want to cut off Commissioner Seik. I'm sorry. Okay. Uh my apologies, Commissioner Seek. Uh but you just acknowledged uh Chair Dant that uh we have gone through the proper legal route. That is the only question before this body. Once again, the statements that were made in that video had to do with the approval uh of our application for a medical marijuana facility permit, not for our site plan or special land use approval. Those items are governed exclusively by section with regard to special land use, which is the only item before the agenda today. section 13.03 uh which lays out a very narrow set of uh factors that the body may consider in deciding whether to recommend approval for special land use to the city council. And multiple members of this commission at the last meeting stated on the record that legally there is no basis upon which to make that denial. Now I I understand frustrations but I

respectfully I I I suppose I'm hardressed to to understand the narrative that's been presented to my client. We have, as the zoning ordinance allows, requested through the proper procedures that we be allowed to amend our special land use. We explained at the last meeting that that was due to market forces outside of common citizens control. And afterward, when we had articulated our our thoughts on the factors that are before the body in in reviewing requests to amend a special land use, it was agreed with us that there are no legal bases under those factors to deny a request for a special land use. Again, the narrative is somewhat surprising to me because we we have gone through the proper channels to request an amendment and I I suspect that there have been many other entities across many industries that have done the same properly under this city's code of ordinances. But when we have done the same, we have been met with this narrative that it is deceptive to request the uh approval for a special land use amendment and that's simply never been our intent and we explained that I think multiple times at the last meeting. This is not a case of bait and switch. This is not a circumstance where we sat in dark rooms and discussed how we were going to switch out uh a site plan or a special land use request. We explained this is the result a necessary result this request of market forces that are outside of our control. The portion of the video there that was taken again not from a discussion about the propriety of site plan or special land use approval has nothing to do with the factors that are before the body today. I would actually defer I would dispute that for the simple reason the only reason why you are here today is because you were granted one of those three licenses. And had you not been scored where you were at, it could be somebody

completely different here right now. So I would say that that information is in fact very pertinent to this body. The again the factors that are before the body and require in reviewing special land use approvals are very narrow. They are under section 13.03 as the body knows. I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm just making a record. The factors are compat is the uh premises compatible with adjacent uses and an improvement to the community. We responded to this in our application materials. Uh second factor, is it consistent with the master plan? We responded to this in our application materials and we did so on the record when it was suggested that that be one of the reasons why the city might recommend a denial to the city council. Item C on the same factors adequately served by essential public facilities. Again, we had answered that in our application materials and that was one of the items that was presented uh as a potential means for the body to recommend denial and the body recommended approval. Item D, impact on pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Same thing. Item E, protects health, safety and welfare of community from nuisances. Item F, consistent with the zoning ordinance. In every regard with respect to this body, we have satisfied those factors. And just again to make a record, section 10-271 of the zoning ordinances. Apologies. Section 13.07. Subsection E allows for explicitly allows for amendments to approved special land uses. This is a routine proceeding that we are attempting to

avail ourselves of and it is one that we requested in good faith with the body. We did not go to our premises, put shovels in the ground and just start building a a non-compliant structure and then ask for forgiveness later. We have attempted to go through the proper channels. I I submit to the body that that is respectfully not deceptive. We have tried to be transparent. I don't believe that that video demonstrates any lack of transparency. I believe that that video again respectfully does not pertain to this uh the factors before this body today. Now, Chairman Dant, if I may, I disagree with you on that point. And the reason I disagree with you on that point is the video we saw tonight was the certification of the scoring that was done based on everything that was presented to that committee. And at the end of it, after they did all of their scoring and you along with two other companies were going to be granted licenses knowing that you had to be up and running within a period of time, then you brought before the planning commission before I was on it a site plan and special land use and that was approved. And then in April of 2025, you bring an amended site plan and land use. Well into, and this is after getting a one-year extension back in April of 23, which would have expired in April of 24. We are now in June of 2025. And yet, you're saying that you've been above board on everything, and we're still rehashing the same things. the scoring committee based their scoring and you also said that night that nothing would have changed. But yet we had one of the members here saying my score would have

absolutely changed if this is what had been presented. We had in writing from another member, my score would have changed. And yet you're saying that we're No, I disagree. we are actually doing what's right for the community and you are not living up to what was a if you had started work back in 2021 and 2022 or I'm sorry 22 and 23 you'd have been progressing along knowing that medical was going out recreational was coming in and most likely things would be accommodated but For almost three years, you've done nothing but maybe set up a land contract on one piece of property. I I can't support it. I'm sorry. It's not good faith. You know, I also we just had a city council meeting and apparently it was it was requested to have a special meeting to get this rolling. City Council didn't jump at it whatsoever to create a special meeting, which makes me wonder, you know, where their mind is. Again, we're making recommendations. We're not making decisions. We make recommendations. We gather information and we convey that to city council. I think at this point, we've beat this horse dead. Yes. It's time to call a vote and move on. And then you can take your argument to city council and they can they are the ultimate decision makers. So you can sell it to them. Um Miss Homeman, please call the role. This is the motion to resend. Yes. Um Commissioner Sassic. Yes. Commissioner Hall Rayford. Yes. Commissioner Moody.

Yes. Commissioner Stokes. Yes. Chair De Hunt. I will abstain as I was on the losing side last time. You don't have to. I don't. Oh, if I don't have to be, then I vote to resend. The motion carries. Next, we need a motion to deny the special land use. Mr. Sorry, I was going to call you Mr. Urbil. I am recommending a denial. Uh we will do that in this next motion. Yes. Yes, we will do that in the next motion to uh to recommend denial of if we if that's the way the body goes. Now you got me using the word. Mr. Chair, the uh the specific ordinance section is section 13 uh.03 and it lists the uh the factors that the commission is to consider in either recommending approval to the city council or not recommending approval to the city council. Okay. So we do have a we do have a potential motion here. Yes. And also if there is a motion to approve um the basis for that motion and the findings should be included in the motion. If there is a motion not to recommend approval then again there should be findings as to why uh the planning commission believes that section or any portion of section 13 uh.03 have not been satisfied. Okay. Uh forgive me. No, I don't know your last name. It's okay. It's a Bustel. Mr. Busel, would you mind reading? So, do we wish to make a motion for approval or denial? Well, it would be denial. I just want to put it out there. All right. I wanted to make sure I'm saying that, Mr. Busel. If there's a motion, please read the motion with the findings of fact. Go ahead. Um, it it it just has to be made by one of the commission members first. Uh before I read the language of the

motion, if you read the language of the motion first, one of the commissioners will decide to Is there a motion to approve or not recommend approval? I believe this is going to be a a motion to recommend denial. It is correct. Special land use. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um the uh motion as written uh is to move to recommend denial of the proposed special land use for a medical marijuana provisioning center at 24525 Gratchet with the parcel ID numbers of 0214 sorry 1430251 068 as well as those ending in 069 070 071 and 035 to city council based on the following findings of fact which I'll list separately. One, the project is not harmonious with the master plan, nor an improvement to the community that warrants special land use approval. And two, the proposed modification of the special land use from the plan that was approved on March 2nd, 2023 would result in a project that is ineligible to receive a license for a marijuana establishment per the proceedings of the city's medical marijuana application committee meeting on November 2nd, 2022. And lastly, the proposed modification of the special land use reduces the project's compatibility with adjacent uses and the degree to which the project would be an improvement to the community based on the removal of the demolition site remediation and redevelopment of the parcel at 24545 graded from the project scope. Does anybody wish to make that motion? I would make that motion as stated. Do we have We have motion. Do we have support? Support. We have motion by Mr. And we have support by Miss Hall Rifford. Will we have the opportunity to address those since they I feel like we spin round and round and round and round and we get nowhere. And I don't know honestly I I I don't know if there's any

benefit to it. Frankly, you're going to quote uh uh section 13 this that and the other thing. I don't know if you're going to change anybody's opinion up here and I wonder if it's just best for you just to take it straight to city council. Uh I'd be willing to poll the commission to see if they would like to entertain the gentleman's comments. It's up to you guys. I didn't hear what was the com. He wishes he wishes to speak to the motion. Miss Modi, do you wish to? No. No. Miss Rford? No. Mr. Sassic? No. Mr. Stokes? I'd be interested in hearing what he had to say. All right. Go ahead. Thank you. The uh categories under section 13.03 were listed, I believe, were twofold. There was one additional I'll start with that one. The additional factor which is not outlined in the zoning ordinance concerns whether or not uh our scoring and therefore permit status would have changed. We talked about this at length during the last meeting and that is simply not a factor for the body to consider. The other factors were items I believe A and F under the zording ordinance. A is whether it is compatible with adjacent uses and an improvement to the community. Our proposed use is a medical marijuana uh facility that has been approved in the MU3 zone district where the property sits. All abuing properties are zoned as MU3 and are compatible uses. And as shown in the civil engineering and landscaping documents that we submitted to the body, all required screening for vehicles, parking, and landscape have been provided and are up to standards with the city's code of ordinances. I submit

respectfully that we are more than compatible with the adjacent uses and an improvement to the community. The whether there are uh negotiative concerns between u common citizen and the owner of 254545 is simply not a factor to be considered within item A. Uh item F concerns whether it is consistent with the zoning ordinance. again uh our use is permitted in the MU3 zone district um as a special land use for medical marijuana facilities. All the ordinances again for parking, signage, screening and landscaping are followed and we meet or exceed the requirements as shown in all the drawings that our architecture team has submitted. We are in conformity with the master plan. We are in conformity with the city's vision of the community and we have respectfully laid out a plan to beautify and make astounding as shown here uh a currently blighted and crumbling set of structures along Gratch Avenue. The only difference is what happens with that parcel at the end. And we discussed all of this above board and before the body as you said for three hours during our last meeting. Respectfully, nothing regard to the legal analysis has changed on the basis of what has been shown to the body today. That is what I have to say. I appreciate the body's time. Miss Rford. Um I was I can't remember your last name either. I'm sorry. Busel. Busel. Okay. You read three items there on which a basis for denial could be made. Could you read the third one, please? Yes. Um, thank you, Miss Raford. Uh the proposed modification of the special land use reduces the project's

compatibility with adjacent uses and the degree to which the project would be an improvement to the community based on the removal of the uh bas on removal uh demolition site remediation and redevelopment of the parcel at 24545 gratch from the project scope. Thank you. And respectfully, nothing about that has changed since the last meeting where the body recommended to approve. Again, I apologize for talking out of turn, but I I thank the body for humoring me and entertaining my discussion. I said it earlier. I'll say it again. Build the inter in the original project and I have I will hold my nose to the daycare. Uh and I I was happy to approve the original project. It was one full block. Beautiful project. This is a beautiful project, but at the end of the day, it's not what you promised. Right. So, all right. There's a procedure to modify what was promised. I apologize that that's in the zoning ordinance. We are following the proper procedures to request. I'm not talking about procedures, sir, at this point in the game. I'm talking about a commitment made. Respectfully, chair, the only thing that before the body to discuss are the legal procedures. The body has a very narrow set of we will allow city council to make that decision if they choose to override our recommendation as they have done on on many occasions and that's fine. That is their job. This is our job. So with that said, I'm going to call an end to the conversation and we're going to take the vote. We have motion to deny. Do we have motion to deny? And do we have support already? I'm sorry. I'm We do. We have motion and support. Miss home. Go on. But we have to stay. Oh, yes. That's why I was asking for the same. So, Mr. Albbright, do we have enough in the

motion that Mr. Busel read in for your purposes? If the if the commission believes those are appropriate findings of fact and it satisfies uh section 13.03, then the commission can move forward. I certainly can't substitute my judgment for the finder effect in this case. So, okay, you have to make that determination. I am content with it. Mr. Myers, do you feel that this is sufficient or do you feel like you need more? We do not need more. Okay, we have a motion in support. Miss Homeman, please call the role. Commissioner Sassic, yes. Commissioner Hall Rayford, yes. Commissioner Moody, yes. Commissioner Stokes, yes. Chair D Hunt, yes. Moving on to commissioner comments. We will start with Mr. Myers. Chairman, I don't have any more for this evening. Mr. Busel, you're on the hot spot. Go ahead. I have no more comments, Mr. Chair. All right, Miss Hullman. Nothing, sir. Thank you, Mr. Albbright. Welcome, Mr. Russell. Nothing further. Miss Moody, no comments. Miss Raford, no other comment. Mr. Stokes, no comment. Mr. Sassic, I just want the community to know that this is not an easy position to be in. Uh and again moving forward I would hope that all facts are presented so that as a body we can make informed decisions. This could have been avoided had we known. Better yet this could have been avoided if in the very beginning once everything was set to be moving forward things progressed. But at this point,

it was not an easy decision, but it had to be made. In all my years on this commission, I've never run into anything like this in my life. um never expected to because maybe I live in a polyiana world where if somebody says they're going to do something, they do it and they don't come back and change and flip the script. Maybe I am a polyiana. But you know what? Maybe we don't have enough of those people in this world right now. If you say you're going to do something, do something. This poor man has lost his car dealership essentially uh on a promise. Whether you're shaking your head or not, sir, it it is what it is. But he has lost the right to do business in the city of East Point unless he has to jump through ridiculous hoops if you don't go forward with this with his building. Um, you know, I made mention last time about the grass. Grass is even taller than it was the last time. Going to say, "Okay, I don't own the real estate." Well, that's a problem. then maybe you should have picked up the phone and called the people that do own the real estate to clean up the grass. It's never been taken care of. Uh last meeting we had people saying, "Well, it's not so and so's fault. It's not this person's fault, but yet we have a daycare that's going to be right across the street from a potentially from a marijuana facility." And it's allowed. And I did state legally that you might have the right because you have an operating agreement. and you concurred, but you still didn't uh acknowledge the fact that the spirit of the ordinance is being violated. I have many issues with this, but I would have held my nose on that for the original project. If I never saw another site plan for a marijuana facility, I would be I would

be ecstatic. So, with that said, and me off of my soap box, and I'm sure there's some people hate hating me right now, and that's fine. and I've been hated before. I would encourage every one of you to go to city council, state your case, make your pitch, and let them decide because they are the ultimate body to decide. So, with that, I'm calling this body dead at 801. Oh, I'm sorry. Should we have a motion to adjourn? Motion that we adjourn at 801. Motion. Do we have support? Support. We have motion and support. Miss Hullman, please call the belated role. and Commissioner Sassic. Yes. Commissioner Hall Rayford. Oh, that wasn't me. Commissioner Moody, yes. Commissioner uh Stokes, yes. Chair D Hunt, yes. And Commissioner Hall Rafford. Yes. Now we're gone. Okay.